Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-23 Board Packet1 OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY JUNE 7, 2023 3:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF APRIL 5, 2023 AND MAY 3, 2023, AND THE SPECIAL BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2023 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD’S JURISDICTION INCLUDING AN ITEM ON TODAY’S AGENDA The District’s meeting is live streamed. Information on how to watch and listen to the District’s meeting can be found at this link: https://otaywater.gov/board-of-directors/agenda-and-minutes/board-agenda/. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A PARTICULAR ITEM: a) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR AS-NEEDED PLAN CHECK SERVICES FOR DEVELOPER POTABLE AND RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS TO WEST YOST & ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $350,000, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) FIS-CAL YEARS (FY 2024 AND FY 2025). THE CONTRACTUAL END DATE WILL BE JUNE 30, 2025 2 b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4431 TO CONTINUE WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGES FOR DISTRICT CUSTOMERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 TO BE COLLECTED THROUGH PROPERTY TAX BILLS c) AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO A 5-YEAR AGREEMENT, (THREE [3] YEARS WITH TWO [2] ADDI-TIONAL YEARS AT THE DISTRICT’S OPTION), WITH KEENAN & ASSOCI- ATES (KEENAN) FOR BENEFITS CONSULTING AND BROKER SERVICES AND IDENTIFYING KEENAN AS THE DISTRICT’S BENEFITS BROKER OF RECORD FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $136,500 ACTION ITEMS 7. BOARD a) DISCUSS THE 2023 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR (RAMOS-KROGMAN) 8. FINANCE a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4432 TO APPROVE THE 2023 OTAY WATER DISTRICT’S ANNEX, WHICH WILL BE PART OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DI-EGO’S MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AS A PLAN-NING PARTNER IN COORDINATION WITH OTHER LOCAL JURISDIC- TIONS, INCLUDING MUNICIPALITIES AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS (ZUNIGA) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 9. THE FOLLOWING ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMA- TIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM: a) THIRD QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO-GRAM REPORT (LONG) FY 2023-2024 BUDGET 10. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4433 TO APPROVE THE FY 2023-2024 OPERAT-ING BUDGET OF $127.9 MILLION AND CAPITAL BUDGET OF $15.3 MILLION, INCLUDING A 6.6% RATE INCREASE FOR WATER AND A 4.8% RATE IN-CREASE FOR SEWER; APPROVE ANNUAL FUND TRANSFERS FOR POTA-BLE, RECYCLED, AND SEWER; ADOPT THE SALARY SCHEDULE PURSU-ANT TO CA CODE OF REGULATIONS 570.5 (CalPERS ENFORCED); ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 589 TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, INCLUDING APPENDIX A, WITH THE PROPOSED RATE CHANGES EFFECTIVE JANU-ARY 1, 2024; AND DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT AND MAIL WATER AND SEWER RATE INCREASE NOTICES TO CUSTOMERS (KOEPPEN) 3 REPORTS 11. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 12. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE 13. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS 14. PRESIDENT’S REPORT/REQUESTS RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 15. CLOSED SESSION a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Cal-ifornia Government Code §54956.8 Property: SALT CREEK GOLF COURSE 525 HUNTE PARWAY CHULAVISTA, CA 91914 Agency negotiator: General Counsel Under negotiation: Disposition of Property b) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54957.6] TITLE: GENERAL MANAGER RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 16. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION. OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY 17. NO MATTERS TO DISCUSS 18. ADJOURNMENT All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board. 4 The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the District’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available by contacting the District Secretary at (619) 670-2253. If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to participate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at (619) 670-2253 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Certification of Posting I certify that on June 2, 2023, I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time being at least 72 hours in advance of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code Section §54954.2). Executed at Spring Valley, California on June 2, 2023. /s/ Tita Ramos-Krogman, District Secretary 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY April 5, 2023 1.The meeting was called to order by President Robak at 3:35 p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Directors Present: Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Directors Absent: Director Croucher Staff Present: General Manager Jose Martinez, General Counsel Dan Shinoff, Chief of Engineering Michael Long, Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Administration Adolfo Segura, Chief of Operations Andrew Jackson, Asst. Chief of Finance Kevin Koeppen, District Secretary Tita Ramos-Krogman and others per attached list. 3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4.APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Director Keyes, seconded by Director Smith, and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher to approve the agenda. 5.APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 2023 A motion was made by Director Keyes, seconded by Director Smith, and carriedwith the following vote: Ayes: Directors Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher to approve the minutes of the regular board meeting of February 1, 2023. AGENDA ITEM 4 2 6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA No one wished to be heard. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 7. THE BOARD WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVING THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS AND INVITES THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE ITEM a) ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 588 TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED 4.4% INCREASE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ PER DIEM RATE FOR ATTENDING MEETINGS AND PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THEIR OFFICE; AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4426 AMENDING POLICY 8 TO REFLECT THE NEW PER DIEM RATE President Robak opened the public hearing at 3:37 p.m. and asked District Secretary Ramos-Krogman if there were any speakers who wished to provide comments to the board. District Secretary Ramos-Krogman stated that there were no speakers and/or public participation. Director Keyes made a comment to be mindful of the impacts of inflation and consider the right time to increase board members’ per diem. President Robak closed the public hearing at 3:39 p.m. A motion was made by Director Smith, seconded by Director Lopez and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: Director Keyes Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher to adopt Ordinance No. 588 to approve the proposed 4.4% increase to the Board of Directors’ per diem rate for attending meetings and performing the duties of their office; and adopt Resolution No. 4426 amending Policy 8 to reflect the new per diem rate: CONSENT ITEMS 8. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A PARTICULAR ITEM: 3 Director Keyes recused himself from Agenda Item 7b, Award Two (2) Professional Services Contracts for As-Needed Electrical Engineering Consulting Services to BSE Engineering, Inc. (BSE) and Engineering Partners, Inc. (EPI) for Fiscal Years 2023-2025. He indicated that his primary work is with EPI. a) APPROVAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES TRAINING FACILITY LEASE AT THE DISTRICT’S CAMPO ROAD REGULATORY SITE A motion was made by Director Smith, seconded by President Robak and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher to approve staff recommendation. b) AWARD TWO (2) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS FOR AS-NEEDED ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES TO BSE ENGINEERING, INC. AND ENGINEERING PARTNERS, INC. FOR FISCAL YEARS 2023-2025 (Director Keyes recused himself from voting on this agenda item) A motion was made by Director Smith and seconded by President Robak, with Director Keyes recusing himself, and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher ACTION ITEMS 9. BOARD a) CONSIDER CASTING A VOTE FOR ONE REGULAR AND ONE ALTERNATE SPECIAL DISTRICT MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE SAN DIEGO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Mr. Barry Willis addressed the board and indicated that he is seeking reelection to the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). He provided a background of his role at LAFCO and indicated that he has never missed a meeting. He responded to questions and comments from Director Smith regarding the Rainbow-Fallbrook Detachment from the San Diego County Water Authority. 4 A motion was made by Director Robak, seconded by Director Lopez and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher to vote for Mr. Barry Willis from the Alpine Fire Protection District as the Regular Member, and Mr. David Drake from the Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District as the Alternate Special District Member, on LAFCO. b) ADOPT THE 2023 OTAY WATER DISTRICT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM POLICY GUIDELINES AND TOP 10 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES Communications Office Tenille Otero provided the staff report to the board members and indicated that the Communications, Public Relations, Legal and Legislative (CPRL&L) Committee provided input and changes to the order of priorities. See attached documents that were revised per the committee’s comments and request. Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck (BHFS) provided a PowerPoint presentation to the board. It was indicated that the top three (3) priorities were revised to reflect the following: 1) Affordability, 2) Water Quality, and 3) Water Use and Efficiency. BHFS responded to questions from Directors Keyes and Smith regarding electric vehicle opportunities and regulations. Director Smith recommended that the CPRL&L Committee and its staff draft a definition for “Affordability.” Ms. Otero and BHFS responded to additional questions and comments from the board. c) DISCUSS THE 2023 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR There were no changes to the board calendar. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 10. THE FOLLOWING ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM: FINANCE a) 2023 ECONOMIC OUTLOOK UPDATE FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY PREPARED BY LONDON MOEDER ADVISORS 5 Assistant Chief Financial Officer Kevin Koeppen provided the staff report, and Mr. Gary London provided a PowerPoint Presentation, to the board members. Mr. Robert Martinez provided information on the District’s residential and commercial projections. In response to a question from Director Smith, Mr. Koeppen stated that residential projections used in the Budget and six-year projection are based on the Economic Study projections. While there is likely shifting between the years, the overall growth for the six-year period is anticipated to remain consistent with the projection. To the degree development is delayed in any individual year, it will be made up in the following year(s), resulting in only a small percentage of the growth potentially sliding outside the current six-year projection. The Chief Financial Officer stated that it would be a modest impact considering the anticipated development growth. Mr. Beachem, Mr. Koeppen, and Mr. London responded to additional questions from Director Smith. Mr. Robert Martinez responded to several questions from Directors Robak and Lopez and stated that their firm relies on CoStar to obtain information on future commercial construction/developments, then continues to research from there to provide an economic outlook. Staff and consultants responded to additional comments and questions from the board. REPORTS 11. GENERAL MANAGER REPORT General Manager Jose Martinez provided his GM Report to the board and discussed CSDA’s and the Regional Fire Chiefs’ efforts to advocate for special districts/water agencies who may be impacted by CARB regulations on vehicle standards. He also shared the District’s new hires and recruitments. In response to a question from Director Smith, staff indicated that the rainy weather resulted in a decrease of recycled water use. In response to a question from Director Robak, Assistant Chief Financial Officer Kevin Koeppen indicated that the Weir litigation impacted that budget allocation for legal counsel services. 12. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE Director Smith reported that CWA’s Engineering’s Committee approved an emergency storage project in Valley Center and Yuima, CA. He discussed CWA’s proposed budget increase (approximately 14%) and how the city of San Diego and other factors are impacting the proposed budget. He also discussed investment income and other factors that may help alleviate the proposed budget. He provided an update on MWD and its affordability research for a climate adaptation plan. Director Lopez left at 5:47 p.m. 6 13. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS Written reports from Directors Keyes, Lopez and Smith were submitted to District Secretary Ramos-Krogman, which will be attached to the minutes for today’s meeting. 14. PRESIDENT’S REPORT President Robak indicated that he will be forming the Ad Hoc GM Evaluation Committee to conduct the General Manager’s evaluation before the end of the fiscal year. He also shared that he will be hosting the Council of Water Utilities meeting, as a substitute for Director Smith, on April 18, 2023. He encouraged staff to attend. A written report from President Robak was submitted to District Secretary Ramos-Krogman and will be attached to the minutes for today’s meeting. 15. CLOSED SESSION The board recessed to closed session at 6:08 p.m. to discuss the following matters: a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to California Government Code §54956.8 Property: SALT CREEK GOLF COURSE 525 HUNTE PARKWAY CHULA VISTA, CA 91914 Agency negotiator: General Counsel Under negotiation: Disposition of Property b) WEIR CONSTRUCTION VS. OTAY WATER DISTRICT ARBITRATION RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 16. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION The board reconvened from closed session at 6:42 p.m. and General Counsel Dan Shinoff reported that no reportable actions were taken in closed session. OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY 17. NO MATTERS TO DISCUSS There were no items scheduled for discussion for the Otay Water District Financing Authority board. 7 18. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, President Smith adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m. President ATTEST: District Secretary 1 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: April 5, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Tenille M. Otero PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: 2023 Legislative Program Policy Guidelines and Top 10 Legislative Priorities GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors adopt the 2023 Otay Water District Legislative Program Policy Guidelines and the anticipated 2023 Top 10 Legislative Priorities. COMMITTEE ACTION: See Attachment A. PURPOSE: To provide direction to staff and the Otay Water District’s legislative advocates in the formulation of the District’s response to legislative initiatives on prominent issues that could impact the District and/or other local water agencies. To present to the Board of Directors with the anticipated 2023 Legislative Program Priorities, which staff and legislative advocates will proactively monitor and/or act on during the 2023 legislative session and throughout the year. ANALYSIS: The Otay Water District maintains a set of legislative policy guidelines to direct staff and its legislative advocates on issues important to the District. Staff updates the legislative guidelines annually and/or as needed with the proposed updates presented to the District’s Board of Directors for review, comment, and adoption. The 2023 Legislative Program represents policy guidelines on legislation for the Board’s consideration. Normally, representatives to the California Legislature introduce 2,000 or more bills or significant resolutions. While many bills fail to make it out of their house of origin, many others move on to be signed by the governor and become law. 2 These new laws can fundamentally affect special districts. The same is true with each session of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The 2023 Legislative Program establishes guidelines and policy direction that staff and the District’s legislative advocates can use when monitoring legislative activity to facilitate actions quickly in response to proposed bills or issues. The guidelines provide a useful framework for staff and legislative advocates when evaluating the potential impact of state or federal legislation on the District. This is particularly helpful when a timely response is necessary to address last- minute amendments to legislation, District participation in coalitions on issues, and should calls or letters of support or opposition be needed. Legislation that does not meet the guidelines as set forth or that has potentially complicated or varied implications, will not be acted upon by staff or the District’s legislative advocates, and will instead be presented to the Board directly for guidance in advance of any position being taken. The San Diego County Water Authority has its own set of legislative policy guidelines that is a comprehensive program at a wholesale and regional level. District staff has evaluated policies and issues from the Water Authority’s guidelines that may have a direct or indirect impact on the District. Staff has incorporated these policies and issues into the District’s guidelines. Although the District is a retail agency and is focused on its local service area, if there are issues or polices incorporated in the Water Authority’s legislative policy guidelines that could benefit or impact the District, the General Manager, District staff, and the District’s legislative advocates may act on those issues, respectively. The 2023 Legislative Program Policy Guidelines presents staff’s recommendations for the Board’s review and seeks the Board’s feedback for any additional modifications. Staff will then incorporate the Board’s recommendations into the final document. In general, the guidelines look to protect the District’s interest in a reliable, diverse, safe, and affordable water supply. Moreover, they seek to maintain local control over special district actions to protect the Board’s discretion and ratepayers’ interests and maintain the ability to manage District operations effectively and efficiently. In addition, they express the District’s ongoing support for financial assistance to water agencies and customers regarding nonpayment 3 due to financial hardships related to the pandemic, water-use efficiency, recycled water, seawater desalination, capital improvement project development, organization-wide safety and security, binational cooperation, climate change, and funding. These guidelines also demonstrate the District’s strong and collaborative support and efforts to advocate against a “one- size-fits-all” approach and any unfunded mandates by legislation or regulation. The proposed redlined 2023 Legislative Program Policy Guidelines are included in Attachment B. A clean copy of the proposed changes is included in Attachment C. When the Board adopts the updated guidelines, staff will incorporate recommended changes by the Board into the final document. In addition, staff is presenting the District’s anticipated Top 10 Legislative Priorities for the year (Attachment D). This list highlights, in no specific order, legislation or issues that District staff and/or the Water Authority is currently monitoring and/or may take or has already taken a position on. The deadline for bill introduction was Feb. 17, 2023. Typically, lobbyists and legislative staff wait until the last couple of days leading up to the deadline, and then hundreds of bills will be introduced. Based on the bills/issues that legislators introduced by this year’s deadline, staff worked with the District’s legislative consultant to develop a list of priority issues for 2023. The anticipated top 10 priorities, include: 1. Affordability 2. Water Quality 3. Water Use and Efficiency 1.4. Drought Response and Extreme Weather 2.5. Water Rights Modernization 3.6. Advanced Clean Fleets Rulemaking 4.1. Water Quality 5.1. Affordability 6.1. Water Use and Efficiency 7. Proposed Bonds 8. State Budget/Infrastructure Funding 4 9. Recycled Water 10. State Water Project/Delta Conveyance Staff and the District’s consultant will continue to monitor those bills and issues that may affect the District. Staff will update the Board as necessary throughout the year to provide updates on legislative issues impacting the District. District staff continues to proactively work with the Water Authority’s government relations staff, the District’s legislative consultant, the Association of California Water Agencies, California Special Districts Association, California Water Efficiency Partnership, California Municipality Utilities Association, and other related coalitions, associations, and organizations to monitor legislative issues that affect the District and its ratepayers. It is critical that District and its staff remain engaged in these issues as they could have an impact on how the District conducts day-to-day operations and operates and maintains its facilities, thus affecting its ratepayers. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer None. STRATEGIC GOAL: Execute and deliver services that meet or exceed customer expectations, and increase customer engagement in order to improve District Services. Enhance and build awareness and engagement among the District’s customers and stakeholders and within the San Diego Region about the District’s strategies, policies, projects, programs, and legislative/regulatory issues. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: A) Committee Action B) Proposed 2023 Otay Water District Legislative Program Policy Guidelines (Redlined) C) Proposed 2023 Otay Water District Legislative Program Policy Guidelines (Clean Copy) 5 D) Presentation “Anticipated Top 10 Legislative for 2023” – Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck E) Anticipated Top 10 Legislative Priorities for 2023 Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 1 | P a g e Effective Date: 04/0605/20222023 Legislative Program Policy Guidelines Purpose The Otay Water District’s 2023 legislative policy guidelines reflect policy positions adopted by the Board of Directors through 2022. The guidelines provide direction to staff and the District’s legislative advocates when they evaluate proposed legislation that may affect the District, other local water agencies, or regional water management and use. Legislation that meets or fails to meet, the principles set forth in the guidelines may be supported or opposed accordingly. The guidelines permit the General Manager, District staff, and the District’s legislative advocates to act in a timely fashion between Board meetings on issues that are clearly within the guidelines. While the title of this document suggests these policy guidelines are applicable solely to state and federal legislative issues reviewed by the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), the District and its wholesale supplier the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), increasingly state and federal regulatory and administrative bodies are developing rules, guidelines, white papers, and regulations that can significantly affect the District, its wholesale supplier, and other local water agencies. District staff, including the District’s legislative consultant, often utilize these Legislative Policy Guidelines to provide guidance on emerging and active regulatory and administrative issues. Legislation that does not meet the principles set forth in the guidelines or that has potentially complicated or varied implications will not be acted upon by staff or the legislative advocates in between Board meetings and will instead be presented to the Board directly for guidance in advance of any position being taken. The Water Authority has its own set of legislative guidelines that is a comprehensive program at a wholesale and regional level. District staff has evaluated and selected policies and issues from the Water Authority’s guidelines that may have a direct impact on the District. These policies and issues have been incorporated into the District’s guidelines. Although the District is a retail agency and is focused on its local service area, if there are issues or polices contained in the Water Authority’s Legislative Policy Guidelines that could benefit or impact the District, the General Manager, District staff, and the District’s legislative advocates may act on those issues, respectively. Attachment B Updated (Minutes) Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 2 | P a g e Table of Contents The Otay Water Legislative Policy Program Guidelines for 2021 2023 includes the following categories: I. Binational Issues…………………………………………....……………... Page 3 II. Biological and Habitat Preservation…………………………………….. Page 3 III. Desalination……………………………………………………………….. Page 4 IV. Drought Response………………………………………………………… Page 4 V. Energy……………………………………………………………………… Page 5 VI. Financial Issues…………………………………………………………… Page 6 A. Fees, Taxes, and Charges………………………….......................... Page 6 B. Funding…………………………………………………………….. Page 8 C. Rates………………………………………………………………... Page 10 D. Water Bonds……………………………………………………….. Page 10 E. Affordability……………………………………………………. Page 11 VII. Governance and Local Autonomy……………………………………….. Page 12 VIII. Imported Water Issues……………………………………………………. Page 13 A. Bay-Delta……………………………………………………………… Page 13 i. Co-equal Goals……………………………………………………. Page 13 ii. Bay-Delta Conveyance Project…………………………………… Page 14 B. Metropolitan Water District…………………………………………… Page 15 C. Colorado River………………………………………………………… Page 15 D. State Water Project…………………………………………………….. Page 16 IX. Optimize District Effectiveness……………………...…………....………. Page 16 X. Safety, Security, and Information Technology……………....................... Page 17 XI. Water Quality Issues………………………………………………………. Page 18 XII. Water Recycling and Potable Reuse……………………………………… Page 19 XIII. Water Service and Facilities……………………………………………… Page 20 XIV. Water-Use Efficiency……………………………………………………… Page 24 XV. Workforce Development………………………………………………….. Page 26 Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 3 | P a g e I. Binational Issues Support initiatives that: 1. Promote and provide funding for cross-border water supply and infrastructure development projects such as water pipelines, desalination plants or water treatment facilities to serve the San Diego/Baja California border region while protecting local interests. 2. Encourage enhanced cooperation between entities in San Diego and Baja California in development of supply and infrastructure projects that will benefit the entire border region. 3. Encourage state and federal funding to support collaborative binational projects to improve water quality and protect human health and the environment within the broader San Diego region. 4. Develop and enhance communications and understanding of the interdependence of communities on both sides of the border with the goal of improved cross-border cooperation. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Would usurp local control over the financing and construction of water supply and infrastructure projects in the San Diego/Baja California region. II. Biological and Habitat Preservation Support initiatives that: 1. Support development of comprehensive multispecies habitat conservation plants that anticipate and mitigate project development impacts while preserving representative ecosystems, rather than individual species. 2. Exempt operation, maintenance, and repair of water system facilities from endangered species and other habitat conservation regulations because they provide beneficial cyclical habitat values to declining species and foster biological diversity in California. 3. Provide environmental regulatory certainty for implementation of existing and proposed long- term water supply programs. 4. Streamline filing of CEQA notices of determination for multicounty water projects by making those notices available on the CEQAnet website through the Governor’s office of Planning and Research. 5. Incorporate an emergency exemption for “take” of a listed species listed under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts when necessary to mitigate or prevent loss of or damage to life, health, property, or essential public services. 6. Encourage species listings, critical habitat designation, and recovery plans developed pursuant to the state or federal Endangered Species Acts to be consistent with existing interstate compacts, tribal treaties, and other state and federal agreements. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Reduce or limit the use of existing water rights or supplies, 2. Restrict the development of future water supplies. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 4 | P a g e 3. Impose endangered species or habitat conservation requirements that restrict the operation, maintenance, or repair of public water supply, conveyance, treatment, or storage facilities. III. Desalination Support initiatives that: 1. Provide funding for seawater desalination studies and facilities. 2. Recognize and support the development of seawater desalination as critical new water supply for the state, including San Diego County. 3. Streamline permitting of desalination facilities. 4. Preserve and protects potential seawater desalination sites and existing coastal facilities including intake and discharge infrastructure that could be used or reused by a seawater desalination facility. 5. Ensure that desalination intake and discharge regulations are science-based, considering site- specific conditions, and recognizing that not all technologies or mitigation strategies are feasible or cost-effective at every site. IV. Drought Response Support initiatives that: 1. Ensure the District and other local agencies including the Water Authority and San Diego County water agencies receive the water supply benefits of investments in local water supply sources. 2. Allow local agencies to achieve compliance with emergency or non-emergency drought regulations or objectives through a combination of water conservation measures and development and implementation of local water supply sources that are not derived from the Delta. 3. Allow for local agencies to account for all water supplies available during droughts and other events when calculating the water supply shortage level. 4. Create a process for development and implementation of emergency drought declarations and regulations that recognizes variations among communities, regions, and counties with respect to their abilities to withstand the impacts and effects of drought. 5. Recognize variations among communities, regions, and counties with respect to their abilities to withstand the impacts and effects of droughts and ensure that any temporary or permanent statutory or regulatory direction for improving water-use efficiency to meet statutory or regulatory goals or standards is focused on regional achievement of objectives rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Oppose initiatives that: Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 5 | P a g e 1. Disincentivize or impede water agencies from making investments to maximize the potential for recycled water, potable reuse, desalination, and other drought-resilient local water supplies. 2. Create a “one-size-fits-all” approach to emergency drought declarations and regulations that ignores variations among communities, regions, and counties with respect to their ability to withstand the impacts and effects of drought. V. Energy Support initiatives that: 1. Provide opportunities for reduced energy rates under tariff schedules for the District and other local water agencies. 2. Provide protection to the District and other local water agencies from energy rate increases and provides rate relief for the District and water agencies. 3. Provide funding, including state and federal grants, for in-line hydro-electric, solar, wind, battery storage, biogas, cogeneration, nanogrids, microgrids, closed-loop pumped storage facilities, and other renewable energy generation or storage technology as means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy cost. 4. Promote funding for use of renewable energy in the operation of District facilities. 5. Prohibit investor-owned utilities from implementing rate changes that undercut the financial viability of renewable energy facilities obligated under long-term Power Purchase Agreements. 6. Provide greater flexibility in the utilization of the District’s facilities for generation and acquisition of electrical and natural gas power. 7. Provide the District with greater flexibility in the licensing, permitting, interconnection, construction, and the operation of its existing and potential in-line hydroelectric, solar, wind, battery, nanogrid, microgrid, closed-loop pumped-energy storage projects, and other renewable generation or storage technology. 8. Make SWP power available for all water projects. 9. Promote the classification of electricity generated by in-line hydroelectric and closed-loop pumped-energy storage facilities as environmentally sound. 10. Promote the expansion of closed-loop pumped-energy storage facilities to provide clean and environmentally sound energy resource that provides electric and reliability and resiliency, especially during times of potential blackouts. 11. Promote the expansion of in-line hydroelectric energy recovery systems at treatment facility discharge systems. 12. Promote the production, purchase, delivery, and use of alternative sources of energy on a wholesale basis. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 6 | P a g e 13. Provide clear statutory, regulatory, or administrative authority for the Water Authority to wheel acquired or produced power to itself, the District, or entities with which the Water Authority is under contract for the purchase, treatment, transport, or production of water. 14. Recognize and monetize all grid ancillary services that pumped hydro-energy storage provides and supports fair compensation in the wholesale energy market for such services. 15. Provides timely, efficient, and cost-effective interconnection of new energy resources such as solar, inline hydroelectric, pumped-energy storage, and other renewable energy generation or storage technologies to the electric distribution and transmission grid. 16. Recognize the value of large-scale hydropower and pumped-energy storage facilities in assisting the state to meet its renewable and zero-carbon emission goals of 100 percent by 2045. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Adversely affect the cost of energy needed to operate MWD’s facilities, SWP facilities, or the facilities of the Water Authority and the District. 2. Impose greenhouse gas reduction obligations on a public water agency for electricity purchased or produced for the sole purpose of operating its system. 3. Adversely affect the ability of the District or other water agencies in the county to own, operate, and/or construct work for supplying its own facilities with natural gas and electricity. 4. Impede the District or other water agencies in the county, the ability to contract for, deliver, and use the purchase of natural gas and or electricity purchased from the United States, the State of California, and any other public agency or private entity and provide, sell, exchange, or deliver the gas and or electricity to itself, any public agency or private entity engaged in retail sales of electricity and gas. 5. Reduce the District’s ability to always maintain high operational efficiency. 6. Restrict the District’s ability to expand or improve infrastructure or facilities. 7. Restrict or caps future energy demands needed for possible expansion of recycled water, potable reuse, and/or desalination projects. 8. Adversely affect the District’s ability to expand cogeneration or polygeneration at planned or existing facilities. 9. Inhibit the scientific advancement of energy and water efficient/conserving technologies that may be implemented at the District or other agency facilities. 10. Prevent the District from enhancing energy reliability and independence for its facilities. 11. Do not count or credit qualified renewable energy projects toward accomplishment and satisfaction of the California Renewables Portfolio Standard objectives. 12. Prohibit the Water Authority from wheeling - or securing statutory, regulatory, or administrative authority necessary to wheel - acquired or produced power to itself, the District, or other entities with which the Water Authority is under contract of the purchase, treatment, transport, or production of water. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 7 | P a g e 13. Result in a lengthy, more complicated, or more costly interconnection of new energy resources, such as solar, inline-hydroelectric, pumped-energy storage, and other renewable energy generation or storage technologies to the electric distribution and transmission grid. VI. Financial Issues A. Fees, Taxes, and Charges Support initiatives that: 1. Require the federal government and State of California to reimburse special districts for all mandated costs or regulatory actions. 2. Give special districts the discretion to cease performance of unfunded mandates. 3. Provide for fiscal reform to enhance the equity, reliability, and certainty of special district funding. 4. Provide incentives for local agencies to work cooperatively, share costs or resources. 5. Provide for the stable, equitable and reliable allocation of property taxes. 6. Continue to reform workers compensation. 7. Promote competition in insurance underwriting for public agencies. 8. Produce tangible results, such as water supply reliability or water quality improvement. 9. Require the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to refund or credit to its member agencies revenues collected from them that result in reserve balances greater than the maximum reserve levels established pursuant to state legislation. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Impose mandated costs or regulatory constraints on local agencies and their customers without providing subventions to reimburse local agencies for such costs. 2. Pre-empt the Water Authority’sDistrict or its memberlocal water agencies’ ability to impose or change rates, charges, fees, or assessments. 3. Weaken the protections afforded the District, the Water Authority or its other local water member agencies under California’s Proposition 1A (November 2, 2004). 4. Reallocate special districts reserves in an effort toto balance the state budget. 5. Reallocate special district revenues or reserves to fund infrastructure improvements or other activities in cities or counties. 6. Establish funding mechanisms that put undue burdens on local agencies or make local agencies de facto tax collectors for the state. 7. Adversely affect the cost of gas and electricity or reduce an organization’s flexibility to take advantage of low peak cost periods. 8. Add new reporting criteria, burdensome, unnecessary, or costly reporting mandates to Urban Water Management Plans. 9. Add new mandates to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to review and approve Urban Water Management Plans beyond those already addressed in DWR guidelines. 10. Mandate that water agencies include an embedded energy calculation for their water supply sources in Urban Water Management Plans or any other water resources planning or master-planning document. 11. Weaken existing project retention and withholding provisions that limit the ability of public agencies to drive contractor performance. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 8 | P a g e 12. Establish change order requirements that place an unreasonable burden on local agencies, or raise financial risk associated with public works contracts. 13. Impair the Water Authority or its member agencies’ ability to provide reasonable service at reasonable costs to member agencies or to charge all member agencies the same rate for each class of service consistent with cost-of-service requirements of the law. 14. Impair the local water agencies’ ability to maintain reasonable reserve funds and obtain and retain reasonable rates of return on its reserve accounts. 15. Mandate a specific rate structure for retail water agencies. 16. Impose a water user fee on water agencies or water users that does not provide a commensurate and directly linked benefit in the local area or region from which the water user fee is collected. 17. Impose a water user fee for statewide projects or programs, for which the projects or programs are not clearly defined, the beneficiaries identified, and reasonable costs identified. 18. Impose a water user fee to create a state fund that can be used to finance undefined future projects and programs. 19. Allow the state to retain more than five percent of water user fees for administrative costs. 20. Do not restrict the use of water user fees to only the specific purposes for which they are imposed, without any possibility of diversion to meet other fiscal needs of the state. 21. Impose a “public goods charge” or “water tax” on public water agencies or their ratepayers. 22. Impose a fee on water users to repay the principal and interest on a statewide general obligation bond. 23. Establish regulatory or permit fees that lack a nexus to the costs of oversight. 24. Establish a broad-based user fee that does not support a specific program activity; any fee must provide a clear nexus to the benefit the fee would provide. B. Funding Support initiatives that: 1. Require the federal and state governments to provide subvention to reimburse local governments for all mandated costs or regulatory actions. 2. Provide the District, the Water Authority, and its other local watermember agencies with additional forms of cost- effective financing for public facilities. 3. Revitalize the Title XVI federal funding program by converting new authorizations to a competitive grant program with congressional oversight while protecting existing Title XVI authorizations for the San Diego region. 4. Provide the District, Water Authority, and its member local water agencies with grant funding for public facilities, including developing local water resources and rehabilitation and repair of aging infrastructure, such as pipelines. 5. Provide the District, other local water agencies, and water ratepayers with post-COVID-19 financial relief through a variety of means, including but not limited to, direct financial assistance and flexibility in debt management to assist water ratepayers and water suppliers. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 9 | P a g e 6. Authorize financing of water quality, water security, and water supply infrastructure improvement programs. 7. Establish spending caps on State of California overhead when administering voter approved grant and disbursement programs. 8. Require disbursement decisions in a manner appropriate to the service in question. 9. Encourage funding infrastructure programs that are currently in place and that have been proven effective. 10. Provide financial incentives for energy projects that increase reliability, diversity, and reduce greenhouse gasses. 11. Continue energy rate incentives for the utilization of electricity during low-peak periods. 12. Provide loan or grant programs that encourage water conservation for water users who are least able to pay for capital projects. 13. Provide for population-based distribution of IRWM funds to ensure adequate distribution of grant funding throughout the state. 14. Provide for the use of state grant funds for binational projects where the projects benefit water supply or water quality in the San Diego region. 15. Improve and streamline the state’s reimbursement process to ensure timely remittance of IRWM funds. 16. Promote the ability of the Regional Water Management Group to administer state grant funds specifically identified more directly for IRWM Programs. 17. Require the state to rely on the local process for selection and ranking of projects included in an approved IRWM plan. 18. Provide funding or other incentives for conservation, peak management programs, water recycling, potable reuse, groundwater recovery and recharge, surface water development and management projects, including reservoir management, source water protection and watershed planning studies and facilities that sustain long-term reliable water resources. 19. Provide financial incentives to assist in the disposal of concentrate, sludge, and other byproducts created in the water treatment process. 20. Authorize, promote, and provide incentives or credits for development of local drought- resilient water supply projects such as desalination, non-potable recycling, and potable reuse projects. 21. Provide funding for potable reuse demonstration projects and studies. 21.22. Provide funding for infrastructure improvements at desalination facilities with eligibility for public and private partnerships. 22.23. Authorize federal and state funding to develop and implement regional or subregional conservation programs, including but not limited to property acquisition, revegetation programs, and watershed plans. 23.24. Provide state and/or federal funding for the restoration of the Salton Sea. 24.25. Provide federal and/or state funding to implement actions that address the ecological and water supply management issues of the Lower Colorado River from Lee's Ferry to the southerly international border with Mexico. 25.26. Provide federal and/or state funding to implement actions that address the ecological and water supply management issues of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. 26.27. Permit the use of grant funding for projects implemented under public-private partnerships where the grant provides funding for a public benefit. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 10 | P a g e 28. Require the state agencies responsible for preparing the IRWM grant program guidelines to conduct a comprehensive public outreach process that ensures stakeholders have an opportunity to provide adequate input on preparation of the guidelines and that the state agencies consider and respond to comments received through the outreach process. 27.29. Provide incentive, funding, and assistance to water agencies so that they can comply with AB 32 (2006) requirements, and updated statutory requirements imposed pursuant to SB 32 (2016), SB 100 (2018), and SB 1020 (2022). Oppose initiatives that: 1. Impose additional administrative requirements and/or restrict the District’s, Water Authority’s, or its memberother local water agencies’ ability to finance public facilities through the issuance of long-term debt. 2. Interfere with the responsibility of a region, operating under an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, for setting priorities and generating projects to be paid from any IRWM accounts and grants. 3. Interfere with the control exercised by the San Diego funding subregion over the use and expenditure of any water-user fee revenues that may be dedicated to the region. 4. Establish IRWM funding criteria that limits local discretion in project selection. 5. Provide for after-the-fact reduction in quantity or quality of a public water supply due to new restrictions on the operation or use of water supply facilities unless funding for alternate sources of water is provided. 6. Impose a "utility user fee" or "surcharge" on water for the purposes of financing open space/habitat preservation, restoration, or creation. C. Rates Support initiatives that: 1. Maintain the authority of water agencies to establish water rates locally, consistent with cost-of-service requirements of the law. 2. Maximize the ability of water agencies to design rate structures to meet local water supply goals and that conform to cost-of-service requirements of the law. 2.3.Encourage and promote education to elected officials, community/business leaders, organizations, and the public about water sales and conservation and the District and its wholesaler’s rates and what those rates support including but not limited to infrastructure, asset management, operations, maintenance, water reliability, and more. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Impair the District’s, the Water Authority’s, or its member local water agencies’ ability to provide reliable service at reasonable costs to member agencies or to charge all member agencies the same or similar rate for each class of service consistent with cost-of-service requirements of the law. 2. Undermine or weaken cost-of-service rate-making requirements in existing law. 3. Impair the District’s ability to maintain reasonable reserve funds and obtain and retain reasonable rates of return on its reserve accounts. 4. Mandate a specific rate structure for retail water agencies. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 11 | P a g e 5. Prescribe mandatory conservation-based rate structures that override the authority of the boards of directors of local water agencies to set rate structures according to the specific needs of the water agencies. 6. Usurp special district funds, reserves, or other state actions that force special districts to raise rates, fees, or charges. D. Water Bonds Support initiatives that: 1. Provide an equitable share of funding to San Diego County, with major funding categories being divided by county and funded on a per-capita basis to ensure bond proceeds are distributed throughout the state in proportion to taxpayers’ payments on the bonds. 2. Focus on statewide priorities, including restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, construction of an improved method of conveyance of water through or around the Delta that provides water supply reliability to Delta water users, promotion of greater regional and local self-sufficiency, surface storage, and promotion of water-use efficiency. 3. Ensures funding from various propositions for local and regional water-related projects. 4. Include within IRWM funding money that a region may use over time to develop and refine its plan and to develop institutional structures necessary to establish and implement the plan. 5. Give primary consideration to funding priorities established by local and regional entities through their IRWM planning process. 6. Ensure the application process for funding is not unnecessarily burdensome and costly, with an emphasis on streamlining the process. 7. Limit state overhead to no more than five percent of bond funding amounts. 8. Place as much emphasis and provides at least as much funding for surface storage as for groundwater storage. 9. Define the “San Diego sub-region” and “San Diego county watersheds” as “those portions of the westward-flowing watershed of the South Coast hydrologic region situated within the boundaries of San Diego County.” 10. Fund emergency and carryover storage projects including those in San Diego County. 11. Consolidate administration of all voter-approved water-related bond funding in one place, preserves existing expertise within the state bureaucracy to manage bond-funding processes, and provide consistent application and evaluation of bond funding applications. 12. Provide the state’s share of funding for projects that advance the achievement of the co- equal goals of water supply reliability and Delta ecosystem restoration. 13. Provide funding for water infrastructure that resolve conflicts in the state’s water system and provide long-term benefits to statewide issues including water supply, reliability, water quality, and ecosystem restoration. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Do not provide an equitable share of funding to San Diego County based on the San Diego County taxpayers’ proportional contribution to repayment of the bonds. 2. Do not provide funding for infrastructure that resolves statewide or regional conflicts of water supplies. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 12 | P a g e 3. Do not provide funding that result in net increases in real water supply and water supply reliability. 4. Commit a significant portion of bond funding to projects that do not result in net increases in real water supply or water supply reliability. E. Affordability Support initiatives that: 1. Abides by the Human Right to Water (AB 685, 2012) as set forth in Section 106.3 of the California Water Code which reads that, “every human being has the right to safe, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.” The State Water Resources Control Board also has a resolution supporting this program. 2. Meets the required standards under Proposition 218 in the California Constitution regarding proportionality of water rates and the cost-of-service provisions. 3. Relies on data-driven analysis of water affordability, including considerations such as census data and economically- disadvantaged communities. As such, the District supports the continued implementation of AB 2334 (2012) that requires the Department of Water Resources to provide this analysis and place it in California’s Water Plan. 4. Supports the creation of a low-income water rate assistance program that targets providing financial assistance to low-income ratepayers using existing resources within either the state General Fund or cap-and-trade dollars. 5. Does not burden water districts with excessive or overly prescriptive state mandates including the collection of water taxes or water rate and boundary data, and qualification of customers for low-income assistance .programs. 6. Supports the expansion of the low-income assistance programs (LIHWAP) or other programs, using existing resources from the federal government, with the state General Fund or cap-and-trade dollars or other state financial resources. 5.7.Encourage and promote education to elected officials, community/business leaders, organizations, and the public about affordability. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Is not targeted appropriately: Any low-income water rate assistance program must be limited in scope to those individuals. By seeking to do too much, effectiveness could be limited. Examples of this could include extending program resources to domestic wells or water-use efficiency programs. 2. Does not have a funding source: Any low-income water rate assistance program needs to identify specific sources of sustainable funding and does not include a water tax or water surcharge. 3. Does not reinvent the wheel: Any low-income water rate assistance program should be built upon and use the resources of an existing benefit distribution organization or system, such as CalFresh, rather than requiring water agencies to add the operating expense of creating and administering a new method. VII. Governance and Local Autonomy Support initiatives that: Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 13 | P a g e 1. Expand local autonomy in governing special district affairs. 2. Promote comprehensive long-range planning. 3. Assist local agencies in the logical and efficient extension of services and facilities to promote efficiency and avoid duplication of services. 4. Streamline the Municipal Service Review Process or set limits on how long services reviews can take or cost. 5. Reaffirm the existing “all-in” financial structure or protect the Water Authority voting structure based on population. 6. Promote measures that increase broader community and water industry representation/appointments on State decision making bodies. 7. Ensure an open and transparent process for adoption of regulations, policies, and guidelines. 8. Preserve the District and other local water agencies’ ability to establish local priorities for water resources planning decisions. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Assume the state legislature is better able to make local decisions that affect special district governance. 2. Create one-size-fits-all approaches to special district reform. 3. Unfairly target one group of local elected officials. 4. Usurp local control from special districts regarding decisions involving local special district finance, operations, or governance. 5. Diminish the power or rights of the District’s governing body to govern the District’s affairs. 6. Diminish the power or rights of the District to govern relations with its employees. 7. Modify the committee or board voting structure or District and member agency board representation on the Water Authority Board of Directors unless such changes have been expressly authorized by the District’s Board. 8. Create unfunded local government mandates. 9. Create costly, unnecessary, or duplicative oversight roles for the state government of special district affairs. 10. Create new oversight roles or responsibility for monitoring special district affairs. 11. Change the San Diego County Water Authority Act regarding voting structure unless it is based on population. 12. Shift the liability to the public entity and relieve private entities of reasonable due diligence in their review of plans and specifications for errors, omissions, and other issues. 13. Place a significant and unreasonable burden on public agencies, resulting in increased cost for public works construction or their operation. 14. Impair the ability of water districts to acquire property or property interests required for essential capital improvement projects. 15. Increase the cost of property and right-of-way acquisition or restricts the use of right-of- ways. 16. Work to silence the voices of special districts and other local government associations on statewide ballot measures impacting local government policies and practices, including actions that could prohibit special districts and associations from advocating for positions on ballot measures by severely restricting the private resources used to fund those activities. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 14 | P a g e 17. Prescribe mandatory conservation-based or other rate structures that override the authority of the board of directors to set its rate structure. 18. Circumvent the legislative committee process, such as the use of budget trailer bills, to advance policy issues including impacting special districts without full disclosure, transparency, or public involvement. 19. Restrict the District’s ability to utilize a demand forecasting methodology that is best suited locally and for the region. 20. Impose mandates requiring specific water resources be developed by water agencies that fail to consider local factors such as water reliability, hydrologic and geographic characteristics, and the economic, political, public acceptance, social environment, which can influence selection of resources and/or fails to consider or conflicts with existing local and regional planning policies and implementation priorities. 21. Limit the District’s ability to establish local priorities for water resources planning decisions. VIII. Imported Water Issues A. Bay-Delta i. Co-Equal Goals Support initiatives that: 1. Require the Delta Stewardship Council or DWR to provide periodic analyses of the cost of the proposed Delta improvements to the Legislature and the public. 2. Provides conveyance and storage facilities that are cost-effective for the San Diego region’s ratepayers, improve the reliability and quality of the San Diego region’s water supplies, and protect the Bay-Delta’s ecosystem. 3. Continue to support the co-equal goals of water supply reliability and environmental restoration embodied in the 2009 Delta bill package. 4. Improve the ability of water-users to divert water from the Delta during wet periods, when impacts on fish and the ecosystem are lower and water quality is higher. 5. Encourage the development of a statewide water transfer market that will improve water management and allow more efficient use of available resources. 6. Support improved coordination of Central Valley Project and State Water Project (SWP) operations and implementation of voluntary agreement that are fair to the users of both projects and do not unfairly shift costs to SWP contractors. 7. Support continued state ownership and operation of the SWP, including project facilities, as a public resource. 8. Ensure that any reorganization of the State Water Project, including operations and management, preserves the ability for non-State Water Project contractors to access the facility for transportation of water to a non-State Water Project contractor. 9. Authorize and appropriate the federal share of funding for the long-term Bay-Delta solution, including for the EcoRestore Program. 10. Provide the ongoing state share of funding for the EcoRestore Program. 11. Provide state funding for aquatic toxicity monitoring in the Bay-Delta. Such legislation should not place a surcharge on water supply exports, nor should it substantively reduce funding for other measures that protect the environment and public health. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 15 | P a g e Oppose efforts that: 1. Impose water user fees to fund ecosystem restoration and other public purpose, nonwater- supply improvements in the Delta that benefit the public at large. 2. Transfer operational control of the State Water Project or any of its facilities to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), the State Water Contractors, the Central Valley Project Contractors, the State and Federal Contractors Water Agency, or any entity comprised of MWD or other water project contractors, or any other special interest group. ii. Bay-Delta Conveyance Project Support initiatives that: 1. Are consistent with the Water Authority’s Board of Directors’ July 25, 2019 adopted Bay- Delta project policy principles, including the following: a. On April 29, 2019, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-10-19, directing the preparation of a water resilience portfolio approach that meets the needs of California’s communities, economy, and environment through the 21st century, including consideration of multi-benefit approaches that meet multiple needs at once, and a single-user tunnel Bay-Delta project. b. The Water Authority’s Board supports Governor Newsome’s Executive Order N-10- 19 and directs staff to inform the Newsome Administration that its support for a single-tunnel Bay-Delta project is expressly conditioned upon the project costs being characterized by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as conservation, or supply charges, as similar facilities historically have been defined in the Metropolitan Water District’s (MWD) SWP contract with DWR. c. As reflected in Table 2 of DWR’s Appendix B to Bulletin 132-17, Data and Computation Used to Determine Water Charges, and for which costs are recovered in Article 22(a) of Delta Water Charge of MWD’s SWP Contract; allow for the exemption of north-of-Delta SWP contractors. 2. Support the establishment of an independent and transparent oversight function to monitor and provide regular updates on project implementation progress, including expenditure tracking, construction progress, project participants’ contributions, and all other relevant activities and developments. 3. Allow access to all SWP facilities, including project facilities, to facilitate water transfers. B. Metropolitan Water District Support initiatives that: 1. Provide an appropriate level of accountability and cost control over MWD spending. 2. Protect and safeguard the Water Authority’s Preferential Rights in the Metropolitan Water District Act. 3. Require MWD to refund or credit to its member agencies revenues collected from them that result in reserve balances greater than the maximum reserve levels established pursuant to state legislation. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 16 | P a g e 4. Require MWD to implement actions that advance and support its long-term financial stability, fiscal sustainability, and that moderate fluctuations in rates and charges for its member agencies from year to year, in a publicly transparent manner. 5. Amend the Metropolitan Water District Act to change voting allocation on its Board of Directors based on a member agency’s total financial contribution to MWD, and in a manner similar to the voting allocation method of the County Water Authority Act. C. Colorado River Support initiatives that: 1. Supports implementation and funding of the California Colorado River Water Use Plan, including the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program 2. Provide funding for Colorado River salinity control projects and other water quality management efforts. 3. Provide for state and federal authorizations and appropriations of non-fee-based funds to implement Salton Sea mitigation and the State’s phased approach to restoration in the form of the Salton Sea Management Program consistent with its obligations under Chapters 611, 612, and 613 of the Statutes of 2003. 4. Limit the Quantification Settlement Agreement mitigation costs imposed on funding parties to the amount committed in accordance with the original QSA legislation. 5. Provide a governing structure and/or specified managing office over the state's Salton Sea Management Program to provide guidance and oversight of restoration activities. 6. Support the sustainability of the Colorado River and provide operational flexibility through the development of storage, including Lake Mead and additional storage opportunities regionally, and through the renegotiation of the new interim shortage guidelines for continued operation of the River. 7. Allow for the option to create an alternate conveyance route, when technically and financially feasible, for reliable delivery of the Water Authority’s Independent Colorado River water supplies and integration of compatible partnership projects along the proposed conveyance routes as a model of the Governor’s Water Resilience Portfolio approach to water management. 8. Support the State’s Salton Sea Management Program under the guidelines of the revised Water Order (Stipulated Order) adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in November 2017. 9. Preserve the California Colorado River Board 10. Ensure the interests of the members of the California Colorado River Board continue to be addressed in any state government reorganization. 11. Allow for storage of the Water Authority’s Colorado River water supplies to provide enhanced flexibility with annual transfer volumes, support drought contingency planning, and align with the Governor’s Water Resilience Portfolio approach to water management. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Impose additional mitigation costs or obligations for the Salton Sea on the non-state parties to the Quantification Settlement Agreement. 2. Eliminate the California Colorado River Board without providing a comparable structure or forum that ensures the Water Authority's interests in the Colorado River are preserved. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 17 | P a g e D. State Water Project Support initiatives that: 1. Provide for development of a comprehensive state water plan that balances California's competing water needs, incorporates the water resources and infrastructure concepts included in the Governor’s “Water Resilience Portfolio” and “California’s Water Supply Strategy Adapting to a Hotter, Drier, Future,” and results in a reliable and affordable supply of high- quality water for the State of California and the San Diego region. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Make urban water supplies less reliable or substantially increases the cost of imported water without also improving the reliability and/or quality of the water. 2. Revise the Central Valley Project Improvement Act to Jeopardize the Act's environmental integrity, compromise State Water Project supply reliability a n d/or limit the ability of urban agencies to transfer and/or bank CVP water for use both within and outside the CVP service area. 3. Transfer operational control of the State Water Project or any of its facilities to MWD, the State Water Project contractors, Central Valley Project contractors, the State and Federal Contractors Water Agency, any entity comprised of MWD or other water project contractors, or any other special interest group. IX. Optimize District Effectiveness Support initiatives that: 1. Manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner. 2. Give utilities the ability to avoid critical peak energy pricing or negotiate energy contracts that save ratepayers money. 3. Develop reasonable Air Pollution Control District engine permitting requirements. 4. Reimburse or reduce local government mandates. 5. Allow public agencies to continue offering defined benefit plans. 6. Result in predictable costs and benefits for employees and taxpayers. 7. Eliminate abuses. 8. Retain local control of pension systems. 9. Are constitutional, federally legal, and technically possible. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Restrict the use of, or reallocate, district property tax revenues to the detriment of special districts. 2. Create unrealistic ergonomic protocol. 3. Micromanage special district operations. 4. Balance the state budget by allowing regulatory agencies to increase permitting fees. 5. Tax dependent benefits. 6. Require new reporting criteria on energy intensity involved in water supply. X. Safety, Security, and Information Technology Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 18 | P a g e Support initiatives that: 1. Provide funding for information security upgrades to include integrated alarms, access/egress, and surveillance technology. 2. Provide incentives for utilities and other local agencies to work cooperatively, share costs or resources. 3. Provide funding for communication enhancements, wireless communications, GIS, or other technological enhancements. 4. Encourage or promote compatible software systems. 5. Fund infrastructure and facility security improvements that include facility roadway access, remote gate access, and physical security upgrades. 6. Protect state, local, and regional drinking water systems from terrorist attack or deliberate acts of destruction, contamination, or degradation. 7. Provide funds to support training or joint training exercises to include contingency funding for emergencies and emergency preparedness. 8. Equitably allocate security funding based on need, threats, and/or population. 9. Encourage or promote compatible communication systems. 10. Encourage and promote funding of Department of Homeland Security Risk Mitigation programs. 11. Recognizes water agencies as emergency responders in the event of a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent and mitigate loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services due to natural disasters (e.g., wildfires, earthquakes), power outages as well as terrorist and other criminal activities. 12. Provide state grant or other funding opportunities to support seismic risk assessment and mitigation plans, or to mitigate vulnerabilities. 13. Provide funding for projects that enhance security against terrorist acts or other criminal threats to water operation, services, facilities, or supplies. 14. Provide funding for projects that improve the security of the District facilities and operations. 15. Provide funding to support technologies that support remote working, when necessary to prevent loss of or damage to life, health, property, or essential public services. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Create unnecessary, costly, or duplicative security or safety mandates. 2. Require expanded water system descriptions or additional public disclosure of public water systems details for large water suppliers in Urban Water Management Planning documents, potentially compromising public water systems, and creating a conflict with the Department of Homeland Security’s recommendation to avoid reference to water system details in plans available to the public. XI. Water Quality Issues Support initiatives that: 1. Assure cost-effective remediation and cleanup of contaminates of concern that have impacted groundwater and surface water. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 19 | P a g e 2. Incorporate sound scientific principals in adopting drinking water standards for drinking water concerns. 3. Revise NPDES standards and procedures to facilitate inland discharge and use of recycled water. 4. Establish appropriate quality standards, testing procedures, and treatment processes for emerging contaminants. 5. Alter the definition of “lead free” to reduce the permissible amount of lead in fixtures, plumbing, and pipe fittings to be installed for the delivery of drinking water. 6. Exempt purified wastewater from regulation as a discharge under the Clean Water Act. 7. Protect child public health by requiring schools to undertake lead testing in school drinking water systems. 8. Implement source control for management prevention of contamination by constituents of emerging concern. 9. Provide the necessary funding for research on the occurrence, treatment, health effects, and environmental cleanup related to contamination drinking water sources. 10. Implement and fund the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board’s triennial review of water quality standards. 11. Provide funding and support for Colorado River salinity control projects and other water quality management efforts. 12. Direct the state’s participation or assistance in water quality issues related to or threatening the Colorado River water source. 13. Streamline permitting of facilities constructed for the purpose of improving water quality. 14. Ensure consistent application of the law by the State Water Resources Control Board and the nine regional water quality control boards. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Eliminate the State Water Resources Control Board and/or the nine regional water quality control boards without ensuring the functions and expertise of the boards is maintained in any reorganized entity. 2. Regulate the conveyance, storage, or release of water supplies as discharge under the Clean Water Act and other water quality control laws. 3. Make water suppliers financially and legally responsible for mitigation of pollution contamination by third parties. 1.4.Make water suppliers financially and legally responsible for testing or correction of any water quality-related issues associated with private property or on-site plumbing systems. XII. Water Recycling and Potable Reuse Support initiatives that: 1. Reduce restrictions on recycled water usage or promote consistent regulation of recycled water projects to reduce impediments to the increased use of recycled water. 2. Reduce restrictions on injecting recycled water into basins where there is no direct potable use. 3. Advocate for direct potable reuse. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 20 | P a g e 4. Advocate for recycled water use upstream of lakes and reservoirs if protected by urban water runoff protection systems. 5. Provide financial incentives for recharge of groundwater aquifers using recycled water. 6. Make recycled water regulations clear, consolidated, and understandable to expedite related project permitting. 7. Promote recycled water as a sustainable supplemental source of water. 8. Allow the safe use of recycled water. 9. Facilitate development of technology aimed at improving water recycling. 10. Increasing funding for water recycling projects. 11. Support continued funding of the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program including Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects, the WaterSMART Program, and the Desalination and Water Purification Research Program. 12. Increase awareness of the ways recycled water can help address the region’s water supply challenges. 13. Create federal and state incentives to promote recycled water use and production. 14. Establish federal tax incentives to support U.S. companies in the development of new water technologies that can lower productions costs, address by products such as concentrates, and enhance public acceptance of recycled water. 15. Establish a comprehensive national research and development, and technology demonstration, program to advance the public and scientific understanding of water recycling technologies to encourage reuse as an alternative source of water supply. 16. Provide incentives for local agencies to work cooperatively, share costs or resources to promote or expand the use of recycled water. 17. Further refine emergency regulations to reward local suppliers that have invested in using recycled water for landscape irrigation to maintain an incentive to continue expanding areas served by recycled water. 18. Encourage the use of recycled water in commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential settings. 19. Recognize and support the development of potable reuse as a critical new water supply. 20. Define purified recycled water as a source of water supply and not as waste. 21. Mandate the reduction of wastewater discharges to the ocean absent inclusion of funding to offset the significant costs of implementation. 22. Authorize local governmental agencies to regulate the discharge of contaminants to the sewer collection system that may adversely affect water recycling and reuse. 23. Authorize and facilitate expanded use of local water resources including water recycling, potable reuse, graywater, and rainwater harvesting (e.g., cisterns and rain barrels), and brackish groundwater. 24. Streamline regulatory processes and requirements to encourage and support the development of potable reuse and non-potable reuse as a municipal water supply. 25. Recognize the entire interconnected urban water cycle, as well as public health and safety, must be taken into consideration in long-term water use efficiency policies, particularly including the unintended consequences of declining flows on water, wastewater, potable reuse, and recycled water systems. 26. Encourage dual plumbing in new development where non-potable recycled water is likely to available to enable utilization of recycled water. 27. Promote uniform regulatory interpretation of state recycled water system standards. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 21 | P a g e 28. Support beneficial revisions to the California Plumbing Code that facilitate recycled water systems. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Restrict use of recycled water for groundwater recharge. 2. Establish new water or recycled water fees solely to recover State costs without also providing some benefit. 3. Limit the ability of local governmental agencies to regulate the discharge of contaminants to the sewer collection system that may adversely affect water recycling and reuse. 4. Establish unreasonable regulatory requirements or fees to the safe use of recycled water, which may unreasonably impede or create a disincentive to its further development. 5. Mandate the reduction of wastewater discharges to the ocean absent inclusion of funding to offset the significant costs of implementation. 6. Water use efficiency standards (AB 1668), which do not reflect the impact that higher TDS recycled water has on the usage rates to reduce salt loading in areas of use. XIII. Water Services and Facilities Support initiatives that: 1. Provide funding to implement actions identified in the California Water Action Plan to lay a solid fiscal foundation for implementing near-term actions, including funding for water efficiency projects, wetland and watershed restoration, groundwater programs, conservation, flood control, and integrated water management and result in a reliable supply of high-quality water for the San Diego region. 2. Provide financial support to projects designed to mitigate the potential negative impacts of Global Climate Change on water supply reliability. 3.2.Promote the coordination and integration of local, state, and federal climate change policies and practices to the greatest extent feasible. 4.3.Fund or otherwise facilitate ongoing implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement. 5.4.Provide reliable water supplies to meet California’s short and long-term needs. 6.5.Promote desalination pilot studies and projects. 7.6.Encourage feasibility studies of water resource initiatives. 8.7.Increase funding for infrastructure and grant programs for construction, modernization or expansion of water, wastewater treatment, reclamation facilities and sewer systems including water recycling, groundwater recovery and recharge, surface water development projects and seawater desalination. 9.8.Fund enhancements to water treatment, recycling, and other facilities to meet increased regulations. 10.9. Mandate uniform or similar regulations and procedures by state agencies in the processing and administering of grants and programs. 11.10. Streamline grant application procedures. 12.11. Reduce regulations and other impediments for willing sellers and buyers to engage in water transfer agreements. 13.12. Promote or assist voluntary water transfers between willing buyers and willing sellers and move those transactions through without delay. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 22 | P a g e 14.13. Streamline the permitting and approval process for desalination and other water- related facilities and implementing water transfers that will improve water management. 15.14. Establish reasonable statewide approaches to sewer reporting standards. 16.15. Generate greater efficiencies, better coordinate program delivery, and eliminate duplication in programs for source water protection without lessening the focus on public health of the state’s Drinking Water Program. 17.16. Target efforts to fix specific issues with water supplies within the state’s Drinking Water Program. 18.17. Establish federal tax incentives to support U.S. companies in the development of new desalination technologies that can lower productions costs, eliminate or reduce impingement or entrainment, reduce energy use, and enhance public acceptance of desalinated water. 19.18. Establish a comprehensive national research and development, and technology demonstration program to advance the scientific understanding of desalination to expand its use as an alternative source of water supply. 20.19. Require the State Water Resources Control Board to exercise its authority, ensure robust funding, and implement the Salton Sea mitigation and restoration plan, meet state obligations, and work with QSA stakeholders to find workable solutions to ensure the continuation of IID water transfers. 21.20. Support solutions to water supply issues that address common challenges, provide a comprehensive approach that is fair to all users, balance the needs of urban and rural communities, and take into consideration the interests of all stakeholders as well as the impact to the environment. 22.21. Further refine emergency drought regulations to eliminate a cap on credits and adjustments so as not to impose undue burden, financial or otherwise, on communities that have already invested in water conservation, development of new water sources, storage, or loss prevention. 23.22. Provide funding for water infrastructure development, infrastructure security, and rehabilitation and replacement projects that benefit ratepayers. 24.23. Provide funding for habitat preservation programs that address impacts resulting from construction or operation of water system facilities. 25.24. Provide funding for projects that enhance security against terrorist acts or other criminal threats to water operation, services, facilities, or supplies. 26.25. Provide incentives that encourage contractors to recycle or reduce waste associated with construction of water facilities. 27.26. Improve the local agencies’ efforts to maintain and protect its property, rights of way, easements, pipelines, and related facilities and minimizes liability to local agencies and the District. 28.27. Protect the local agencies’ properties from restrictions when surrounding properties are incorporated into preservation areas. 29.28. Encourage the use of current and emerging technologies for monitoring and assessing the condition of large diameter pipelines. 30.29. Encourage water supplier to develop and execute asset management programs that include visual inspections, internal/external inspections, asset condition assessments, corrosion mitigation, and reis analysis in a manner that recognizes the individuality and uniqueness of each water supplier and its systems. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 23 | P a g e 31.30. Improve the District’s efforts to maintain and protect its property, rights of way, easements, pipelines, and related facilities and minimizes liability to the District. 32.31. Protect the District, other agencies and the Water Authority properties from restrictions when surrounding properties are incorporated into preservation areas. 33.32. Provide funding to water agencies for the voluntary retrofit of facilities for on-site generation of chlorine. 34.33. Provide funding for water supplier asset management programs that involve the active monitoring, repair, or replacement of physical assets and infrastructure, which includes pipes, valves, facilities, equipment, and other infrastructure. 35.34. Provide for restrictions on price gouging during public safety power shutoff events and for at least 72 hours following restoration of power. 36.35. Provide that de-energization or public safety power shutoff events may be included as a condition constituting a state of emergency or local emergency. 37.36. Provide a tax emption for the sale of, or storage, use, or consumption of, a backup electrical resources, that is purchased for exclusive use by a city, county, special district, or other entity of local government during a de-energization or public safety power shutoff event. 38.37. State that the use of alternative power sources (such as generators) by essential public services during de-energization or public safety power shutoff events shall not be limited by any state or local regulations or rules. 39.38. Recognize the critical role the District, local agencies, and the Water Authority play as Public Safety Partners in Public Safety Power Shutoff events and other natural or man-made disasters. Further recognizes the importance of the agency’s ability to provide immediate and sustained response for extended periods of time. 40.39. Provide financial support to local projects designed to mitigate or adapt to potential negative impacts of climate change on water supply reliability. 41.40. Investigate and provide financial support to projects designed to mitigate potential negative impacts of climate change on water supply reliability. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Restrict local control and discretions over water facilities, asset management, and facility operations. 2. Make urban water supplies less reliable or substantially increase the cost of imported water without also improving the reliability and/or quality of the water. 3. Create unrealistic or costly water testing or reporting protocol. 4. Disproportionately apportion the cost of water. 5. Create undo hurtles for seawater desalination projects. 6. Create unreasonable or confusing sewer reporting standards. 7. Create administrative or other barriers to sales between willing buyers and willing sellers that delay water transfers. 8. Create a broad-based user fee that does not support a specific local program activity or benefit; any fee must provide a clear nexus to the benefit local ratepayers or local water supplies from the establishment that charge or fee would provide. 9. Create unrealistic or costly to obtain water quality standards for potable water, recycled water, or storm water runoff. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 24 | P a g e 10. Change the focus of the state’s Drinking Water Program or weaken the parts of the program that work well. 11. Lessen the focus on public health of the state’s Drinking Water Program. 12. Impose undue burden, financial or otherwise, on communities that have already invested in water conservation, development of new water sources, storage, or loss prevention. 13. Impose additional mitigation costs or obligations for the Salton Sea on the non-state parties to the Quantification Settlement Agreement. 14. Impair the District and other local water agencies’ ability to provide and operate the necessary facilities for a safe, reliable, and operational flexible water system. 15. Limit local agencies’ sole jurisdiction over planning, design, routing, approval, construction, operation, or maintenance of water facilities. 16. Restrict local agencies’ ability to respond swiftly and decisively to an emergency that threatens to disrupt water deliveries or restricts the draining of pipelines or other facilities in emergencies for repairs or preventive maintenance. 17. Authorize state and federal wildlife agencies to control, prevent, or eradicate invasive species in a way that excessively interferes with the operations of water supplies. 18. Prohibit or in any way limit the ability of local agencies from making full beneficial use of any water, wastewater, or recycling facility and resource investments. 19. Prohibit the use of alternative contract procurement methods that can be utilized in the construction of water facilities. 20. Shift the risks of indemnity for damages and defense of claims from contractors to the District. 21. Impair local agencies’ efforts to acquire property or property interests required for essential capital improvement projects or acquisition of property to meet pipeline water drain-down needs for existing facilities. 22. Increase the cost of property and right of way acquisition. 23. Restrict the District’s use of public rights of way or increase the cost of using public rights of way. 24. Restrict the transfer of property acquired for purposes of environmental mitigation or environmental mitigation credits to other public or private entities for long-term management. 25. Establish prescriptive leak loss control requirements for the operation, maintenance, and asset management of water conveyance and distribution systems, that fail to consider full life-cycle costing. 26. Establish meter testing requirements for source water meters that fail to consider industry standards and cost-effectiveness. 27. Limit the discretion of the District from protecting security and privacy of comprehensive inventories of all assets, which includes infrastructure location, condition, performance, and useful life. 28. Impair local agencies’ ability to execute the planning, design, and construction of projects using its own employees. 29. Limit the autonomy of discretion of water supplier to develop and execute asset management inspection programs that include visual inspections, internal/external inspections, asset condition assessments, and corrosion mitigation in a manner that recognizes the individuality and uniqueness of each water supplier and its systems. 30. Authorize air quality management districts or other regulatory bodies to adopt or maintain rules that would limit or prohibit a local government entity’s use of a state and/or federally Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 25 | P a g e complaint natural gas-powered generator during a de-energization or public safety power shutoff event. 31. Through the CARB Advanced Clean Fleet regulation, wWould inhibit the District from fulfilling its critical role as a Public Safety Partner and making immediate and sustained response in a Public Safety Power Shutoff event or and other natural or man-made disasters, such as the CARB Advanced Clean Fleet regulation. 32. Through the CARB Advanced Clean Fleet regulation, wWould inhibit the District from fulfilling its critical role as an essential service provider from procuring and operating fleets which meet the needs to perform routine and emergency maintenance of water and wastewater systems, such as the CARB Advanced Clean Fleet regulation. 33. Require incorporation of climate change considerations into regional and local water management planning that does not provide flexibility to the local and regional water agencies in determining the climate change impact and identification of adaptation and mitigation measures. 34. Impose top-down “one-size-fits-all” climate change mandates that fail to account for hydrological, meteorological, economic, and social variation across the state and/or that fail to incorporate local and regional planning and implementation priorities and protocols. XIV. Water-Use Efficiency Support initiatives that: 1. Provide funding for incentives for water-use efficiency and water conservation programs including water-efficient devices, practices and demonstration projects and studies. 2. Encourage the installation of water-efficient fixtures in new and existing buildings. 3. Promote the environmental benefits of water-use efficiency and water conservation. 4. Enhance efforts to promote water-use efficiency awareness. 5. Offer incentives for landscape water-efficient devices including, but not limited to ET controllers and soil moisture sensors. 6. Develop landscape retrofit incentive programs and/or irrigation retrofit incentive programs. 7. Permit or require local agencies to adopt ordinances that require or promote water-efficient landscapes for commercial and residential developments. 8. Create tax incentives for citizens or developers who install water-efficient landscapes. 9. Create tax incentives for citizens who purchase high-efficiency clothes washers, dual-flush and high-efficiency toilets, and irrigation controllers above the state standards. 10. Expand community-based water-use efficiency and education programs. 11. Facilitate and encourage the use of rainwater-capture systems, i.e., rain barrels, cisterns, etc. and alternative water sources, i.e., air conditioner condensate for use in irrigation. 12. Develop incentives for developers and existing customers to install water-efficient landscape in existing developments or new construction. 13. Encourage large state users to save water by implementing water-efficient technologies in all facilities both new and retrofit. 14. Encourage large state water users to save water outdoors. 15. Educate all Californians on the importance of water, and the need to conserve, manage, and plan for the future needs. 16. Encourage technological research targeted to more efficient water use. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 26 | P a g e 17. Give local agencies maximum discretion in selecting water-use efficiency and conservation programs that work for their customers and the communities they serve. 18. Require the Department of Water Resources to implement a uniform statewide turf rebate subsidy or incentive program. 19. Restrict Property Owner Associations from forbidding the use of California native plants, other low water use plants, mulch, artificial turf, or semi-permeable materials in well- maintained landscapes. 20. Restrict Property Owner Associations from forbidding retrofits of multiple unit facilities for the purpose of submetering, if feasible. 21. Ensure plumbing codes and standards that facilitate the installation and/or retrofit of water efficient devices. 22. Establish standards for the utilization of high-efficiency commercial coin-operated and residential clothes washers. 23. Provides for federal tax-exempt status for water-use efficiency rebates, consistent with income tax treatment at the state level. 24. Encourage the use of graywater where it complies with local guidelines and regulations and is cost-effective. 25. Provide incentives, funding, and assistance to water agencies so that they can meet the water demand management measure requirements in the Urban Water Management Planning Act. 26. Provide incentives, funding, and other assistance to facilitate water-use efficiency partnerships with the energy efficiency sector. 27. Provide incentives, funding, and other assistance where needed to facilitate market transformation and gain wider implementation of water efficient indoor and outdoor technologies and practices. 28. Recognize local control in determining water use efficiency criteria, such as impact of recycled water salinity on irrigation use and efficiency for the application of non-potable recycled water. 29. Encourage reasonable tracking of water use and improved efficiency in the Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) sector. 30. Recognize local control in determining how to meet an overall efficient water use goal, based on the combined efficient indoor use, outdoor use, and leak loss, as established under the criteria provided for in statute. 31. Further the statewide goal of a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2020 as set forth in SBX7-7, enacted in November 2009, and preserves water agency discretion and options for achieving this objective. 32. Ensure accurate and meaningful reporting of implementation of water-use efficiency and conservation measures. 33. Promote statewide implementation of water-use efficiency best management practices and demand management measures as defined in the Urban Water Management Planning Act. Oppose efforts that: 1. Weaken federal or state water-efficiency standards. 2. Introduce additional analytical and reporting requirements that are time-consuming for local agencies to perform and result in additional costs to consumers yet yield no water savings. 3. Permit Property Owners Associations to restrict low water use plants, mulch, artificial turf, or semi-permeable materials in landscaping. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 27 | P a g e 4. Repeal cost-effective efficiency standards for water-using devices. 5. Repeal cost-effective efficiency standards for water-using devices. 6. Create stranded assets by establishing long-term demand management water-use efficiency and water supply requirements that are inconsistent with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. 7. Prescribe statewide mandatory urban and agricultural water-use efficiency practices, including, but not limited to, methods, measures, programs, budget allocation, and designation of staff dedicated to water conservation programs, that override the authority of the boards of directors of local water agencies to adopt management practices that are most appropriate for the specific needs of their water agencies. 8. Mandate regulation of the CII Sector in a manner that is discriminatory, or sets unachievable Best Management Practices or compliance targets, or would otherwise impair economic activity or the viability of the CII sector. 9. Mandate that water agencies include an embedded energy calculation for their water supply sources in the Urban Water Management Plan or any other water resource planning or master planning document. XV. Workforce Development Support initiatives that: 1. Advocate for local, regional, and state programs that support a high-performing workforce and increase the talent pool for water agencies. 2. Advocate for military veterans in the water industry workforce to ensure that veterans receive appropriate and satisfactory credit towards water and wastewater treatment system certifications in California for work experience, education, and knowledge gained in military service. 3. Lower employment barriers for military veterans and transitioning military and that sustain vital water and wastewater services for the next generation. 4. Recruit and support veterans and transitioning military through internships, cooperative work experiences, and other resources. 5. Recruit and support underserved communities in the water industry through internships, cooperative work experiences, and other resources. 6. Advocate and encourage candidate outreach and recruitment in relation to mission-critical job categories in water and wastewater. 7. Ensure advanced water treatment operators and distribution system operators of potable reuse and recycled water facilities have a career advancement path as certified water and/or wastewater treatment plant operators. 8. Increase the number of educational institutions that provide water-industry related training and related program criteria including but not limited to trades, certifications, and degrees. 9. Increase the talent pool of future water industry workers through educational programs, internships, and other resources. 10. Provide funding to educational institutions, water agencies, and workforce students regarding careers in the water industry. Otay Water District Legislative Program 20222023 28 | P a g e 11. Develop qualified candidates for positions in the water industry. 12. Build awareness of water industry-related jobs through student outreach including but not limited to K-12, community colleges, universities, and other educational institutions as well as outreach to the public. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Hinder military veterans from using previous experience, education, and knowledge toward a career in water. 2. Regulate agencies from hiring an experienced, educated, and talented water-industry workforce. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 1 | Page Effective Date: 04/05/2023 Legislative Program Policy Guidelines Purpose The Otay Water District’s 2023 legislative policy guidelines provide direction to staff and the District’s legislative advocates when they evaluate proposed legislation that may affect the District, other local water agencies, or regional water management and use. Legislation that meets or fails to meet, the principles set forth in the guidelines may be supported or opposed accordingly. The guidelines permit the General Manager, District staff, and the District’s legislative advocates to act in a timely fashion between Board meetings on issues that are clearly within the guidelines. While the title of this document suggests these policy guidelines are applicable solely to state and federal legislative issues reviewed by the District and its wholesale supplier the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), increasingly state and federal regulatory and administrative bodies are developing rules, guidelines, white papers, and regulations that can significantly affect the District, its wholesale supplier, and other local water agencies. District staff, including the District’s legislative consultant, often utilize these Legislative Policy Guidelines to provide guidance on emerging and active regulatory and administrative issues. Legislation that does not meet the principles set forth in the guidelines or that has potentially complicated or varied implications will not be acted upon by staff or the legislative advocates in between Board meetings and will instead be presented to the Board directly for guidance in advance of any position being taken. The Water Authority has its own set of legislative guidelines that is a comprehensive program at a wholesale and regional level. District staff has evaluated and selected policies and issues from the Water Authority’s guidelines that may have a direct impact on the District. These policies and issues have been incorporated into the District’s guidelines. Although the District is a retail agency and is focused on its local service area, if there are issues or polices contained in the Water Authority’s Legislative Policy Guidelines that could benefit or impact the District, the General Manager, District staff, and the District’s legislative advocates may act on those issues, respectively. Attachment B Update (Minutes) Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 2 | Page Table of Contents The Otay Water Legislative Policy Program Guidelines for 2023 includes the following categories: I. Binational Issues…………………………………………....……………... Page 3 II. Biological and Habitat Preservation…………………………………….. Page 3 III. Desalination……………………………………………………………….. Page 4 IV. Drought Response………………………………………………………… Page 4 V. Energy……………………………………………………………………… Page 5 VI. Financial Issues…………………………………………………………… Page 6 A. Fees, Taxes, and Charges………………………….......................... Page 6 B. Funding…………………………………………………………….. Page 8 C. Rates………………………………………………………………... Page 10 D. Water Bonds……………………………………………………….. Page 10 E. Affordability……………………………………………………. Page 11 VII. Governance and Local Autonomy……………………………………….. Page 12 VIII. Imported Water Issues……………………………………………………. Page 14 A. Bay-Delta……………………………………………………………… Page 14 i. Co-equal Goals……………………………………………………. Page 14 ii. Bay-Delta Conveyance Project…………………………………… Page 14 B. Metropolitan Water District…………………………………………… Page 15 C. Colorado River………………………………………………………… Page 15 D. State Water Project…………………………………………………….. Page 16 IX. Optimize District Effectiveness……………………...…………....………. Page 17 X. Safety, Security, and Information Technology……………....................... Page 17 XI. Water Quality Issues………………………………………………………. Page 18 XII. Water Recycling and Potable Reuse……………………………………… Page 19 XIII. Water Service and Facilities……………………………………………… Page 21 XIV. Water-Use Efficiency……………………………………………………… Page 25 XV. Workforce Development………………………………………………….. Page 27 Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 3 | Page I. Binational Issues Support initiatives that: 1. Promote and provide funding for cross-border water supply and infrastructure development projects to serve the San Diego/Baja California border region while protecting local interests. 2. Encourage enhanced cooperation between entities in San Diego and Baja California in development of supply and infrastructure projects that will benefit the entire border region. 3. Encourage state and federal funding to support collaborative binational projects to improve water quality and protect human health and the environment within the broader San Diego region. 4. Develop and enhance communications and understanding of the interdependence of communities on both sides of the border with the goal of improved cross-border cooperation. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Would usurp local control over the financing and construction of water supply and infrastructure projects in the San Diego/Baja California region. II. Biological and Habitat Preservation Support initiatives that: 1. Support development of comprehensive multispecies habitat conservation plants that anticipate and mitigate project development impacts while preserving representative ecosystems, rather than individual species. 2. Exempt operation, maintenance, and repair of water system facilities from endangered species and other habitat conservation regulations because they provide beneficial cyclical habitat values to declining species and foster biological diversity in California. 3. Provide environmental regulatory certainty for implementation of existing and proposed long-term water supply programs. 4. Streamline filing of CEQA notices of determination for multicounty water projects by making those notices available on the CEQAnet website through the Governor’s office of Planning and Research. 5. Incorporate an emergency exemption for “take” of a listed species listed under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts when necessary to mitigate or prevent loss of or damage to life, health, property, or essential public services. 6. Encourage species listings, critical habitat designation, and recovery plans developed pursuant to the state or federal Endangered Species Acts to be consistent with existing interstate compacts, tribal treaties, and other state and federal agreements. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Reduce or limit the use of existing water rights or supplies, 2. Restrict the development of future water supplies. 3. Impose endangered species or habitat conservation requirements that restrict the operation, maintenance, or repair of public water supply, conveyance, treatment, or storage facilities. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 4 | Page III. Desalination Support initiatives that: 1. Provide funding for seawater desalination studies and facilities. 2. Recognize and support the development of seawater desalination as critical new water supply for the state, including San Diego County. 3. Streamline permitting of desalination facilities. 4. Preserve and protects potential seawater desalination sites and existing coastal facilities including intake and discharge infrastructure that could be used or reused by a seawater desalination facility. 5. Ensure that desalination intake and discharge regulations are science-based, considering site-specific conditions, and recognizing that not all technologies or mitigation strategies are feasible or cost-effective at every site. IV. Drought Response Support initiatives that: 1. Ensure the District and other local agencies including the Water Authority and San Diego County water agencies receive the water supply benefits of investments in local water supply sources. 2. Allow local agencies to achieve compliance with emergency or nonemergency drought regulations or objectives through a combination of water conservation measures and development and implementation of local water supply sources that are not derived from the Delta. 3. Allow for local agencies to account for all water supplies available during droughts and other events when calculating the water supply shortage level. 4. Create a process for development and implementation of emergency drought declarations and regulations that recognizes variations among communities, regions, and counties with respect to their abilities to withstand the impacts and effects of drought. 5. Recognize variations among communities, regions, and counties with respect to their abilities to withstand the impacts and effects of droughts and ensure that any temporary or permanent statutory or regulatory direction for improving water-use efficiency to meet statutory or regulatory goals or standards is focused on regional achievement of objectives rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Disincentivize or impede water agencies from making investments to maximize the potential for recycled water, potable reuse, desalination, and other drought-resilient local water supplies. 2. Create a “one-size-fits-all” approach to emergency drought declarations and regulations that ignores variations among communities, regions, and counties with respect to their ability to withstand the impacts and effects of drought. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 5 | Page V. Energy Support initiatives that: 1. Provide opportunities for reduced energy rates under tariff schedules for the District and other local water agencies. 2. Provide protection to the District and other local water agencies from energy rate increases and provides rate relief for the District and water agencies. 3. Provide funding, including state and federal grants, for in-line hydro-electric, solar, wind, battery storage, biogas, cogeneration, nanogrids, microgrids, closed-loop pumped storage facilities, and other renewable energy generation or storage technology as means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy cost. 4. Promote funding for use of renewable energy in the operation of District facilities. 5. Prohibit investor-owned utilities from implementing rate changes that undercut the financial viability of renewable energy facilities obligated under long-term Power Purchase Agreements. 6. Provide greater flexibility in the utilization of the District’s facilities for generation and acquisition of electrical and natural gas power. 7. Provide the District with greater flexibility in the licensing, permitting, interconnection, construction, and the operation of its existing and potential in-line hydroelectric, solar, wind, battery, nanogrid, microgrid, closed-loop pumped-energy storage projects, and other renewable generation or storage technology. 8. Make SWP power available for all water projects. 9. Promote the classification of electricity generated by in-line hydroelectric and closed-loop pumped-energy storage facilities as environmentally sound. 10. Promote the expansion of closed-loop pumped-energy storage facilities to provide clean and environmentally sound energy resource that provides electric and reliability and resiliency, especially during times of potential blackouts. 11. Promote the expansion of in-line hydroelectric energy recovery systems at treatment facility discharge systems. 12. Promote the production, purchase, delivery, and use of alternative sources of energy on a wholesale basis. 13. Provide clear statutory, regulatory, or administrative authority for the Water Authority to wheel acquired or produced power to itself, the District, or entities with which the Water Authority is under contract for the purchase, treatment, transport, or production of water. 14. Recognize and monetize all grid ancillary services that pumped hydro-energy storage provides and supports fair compensation in the wholesale energy market for such services. 15. Provides timely, efficient, and cost-effective interconnection of new energy resources such as solar, inline hydroelectric, pumped-energy storage, and other renewable energy generation or storage technologies to the electric distribution and transmission grid. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 6 | Page 16. Recognize the value of large-scale hydropower and pumped-energy storage facilities in assisting the state to meet its renewable and zero-carbon emission goals of 100 percent by 2045. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Adversely affect the cost of energy needed to operate MWD’s facilities, SWP facilities, or the facilities of the Water Authority and the District. 2. Impose greenhouse gas reduction obligations on a public water agency for electricity purchased or produced for the sole purpose of operating its system. 3. Adversely affect the ability of the District or other water agencies in the county to own, operate, and/or construct work for supplying its own facilities with natural gas and electricity. 4. Impede the District or other water agencies in the county, the ability to contract for, deliver, and use natural gas or electricity purchased from the United States, the State of California, and any other public agency or private entity and provide, sell, exchange, or deliver the gas or electricity to itself, any public agency or private entity. 5. Reduce the District’s ability to always maintain high operational efficiency. 6. Restrict the District’s ability to expand or improve infrastructure or facilities. 7. Restrict or caps future energy demands needed for possible expansion of recycled water, potable reuse, and/or desalination projects. 8. Adversely affect the District’s ability to expand cogeneration or polygeneration at planned or existing facilities. 9. Inhibit the scientific advancement of energy and water efficient/conserving technologies that may be implemented at the District or other agency facilities. 10. Prevent the District from enhancing energy reliability and independence for its facilities. 11. Do not count or credit qualified renewable energy projects toward accomplishment and satisfaction of the California Renewables Portfolio Standard objectives. 12. Prohibit the Water Authority from wheeling - or securing statutory, regulatory, or administrative authority necessary to wheel - acquired or produced power to itself, the District, or other entities with which the Water Authority is under contract of the purchase, treatment, transport, or production of water. 13. Result in a lengthy, more complicated, or more costly interconnection of new energy resources, such as solar, inline-hydroelectric, pumped-energy storage, and other renewable energy generation or storage technologies to the electric distribution and transmission grid. VI. Financial Issues A. Fees, Taxes, and Charges Support initiatives that: 1. Require the federal government and State of California to reimburse special districts for all mandated costs or regulatory actions. 2. Give special districts the discretion to cease performance of unfunded mandates. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 7 | Page 3. Provide for fiscal reform to enhance the equity, reliability, and certainty of special district funding. 4. Provide incentives for local agencies to work cooperatively, share costs or resources. 5. Provide for the stable, equitable and reliable allocation of property taxes. 6. Continue to reform workers compensation. 7. Promote competition in insurance underwriting for public agencies. 8. Produce tangible results, such as water supply reliability or water quality improvement. 9. Require the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to refund or credit to its member agencies revenues collected from them that result in reserve balances greater than the maximum reserve levels established pursuant to state legislation. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Impose mandated costs or regulatory constraints on local agencies and their customers without providing subventions to reimburse local agencies for such costs. 2. Pre-empt the District or local water agencies’ ability to impose or change rates, charges, fees, or assessments. 3. Weaken the protections afforded the District, the Water Authority or other local water agencies under California’s Proposition 1A (November 2, 2004). 4. Reallocate special districts reserves to balance the state budget. 5. Reallocate special district revenues or reserves to fund infrastructure improvements or other activities in cities or counties. 6. Establish funding mechanisms that put undue burdens on local agencies or make local agencies de facto tax collectors for the state. 7. Adversely affect the cost of gas and electricity or reduce an organization’s flexibility to take advantage of low peak cost periods. 8. Add new reporting criteria, burdensome, unnecessary, or costly reporting mandates to Urban Water Management Plans. 9. Add new mandates to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to review and approve Urban Water Management Plans beyond those already addressed in DWR guidelines. 10. Mandate that water agencies include an embedded energy calculation for their water supply sources in Urban Water Management Plans or any other water resources planning or master-planning document. 11. Weaken existing project retention and withholding provisions that limit the ability of public agencies to drive contractor performance. 12. Establish change order requirements that place an unreasonable burden on local agencies, or raise financial risk associated with public works contracts. 13. Impair the Water Authority or its member agencies’ ability to provide reasonable service at reasonable costs to member agencies or to charge all member agencies the same rate for each class of service consistent with cost-of-service requirements of the law. 14. Impair the local water agencies’ ability to maintain reasonable reserve funds and obtain and retain reasonable rates of return on its reserve accounts. 15. Mandate a specific rate structure for retail water agencies. 16. Impose a water user fee on water agencies or water users that does not provide a commensurate and directly linked benefit in the local area or region from which the water user fee is collected. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 8 | Page 17. Impose a water user fee for statewide projects or programs, for which the projects or programs are not clearly defined, the beneficiaries identified, and reasonable costs identified. 18. Impose a water user fee to create a state fund that can be used to finance undefined future projects and programs. 19. Allow the state to retain more than five percent of water user fees for administrative costs. 20. Do not restrict the use of water user fees to only the specific purposes for which they are imposed, without any possibility of diversion to meet other fiscal needs of the state. 21. Impose a “public goods charge” or “water tax” on public water agencies or their ratepayers. 22. Impose a fee on water users to repay the principal and interest on a statewide general obligation bond. 23. Establish regulatory or permit fees that lack a nexus to the costs of oversight. 24. Establish a broad-based user fee that does not support a specific program activity; any fee must provide a clear nexus to the benefit the fee would provide. B. Funding Support initiatives that: 1. Require the federal and state governments to provide subvention to reimburse local governments for all mandated costs or regulatory actions. 2. Provide the District, the Water Authority, and other local water agencies with additional forms of cost-effective financing for public facilities. 3. Revitalize the Title XVI federal funding program by converting new authorizations to a competitive grant program with congressional oversight while protecting existing Title XVI authorizations for the San Diego region. 4. Provide the District, Water Authority, and local water agencies with grant funding for public facilities, including developing local water resources and rehabilitation and repair of aging infrastructure, such as pipelines. 5. Provide the District, other local water agencies, and water ratepayers with post-COVID-19 financial relief through a variety of means, including but not limited to, direct financial assistance and flexibility in debt management to assist water ratepayers and water suppliers. 6. Authorize financing of water quality, water security, and water supply infrastructure improvement programs. 7. Establish spending caps on State of California overhead when administering voter approved grant and disbursement programs. 8. Require disbursement decisions in a manner appropriate to the service in question. 9. Encourage funding infrastructure programs that are currently in place and that have been proven effective. 10. Provide financial incentives for energy projects that increase reliability, diversity, and reduce greenhouse gasses. 11. Continue energy rate incentives for the utilization of electricity during low-peak periods. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 9 | Page 12. Provide loan or grant programs that encourage water conservation for water users who are least able to pay for capital projects. 13. Provide for population-based distribution of IRWM funds to ensure adequate distribution of grant funding throughout the state. 14. Provide for the use of state grant funds for binational projects where the projects benefit water supply or water quality in the San Diego region. 15. Improve and streamline the state’s reimbursement process to ensure timely remittance of IRWM funds. 16. Promote the ability of the Regional Water Management Group to administer state grant funds specifically identified more directly for IRWM Programs. 17. Require the state to rely on the local process for selection and ranking of projects included in an approved IRWM plan. 18. Provide funding or other incentives for conservation, peak management programs, water recycling, potable reuse, groundwater recovery and recharge, surface water development and management projects, including reservoir management, source water protection and watershed planning studies and facilities that sustain long-term reliable water resources. 19. Provide financial incentives to assist in the disposal of concentrate, sludge, and other byproducts created in the water treatment process. 20. Authorize, promote, and provide incentives or credits for development of local drought-resilient water supply projects such as desalination, non-potable recycling, and potable reuse projects. 21. Provide funding for potable reuse demonstration projects and studies. 22. Provide funding for infrastructure improvements at desalination facilities with eligibility for public and private partnerships. 23. Authorize federal and state funding to develop and implement regional or subregional conservation programs, including but not limited to property acquisition, revegetation programs, and watershed plans. 24. Provide state and/or federal funding for the restoration of the Salton Sea. 25. Provide federal and/or state funding to implement actions that address the ecological and water supply management issues of the Lower Colorado River from Lee's Ferry to the southerly international border with Mexico. 26. Provide federal and/or state funding to implement actions that address the ecological and water supply management issues of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. 27. Permit the use of grant funding for projects implemented under public-private partnerships where the grant provides funding for a public benefit. 28. Require the state agencies responsible for preparing the IRWM grant program guidelines to conduct a comprehensive public outreach process that ensures stakeholders have an opportunity to provide adequate input on preparation of the guidelines and that the state agencies consider and respond to comments received through the outreach process. 29. Provide incentive, funding, and assistance to water agencies so that they can comply with AB 32 (2006) requirements, and updated statutory requirements imposed pursuant to SB 32 (2016), SB 100 (2018), and SB 1020 (2022). Oppose initiatives that: Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 10 | Page 1. Impose additional administrative requirements and/or restrict the District’s, Water Authority’s, or other local water agencies’ ability to finance public facilities through the issuance of long-term debt. 2. Interfere with the responsibility of a region, operating under an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, for setting priorities and generating projects to be paid from any IRWM accounts and grants. 3. Interfere with the control exercised by the San Diego funding subregion over the use and expenditure of any water-user fee revenues that may be dedicated to the region. 4. Establish IRWM funding criteria that limits local discretion in project selection. 5. Provide for after-the-fact reduction in quantity or quality of a public water supply due to new restrictions on the operation or use of water supply facilities unless funding for alternate sources of water is provided. 6. Impose a "utility user fee" or "surcharge" on water for the purposes of financing open space/habitat preservation, restoration, or creation. C. Rates Support initiatives that: 1. Maintain the authority of water agencies to establish water rates locally, consistent with cost-of-service requirements of the law. 2. Maximize the ability of water agencies to design rate structures to meet local water supply goals and that conform to cost-of-service requirements of the law. 3. Encourage and promote education to elected officials, community/business leaders, organizations, and the public about water sales and conservation and the District and its wholesaler’s rates and what those rates support including but not limited to infrastructure, asset management, operations, maintenance, water reliability, and more. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Impair the District’s, the Water Authority’s, or local water agencies’ ability to provide reliable service at reasonable costs to member agencies or to charge all member agencies the same or similar rate for each class of service consistent with cost-of-service requirements of the law. 2. Undermine or weaken cost-of-service rate-making requirements in existing law. 3. Impair the District’s ability to maintain reasonable reserve funds and obtain and retain reasonable rates of return on its reserve accounts. 4. Mandate a specific rate structure for retail water agencies. 5. Prescribe mandatory conservation-based rate structures that override the authority of the boards of directors of local water agencies to set rate structures according to the specific needs of the water agencies. 6. Usurp special district funds, reserves, or other state actions that force special districts to raise rates, fees, or charges. D. Water Bonds Support initiatives that: Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 11 | Page 1. Provide an equitable share of funding to San Diego County, with major funding categories being divided by county and funded on a per-capita basis to ensure bond proceeds are distributed throughout the state in proportion to taxpayers’ payments on the bonds. 2. Focus on statewide priorities, including restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, construction of an improved method of conveyance of water through or around the Delta that provides water supply reliability to Delta water users, promotion of greater regional and local self-sufficiency, surface storage, and promotion of water-use efficiency. 3. Ensure funding from various propositions for local and regional water-related projects. 4. Include within IRWM funding money that a region may use over time to develop and refine its plan and to develop institutional structures necessary to establish and implement the plan. 5. Give primary consideration to funding priorities established by local and regional entities through their IRWM planning process. 6. Ensure the application process for funding is not unnecessarily burdensome and costly, with an emphasis on streamlining the process. 7. Limit state overhead to no more than five percent of bond funding amounts. 8. Place as much emphasis and provides at least as much funding for surface storage as for groundwater storage. 9. Define the “San Diego sub-region” and “San Diego county watersheds” as “those portions of the westward-flowing watershed of the South Coast hydrologic region situated within the boundaries of San Diego County.” 10. Fund emergency and carryover storage projects. 11. Consolidate administration of all voter-approved water-related bond funding in one place, preserves existing expertise within the state bureaucracy to manage bond-funding processes, and provide consistent application and evaluation of bond funding applications. 12. Provide the state’s share of funding for projects that advance the achievement of the co-equal goals of water supply reliability and Delta ecosystem restoration. 13. Provide funding for water infrastructure that resolve conflicts in the state’s water system and provide long-term benefits to statewide issues including water supply, reliability, water quality, and ecosystem restoration. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Do not provide an equitable share of funding to San Diego County based on the San Diego County taxpayers’ proportional contribution to repayment of the bonds. 2. Do not provide funding for infrastructure that resolves statewide or regional conflicts of water supplies. 3. Do not provide funding that result in net increases in real water supply and water supply reliability. 4. Commit a significant portion of bond funding to projects that do not result in net increases in real water supply or water supply reliability. E. Affordability Support initiatives that: 1. Abides by the Human Right to Water (AB 685, 2012) as set forth in Section 106.3 of the California Water Code which reads that, “every human being has the right to safe, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 12 | Page purposes.” The State Water Resources Control Board also has a resolution supporting this program. 2. Meets the required standards under Proposition 218 in the California Constitution regarding proportionality of water rates and the cost-of-service provisions. 3. Relies on data-driven analysis of water affordability, including considerations such as census data and economically-disadvantaged communities. As such, the District supports the continued implementation of AB 2334 (2012) that requires the Department of Water Resources to provide this analysis and place it in California’s Water Plan. 4. Supports the creation of a low-income water rate assistance program that targets providing financial assistance to low-income ratepayers using existing resources within either the state General Fund or cap-and-trade dollars. 5. Does not burden water districts with excessive or overly prescriptive state mandates including the collection of water taxes or water rate and boundary data, and qualification of customers for low-income assistance programs. 6. Supports the expansion of the low-income assistance programs (LIHWAP) or other programs, using existing resources from the federal government, with the state General Fund or cap-and-trade dollars or other state financial resources. 7. Encourage and promote education to elected officials, community/business leaders, organizations, and the public about affordability. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Is not targeted appropriately: Any low-income water rate assistance program must be limited in scope to those individuals. By seeking to do too much, effectiveness could be limited. Examples of this could include extending program resources to domestic wells or water-use efficiency programs. 2. Does not have a funding source: Any low-income water rate assistance program needs to identify specific sources of sustainable funding and does not include a water tax or water surcharge. 3. Does not reinvent the wheel: Any low-income water rate assistance program should be built upon and use the resources of an existing benefit distribution organization or system, such as CalFresh, rather than requiring water agencies to add the operating expense of creating and administering a new method. VII. Governance and Local Autonomy Support initiatives that: 1. Expand local autonomy in governing special district affairs. 2. Promote comprehensive long-range planning. 3. Assist local agencies in the logical and efficient extension of services and facilities to promote efficiency and avoid duplication of services. 4. Streamline the Municipal Service Review Process or set limits on how long services reviews can take or cost. 5. Reaffirm the existing “all-in” financial structure or protect the Water Authority voting structure based on population. 6. Promote measures that increase broader community and water industry representation/appointments on State decision making bodies. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 13 | Page 7. Ensure an open and transparent process for adoption of regulations, policies, and guidelines. 8. Preserve the District and other local water agencies’ ability to establish local priorities for water resources planning decisions. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Assume the state legislature is better able to make local decisions that affect special district governance. 2. Create one-size-fits-all approaches to special district reform. 3. Unfairly target one group of local elected officials. 4. Usurp local control from special districts regarding decisions involving local special district finance, operations, or governance. 5. Diminish the power or rights of the District’s governing body to govern the District’s affairs. 6. Diminish the power or rights of the District to govern relations with its employees. 7. Modify the committee or board voting structure or District and member agency board representation on the Water Authority Board of Directors unless such changes have been expressly authorized by the District’s Board. 8. Create unfunded local government mandates. 9. Create costly, unnecessary, or duplicative oversight roles for the state government of special district affairs. 10. Create new oversight roles or responsibility for monitoring special district affairs. 11. Change the San Diego County Water Authority Act regarding voting structure unless it is based on population. 12. Shift the liability to the public entity and relieve private entities of reasonable due diligence in their review of plans and specifications for errors, omissions, and other issues. 13. Place a significant and unreasonable burden on public agencies, resulting in increased cost for public works construction or their operation. 14. Impair the ability of water districts to acquire property or property interests required for essential capital improvement projects. 15. Increase the cost of property and right-of-way acquisition or restricts the use of right-of-ways. 16. Work to silence the voices of special districts and other local government associations on statewide ballot measures impacting local government policies and practices, including actions that could prohibit special districts and associations from advocating for positions on ballot measures by severely restricting the private resources used to fund those activities. 17. Prescribe mandatory conservation-based or other rate structures that override the authority of the board of directors to set its rate structure. 18. Circumvent the legislative committee process, such as the use of budget trailer bills, to advance policy issues including impacting special districts without full disclosure, transparency, or public involvement. 19. Restrict the District’s ability to utilize a demand forecasting methodology that is best suited locally and for the region. 20. Impose mandates requiring specific water resources be developed by water agencies that fail to consider local factors such as water reliability, hydrologic and geographic characteristics, and the economic, political, public acceptance, social environment, which Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 14 | Page can influence selection of resources and/or fails to consider or conflicts with existing local and regional planning policies and implementation priorities. 21. Limit the District’s ability to establish local priorities for water resources planning decisions. VIII. Imported Water Issues A. Bay-Delta i. Co-Equal Goals Support initiatives that: 1. Require the Delta Stewardship Council or DWR to provide periodic analyses of the cost of the proposed Delta improvements to the Legislature and the public. 2. Provides conveyance and storage facilities that are cost-effective for the San Diego region’s ratepayers, improve the reliability and quality of the San Diego region’s water supplies, and protect the Bay-Delta’s ecosystem. 3. Continue to support the co-equal goals of water supply reliability and environmental restoration embodied in the 2009 Delta bill package. 4. Improve the ability of water-users to divert water from the Delta during wet periods, when impacts on fish and the ecosystem are lower and water quality is higher. 5. Encourage the development of a statewide water transfer market that will improve water management and allow more efficient use of available resources. 6. Support improved coordination of Central Valley Project and State Water Project (SWP) operations and implementation of voluntary agreement that are fair to the users of both projects and do not unfairly shift costs to SWP contractors. 7. Support continued state ownership and operation of the SWP, including project facilities, as a public resource. 8. Ensure that any reorganization of the State Water Project, including operations and management, preserves the ability for non-State Water Project contractors to access the facility for transportation of water to a non-State Water Project contractor. 9. Authorize and appropriate the federal share of funding for the long-term Bay-Delta solution, including for the EcoRestore Program. 10. Provide the ongoing state share of funding for the EcoRestore Program. 11. Provide state funding for aquatic toxicity monitoring in the Bay-Delta. Such legislation should not place a surcharge on water supply exports, nor should it substantively reduce funding for other measures that protect the environment and public health. Oppose efforts that: 1. Impose water user fees to fund ecosystem restoration and other public purpose, nonwater-supply improvements in the Delta that benefit the public at large. 2. Transfer operational control of the State Water Project or any of its facilities to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), the State Water Contractors, the Central Valley Project Contractors, the State and Federal Contractors Water Agency, or any entity comprised of MWD or other water project contractors, or any other special interest group. ii. Bay-Delta Conveyance Project Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 15 | Page Support initiatives that: 1. Are consistent with the Water Authority’s Board of Directors’ July 25, 2019 adopted Bay- Delta project policy principles, including the following: a. On April 29, 2019, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-10-19, directing the preparation of a water resilience portfolio approach that meets the needs of California’s communities, economy, and environment through the 21st century, including consideration of multi-benefit approaches that meet multiple needs at once, and a single-user tunnel Bay-Delta project. b. The Water Authority’s Board supports Governor Newsome’s Executive Order N-10-19 and directs staff to inform the Newsome Administration that its support for a single-tunnel Bay-Delta project is expressly conditioned upon the project costs being characterized by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as conservation, or supply charges, as similar facilities historically have been defined in the Metropolitan Water District’s (MWD) SWP contract with DWR. c. As reflected in Table 2 of DWR’s Appendix B to Bulletin 132-17, Data and Computation Used to Determine Water Charges, and for which costs are recovered in Article 22(a) of Delta Water Charge of MWD’s SWP Contract; allow for the exemption of north-of-Delta SWP contractors. 2. Support the establishment of an independent and transparent oversight function to monitor and provide regular updates on project implementation progress, including expenditure tracking, construction progress, project participants’ contributions, and all other relevant activities and developments. 3. Allow access to all SWP facilities, including project facilities, to facilitate water transfers. B. Metropolitan Water District Support initiatives that: 1. Provide an appropriate level of accountability and cost control over MWD spending. 2. Protect and safeguard the Water Authority’s Preferential Rights in the Metropolitan Water District Act. 3. Require MWD to refund or credit to its member agencies revenues collected from them that result in reserve balances greater than the maximum reserve levels established pursuant to state legislation. 4. Require MWD to implement actions that advance and support its long-term financial stability, fiscal sustainability, and that moderate fluctuations in rates and charges for its member agencies from year to year, in a publicly transparent manner. 5. Amend the Metropolitan Water District Act to change voting allocation on its Board of Directors based on a member agency’s total financial contribution to MWD, and in a manner similar to the voting allocation method of the County Water Authority Act. C. Colorado River Support initiatives that: 1. Supports implementation and funding of the California Colorado River Water Use Plan, including the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 16 | Page 2. Provide funding for Colorado River salinity control projects and other water quality management efforts. 3. Provide for state and federal authorizations and appropriations of non-fee-based funds to implement Salton Sea mitigation and the State’s phased approach to restoration in the form of the Salton Sea Management Program consistent with its obligations under Chapters 611, 612, and 613 of the Statutes of 2003. 4. Limit the Quantification Settlement Agreement mitigation costs imposed on funding parties to the amount committed in accordance with the original QSA legislation. 5. Provide a governing structure and/or specified managing office over the state's Salton Sea Management Program to provide guidance and oversight of restoration activities. 6. Support the sustainability of the Colorado River and provide operational flexibility through the development of storage, including Lake Mead and additional storage opportunities regionally, and through the renegotiation of the new interim shortage guidelines for continued operation of the River. 7. Allow for the option to create an alternate conveyance route, when technically and financially feasible, for reliable delivery of the Water Authority’s Independent Colorado River water supplies and integration of compatible partnership projects along the proposed conveyance routes as a model of the Governor’s Water Resilience Portfolio approach to water management. 8. Support the State’s Salton Sea Management Program under the guidelines of the revised Water Order (Stipulated Order) adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in November 2017. 9. Preserve the California Colorado River Board 10. Ensure the interests of the members of the California Colorado River Board continue to be addressed in any state government reorganization. 11. Allow for storage of the Water Authority’s Colorado River water supplies to provide enhanced flexibility with annual transfer volumes, support drought contingency planning, and align with the Governor’s Water Resilience Portfolio approach to water management. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Impose additional mitigation costs or obligations for the Salton Sea on the non-state parties to the Quantification Settlement Agreement. 2. Eliminate the California Colorado River Board without providing a comparable structure or forum that ensures the Water Authority's interests in the Colorado River are preserved. D. State Water Project Support initiatives that: 1. Provide for development of a comprehensive state water plan that balances California's competing water needs, incorporates the water resources and infrastructure concepts included in the Governor’s “Water Resilience Portfolio” and “California’s Water Supply Strategy Adapting to a Hotter, Drier, Future,” and results in a reliable and affordable supply of high- quality water for the State of California and the San Diego region. Oppose initiatives that: Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 17 | Page 1. Make urban water supplies less reliable or substantially increases the cost of imported water without also improving the reliability and/or quality of the water. 2. Revise the Central Valley Project Improvement Act to Jeopardize the Act's environmental integrity, compromise State Water Project supply reliability a n d/or limit the ability of urban agencies to transfer and/or bank CVP water for use both within and outside the CVP service area. 3. Transfer operational control of the State Water Project or any of its facilities to MWD, the State Water Project contractors, Central Valley Project contractors, the State and Federal Contractors Water Agency, any entity comprised of MWD or other water project contractors, or any other special interest group. IX. Optimize District Effectiveness Support initiatives that: 1. Manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner. 2. Give utilities the ability to avoid critical peak energy pricing or negotiate energy contracts that save ratepayers money. 3. Develop reasonable Air Pollution Control District engine permitting requirements. 4. Reimburse or reduce local government mandates. 5. Allow public agencies to continue offering defined benefit plans. 6. Result in predictable costs and benefits for employees and taxpayers. 7. Eliminate abuses. 8. Retain local control of pension systems. 9. Are constitutional, federally legal, and technically possible. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Restrict the use of, or reallocate, district property tax revenues to the detriment of special districts. 2. Create unrealistic ergonomic protocol. 3. Micromanage special district operations. 4. Balance the state budget by allowing regulatory agencies to increase permitting fees. 5. Tax dependent benefits. 6. Require new reporting criteria on energy intensity involved in water supply. X. Safety, Security, and Information Technology Support initiatives that: 1. Provide funding for information security upgrades to include integrated alarms, access/egress, and surveillance technology. 2. Provide incentives for utilities and other local agencies to work cooperatively, share costs or resources. 3. Provide funding for communication enhancements, wireless communications, GIS, or other technological enhancements. 4. Encourage or promote compatible software systems. 5. Fund infrastructure and facility security improvements that include facility roadway access, remote gate access, and physical security upgrades. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 18 | Page 6. Protect state, local, and regional drinking water systems from terrorist attack or deliberate acts of destruction, contamination, or degradation. 7. Provide funds to support training or joint training exercises to include contingency funding for emergencies and emergency preparedness. 8. Equitably allocate security funding based on need, threats, and/or population. 9. Encourage or promote compatible communication systems. 10. Encourage and promote funding of Department of Homeland Security Risk Mitigation programs. 11. Recognizes water agencies as emergency responders in the event of a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent and mitigate loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services due to natural disasters (e.g., wildfires, earthquakes), power outages as well as terrorist and other criminal activities. 12. Provide state grant or other funding opportunities to support seismic risk assessment and mitigation plans, or to mitigate vulnerabilities. 13. Provide funding for projects that enhance security against terrorist acts or other criminal threats to water operation, services, facilities, or supplies. 14. Provide funding for projects that improve the security of the District facilities and operations. 15. Provide funding to support technologies that support remote working, when necessary to prevent loss of or damage to life, health, property, or essential public services. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Create unnecessary, costly, or duplicative security or safety mandates. 2. Require expanded water system descriptions or additional public disclosure of public water systems details for large water suppliers in Urban Water Management Planning documents, potentially compromising public water systems, and creating a conflict with the Department of Homeland Security’s recommendation to avoid reference to water system details in plans available to the public. XI. Water Quality Issues Support initiatives that: 1. Assure cost-effective remediation and cleanup of contaminates of concern that have impacted groundwater and surface water. 2. Incorporate sound scientific principals in adopting drinking water standards for drinking water concerns. 3. Revise NPDES standards and procedures to facilitate inland discharge and use of recycled water. 4. Establish appropriate quality standards, testing procedures, and treatment processes for emerging contaminants. 5. Alter the definition of “lead free” to reduce the permissible amount of lead in fixtures, plumbing, and pipe fittings to be installed for the delivery of drinking water. 6. Exempt purified wastewater from regulation as a discharge under the Clean Water Act. 7. Protect child public health by requiring schools to undertake lead testing in school drinking water systems. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 19 | Page 8. Implement source control for management prevention of contamination by constituents of emerging concern. 9. Provide the necessary funding for research on the occurrence, treatment, health effects, and environmental cleanup related to contamination drinking water sources. 10. Implement and fund the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board’s triennial review of water quality standards. 11. Provide funding and support for Colorado River salinity control projects and other water quality management efforts. 12. Direct the state’s participation or assistance in water quality issues related to or threatening the Colorado River water source. 13. Streamline permitting of facilities constructed for the purpose of improving water quality. 14. Ensure consistent application of the law by the State Water Resources Control Board and the nine regional water quality control boards. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Eliminate the State Water Resources Control Board and/or the nine regional water quality control boards without ensuring the functions and expertise of the boards is maintained in any reorganized entity. 2. Regulate the conveyance, storage, or release of water supplies as discharge under the Clean Water Act and other water quality control laws. 3. Make water suppliers financially and legally responsible for mitigation of pollution contamination by third parties. 4. Make water suppliers financially and legally responsible for testing or correction of any water quality-related issues associated with private property or on-site plumbing systems. XII. Water Recycling and Potable Reuse Support initiatives that: 1. Reduce restrictions on recycled water usage or promote consistent regulation of recycled water projects to reduce impediments to the increased use of recycled water. 2. Reduce restrictions on injecting recycled water into basins where there is no direct potable use. 3. Advocate for direct potable reuse. 4. Advocate for recycled water use upstream of lakes and reservoirs if protected by urban water runoff protection systems. 5. Provide financial incentives for recharge of groundwater aquifers using recycled water. 6. Make recycled water regulations clear, consolidated, and understandable to expedite related project permitting. 7. Promote recycled water as a sustainable supplemental source of water. 8. Allow the safe use of recycled water. 9. Facilitate development of technology aimed at improving water recycling. 10. Increasing funding for water recycling projects. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 20 | Page 11. Support continued funding of the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program including Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects, the WaterSMART Program, and the Desalination and Water Purification Research Program. 12. Increase awareness of the ways recycled water can help address the region’s water supply challenges. 13. Create federal and state incentives to promote recycled water use and production. 14. Establish federal tax incentives to support U.S. companies in the development of new water technologies that can lower productions costs, address by products such as concentrates, and enhance public acceptance of recycled water. 15. Establish a comprehensive national research and development, and technology demonstration, program to advance the public and scientific understanding of water recycling technologies to encourage reuse as an alternative source of water supply. 16. Provide incentives for local agencies to work cooperatively, share costs or resources to promote or expand the use of recycled water. 17. Further refine emergency regulations to reward local suppliers that have invested in using recycled water for landscape irrigation to maintain an incentive to continue expanding areas served by recycled water. 18. Encourage the use of recycled water in commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential settings. 19. Recognize and support the development of potable reuse as a critical new water supply. 20. Define purified recycled water as a source of water supply and not as waste. 21. Mandate the reduction of wastewater discharges to the ocean absent inclusion of funding to offset the significant costs of implementation. 22. Authorize local governmental agencies to regulate the discharge of contaminants to the sewer collection system that may adversely affect water recycling and reuse. 23. Authorize and facilitate expanded use of local water resources including water recycling, potable reuse, graywater, and rainwater harvesting (e.g., cisterns and rain barrels), and brackish groundwater. 24. Streamline regulatory processes and requirements to encourage and support the development of potable reuse and non-potable reuse as a municipal water supply. 25. Recognize the entire interconnected urban water cycle, as well as public health and safety, must be taken into consideration in long-term water use efficiency policies, particularly including the unintended consequences of declining flows on water, wastewater, potable reuse, and recycled water systems. 26. Encourage dual plumbing in new development where non-potable recycled water is likely to available to enable utilization of recycled water. 27. Promote uniform regulatory interpretation of state recycled water system standards. 28. Support beneficial revisions to the California Plumbing Code that facilitate recycled water systems. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Restrict use of recycled water for groundwater recharge. 2. Establish new water or recycled water fees solely to recover State costs without also providing some benefit. 3. Limit the ability of local governmental agencies to regulate the discharge of contaminants to the sewer collection system that may adversely affect water recycling and reuse. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 21 | Page 4. Establish unreasonable regulatory requirements or fees to the safe use of recycled water, which may unreasonably impede or create a disincentive to its further development. 5. Mandate the reduction of wastewater discharges to the ocean absent inclusion of funding to offset the significant costs of implementation. 6. Water use efficiency standards (AB 1668), which do not reflect the impact that higher TDS recycled water has on the usage rates to reduce salt loading in areas of use. XIII. Water Services and Facilities Support initiatives that: 1. Provide funding to implement actions identified in the California Water Action Plan to lay a solid fiscal foundation for implementing near-term actions, including funding for water efficiency projects, wetland and watershed restoration, groundwater programs, conservation, flood control, and integrated water management and result in a reliable supply of high-quality water for the San Diego region. 2. Promote the coordination and integration of local, state, and federal climate change policies and practices to the greatest extent feasible. 3. Fund or otherwise facilitate ongoing implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement. 4. Provide reliable water supplies to meet California’s short and long-term needs. 5. Promote desalination pilot studies and projects. 6. Encourage feasibility studies of water resource initiatives. 7. Increase funding for infrastructure and grant programs for construction, modernization or expansion of water, wastewater treatment, reclamation facilities and sewer systems including water recycling, groundwater recovery and recharge, surface water development projects and seawater desalination. 8. Fund enhancements to water treatment, recycling, and other facilities to meet increased regulations. 9. Mandate uniform or similar regulations and procedures by state agencies in the processing and administering of grants and programs. 10. Streamline grant application procedures. 11. Reduce regulations and other impediments for willing sellers and buyers to engage in water transfer agreements. 12. Promote or assist voluntary water transfers between willing buyers and willing sellers and move those transactions through without delay. 13. Streamline the permitting and approval process for desalination and other water-related facilities and implementing water transfers that will improve water management. 14. Establish reasonable statewide approaches to sewer reporting standards. 15. Generate greater efficiencies, better coordinate program delivery, and eliminate duplication in programs for source water protection without lessening the focus on public health of the state’s Drinking Water Program. 16. Target efforts to fix specific issues with water supplies within the state’s Drinking Water Program. 17. Establish federal tax incentives to support U.S. companies in the development of new desalination technologies that can lower productions costs, eliminate or reduce impingement or entrainment, reduce energy use, and enhance public acceptance of desalinated water. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 22 | Page 18. Establish a comprehensive national research and development, and technology demonstration program to advance the scientific understanding of desalination to expand its use as an alternative source of water supply. 19. Require the State Water Resources Control Board to exercise its authority, ensure robust funding, and implement the Salton Sea mitigation and restoration plan, meet state obligations, and work with QSA stakeholders to find workable solutions to ensure the continuation of IID water transfers. 20. Support solutions to water supply issues that address common challenges, provide a comprehensive approach that is fair to all users, balance the needs of urban and rural communities, and take into consideration the interests of all stakeholders as well as the impact to the environment. 21. Further refine emergency drought regulations to eliminate a cap on credits and adjustments so as not to impose undue burden, financial or otherwise, on communities that have already invested in water conservation, development of new water sources, storage, or loss prevention. 22. Provide funding for water infrastructure development, infrastructure security, and rehabilitation and replacement projects that benefit ratepayers. 23. Provide funding for habitat preservation programs that address impacts resulting from construction or operation of water system facilities. 24. Provide funding for projects that enhance security against terrorist acts or other criminal threats to water operation, services, facilities, or supplies. 25. Provide incentives that encourage contractors to recycle or reduce waste associated with construction of water facilities. 26. Improve the local agencies’ efforts to maintain and protect its property, rights of way, easements, pipelines, and related facilities and minimizes liability to local agencies and the District. 27. Protect the local agencies’ properties from restrictions when surrounding properties are incorporated into preservation areas. 28. Encourage the use of current and emerging technologies for monitoring and assessing the condition of large diameter pipelines. 29. Encourage water supplier to develop and execute asset management programs that include visual inspections, internal/external inspections, asset condition assessments, corrosion mitigation, and reis analysis in a manner that recognizes the individuality and uniqueness of each water supplier and its systems. 30. Improve the District’s efforts to maintain and protect its property, rights of way, easements, pipelines, and related facilities and minimizes liability to the District. 31. Protect the District, other agencies and the Water Authority properties from restrictions when surrounding properties are incorporated into preservation areas. 32. Provide funding to water agencies for the voluntary retrofit of facilities for on-site generation of chlorine. 33. Provide funding for water supplier asset management programs that involve the active monitoring, repair, or replacement of physical assets and infrastructure, which includes pipes, valves, facilities, equipment, and other infrastructure. 34. Provide for restrictions on price gouging during public safety power shutoff events and for at least 72 hours following restoration of power. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 23 | Page 35. Provide that de-energization or public safety power shutoff events may be included as a condition constituting a state of emergency or local emergency. 36. Provide a tax emption for the sale of, or storage, use, or consumption of, a backup electrical resources, that is purchased for exclusive use by a city, county, special district, or other entity of local government during a de-energization or public safety power shutoff event. 37. State that the use of alternative power sources (such as generators) by essential public services during de-energization or public safety power shutoff events shall not be limited by any state or local regulations or rules. 38. Recognize the critical role the District, local agencies, and the Water Authority play as Public Safety Partners in Public Safety Power Shutoff events and other natural or man-made disasters. Further recognizes the importance of the agency’s ability to provide immediate and sustained response for extended periods of time. 39. Provide financial support to local projects designed to mitigate or adapt to potential negative impacts of climate change on water supply reliability. 40. Investigate and provide financial support to projects designed to mitigate potential negative impacts of climate change on water supply reliability. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Restrict local control and discretions over water facilities, asset management, and facility operations. 2. Make urban water supplies less reliable or substantially increase the cost of imported water without also improving the reliability and/or quality of the water. 3. Create unrealistic or costly water testing or reporting protocol. 4. Disproportionately apportion the cost of water. 5. Create undo hurtles for seawater desalination projects. 6. Create unreasonable or confusing sewer reporting standards. 7. Create administrative or other barriers to sales between willing buyers and willing sellers that delay water transfers. 8. Create a broad-based user fee that does not support a specific local program activity or benefit; any fee must provide a clear nexus to the benefit local ratepayers or local water supplies from the establishment that charge or fee would provide. 9. Create unrealistic or costly to obtain water quality standards for potable water, recycled water, or storm water runoff. 10. Change the focus of the state’s Drinking Water Program or weaken the parts of the program that work well. 11. Lessen the focus on public health of the state’s Drinking Water Program. 12. Impose undue burden, financial or otherwise, on communities that have already invested in water conservation, development of new water sources, storage, or loss prevention. 13. Impose additional mitigation costs or obligations for the Salton Sea on the non-state parties to the Quantification Settlement Agreement. 14. Impair the District and other local water agencies’ ability to provide and operate the necessary facilities for a safe, reliable, and operational flexible water system. 15. Limit local agencies’ sole jurisdiction over planning, design, routing, approval, construction, operation, or maintenance of water facilities. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 24 | Page 16. Restrict local agencies’ ability to respond swiftly and decisively to an emergency that threatens to disrupt water deliveries or restricts the draining of pipelines or other facilities in emergencies for repairs or preventive maintenance. 17. Authorize state and federal wildlife agencies to control, prevent, or eradicate invasive species in a way that excessively interferes with the operations of water supplies. 18. Prohibit or in any way limit the ability of local agencies from making full beneficial use of any water, wastewater, or recycling facility and resource investments. 19. Prohibit the use of alternative contract procurement methods that can be utilized in the construction of water facilities. 20. Shift the risks of indemnity for damages and defense of claims from contractors to the District. 21. Impair local agencies’ efforts to acquire property or property interests required for essential capital improvement projects or acquisition of property to meet pipeline water drain-down needs for existing facilities. 22. Increase the cost of property and right of way acquisition. 23. Restrict the District’s use of public rights of way or increase the cost of using public rights of way. 24. Restrict the transfer of property acquired for purposes of environmental mitigation or environmental mitigation credits to other public or private entities for long-term management. 25. Establish prescriptive leak loss control requirements for the operation, maintenance, and asset management of water conveyance and distribution systems, that fail to consider full life-cycle costing. 26. Establish meter testing requirements for source water meters that fail to consider industry standards and cost-effectiveness. 27. Limit the discretion of the District from protecting security and privacy of comprehensive inventories of all assets, which includes infrastructure location, condition, performance, and useful life. 28. Impair local agencies’ ability to execute the planning, design, and construction of projects using its own employees. 29. Limit the autonomy of discretion of water supplier to develop and execute asset management inspection programs that include visual inspections, internal/external inspections, asset condition assessments, and corrosion mitigation in a manner that recognizes the individuality and uniqueness of each water supplier and its systems. 30. Authorize air quality management districts or other regulatory bodies to adopt or maintain rules that would limit or prohibit a local government entity’s use of a state and/or federally complaint natural gas-powered generator during a de-energization or public safety power shutoff event. 31. Would inhibit the District from fulfilling its critical role as a Public Safety Partner and making immediate and sustained response in a Public Safety Power Shutoff event or and other natural or man-made disasters, such as the CARB Advanced Clean Fleet regulation. 32. Would inhibit the District from fulfilling its critical role as an essential service provider from procuring and operating fleets which meet the needs to perform routine and emergency maintenance of water and wastewater systems, such as the CARB Advanced Clean Fleet regulation. 33. Require incorporation of climate change considerations into regional and local water management planning that does not provide flexibility to the local and regional water agencies Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 25 | Page in determining the climate change impact and identification of adaptation and mitigation measures. 34. Impose top-down “one-size-fits-all” climate change mandates that fail to account for hydrological, meteorological, economic, and social variation across the state and/or that fail to incorporate local and regional planning and implementation priorities and protocols. XIV. Water-Use Efficiency Support initiatives that: 1. Provide funding for incentives for water-use efficiency and water conservation programs including water-efficient devices, practices and demonstration projects and studies. 2. Encourage the installation of water-efficient fixtures in new and existing buildings. 3. Promote the environmental benefits of water-use efficiency and water conservation. 4. Enhance efforts to promote water-use efficiency awareness. 5. Offer incentives for landscape water-efficient devices including, but not limited to ET controllers and soil moisture sensors. 6. Develop landscape retrofit incentive programs and/or irrigation retrofit incentive programs. 7. Permit or require local agencies to adopt ordinances that require or promote water-efficient landscapes for commercial and residential developments. 8. Create tax incentives for citizens or developers who install water-efficient landscapes. 9. Create tax incentives for citizens who purchase high-efficiency clothes washers, dual-flush and high-efficiency toilets, and irrigation controllers above the state standards. 10. Expand community-based water-use efficiency and education programs. 11. Facilitate and encourage the use of rainwater-capture systems, i.e., rain barrels, cisterns, etc. and alternative water sources, i.e., air conditioner condensate for use in irrigation. 12. Develop incentives for developers and existing customers to install water-efficient landscape in existing developments or new construction. 13. Encourage large state users to save water by implementing water-efficient technologies in all facilities both new and retrofit. 14. Encourage large state water users to save water outdoors. 15. Educate all Californians on the importance of water, and the need to conserve, manage, and plan for the future needs. 16. Encourage technological research targeted to more efficient water use. 17. Give local agencies maximum discretion in selecting water-use efficiency and conservation programs that work for their customers and the communities they serve. 18. Require the Department of Water Resources to implement a uniform statewide turf rebate subsidy or incentive program. 19. Restrict Property Owner Associations from forbidding the use of California native plants, other low water use plants, mulch, artificial turf, or semi-permeable materials in well-maintained landscapes. 20. Restrict Property Owner Associations from forbidding retrofits of multiple unit facilities for the purpose of submetering, if feasible. 21. Ensure plumbing codes and standards that facilitate the installation and/or retrofit of water efficient devices. 22. Establish standards for the utilization of high-efficiency commercial coin-operated and residential clothes washers. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 26 | Page 23. Provides for federal tax-exempt status for water-use efficiency rebates, consistent with income tax treatment at the state level. 24. Encourage the use of graywater where it complies with local guidelines and regulations and is cost-effective. 25. Provide incentives, funding, and assistance to water agencies so that they can meet the water demand management measure requirements in the Urban Water Management Planning Act. 26. Provide incentives, funding, and other assistance to facilitate water-use efficiency partnerships with the energy efficiency sector. 27. Provide incentives, funding, and other assistance where needed to facilitate market transformation and gain wider implementation of water efficient indoor and outdoor technologies and practices. 28. Recognize local control in determining water use efficiency criteria, such as impact of recycled water salinity on irrigation use and efficiency for the application of non-potable recycled water. 29. Encourage reasonable tracking of water use and improved efficiency in the Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) sector. 30. Recognize local control in determining how to meet an overall efficient water use goal, based on the combined efficient indoor use, outdoor use, and leak loss, as established under the criteria provided for in statute. 31. Further the statewide goal of a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2020 as set forth in SBX7-7, enacted in November 2009, and preserves water agency discretion and options for achieving this objective. 32. Ensure accurate and meaningful reporting of implementation of water-use efficiency and conservation measures. 33. Promote statewide implementation of water-use efficiency best management practices and demand management measures as defined in the Urban Water Management Planning Act. Oppose efforts that: 1. Weaken federal or state water-efficiency standards. 2. Introduce additional analytical and reporting requirements that are time-consuming for local agencies to perform and result in additional costs to consumers yet yield no water savings. 3. Permit Property Owners Associations to restrict low water use plants, mulch, artificial turf, or semi-permeable materials in landscaping. 4. Repeal cost-effective efficiency standards for water-using devices. 5. Repeal cost-effective efficiency standards for water-using devices. 6. Create stranded assets by establishing long-term demand management water-use efficiency and water supply requirements that are inconsistent with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. 7. Prescribe statewide mandatory urban and agricultural water-use efficiency practices, including, but not limited to, methods, measures, programs, budget allocation, and designation of staff dedicated to water conservation programs, that override the authority of the boards of directors of local water agencies to adopt management practices that are most appropriate for the specific needs of their water agencies. 8. Mandate regulation of the CII Sector in a manner that is discriminatory, or sets unachievable Best Management Practices or compliance targets, or would otherwise impair economic activity or the viability of the CII sector. Otay Water District Legislative Program 2023 27 | Page 9. Mandate that water agencies include an embedded energy calculation for their water supply sources in the Urban Water Management Plan or any other water resource planning or master planning document. XV. Workforce Development Support initiatives that: 1. Advocate for local, regional, and state programs that support a high-performing workforce and increase the talent pool for water agencies. 2. Advocate for military veterans in the water industry workforce to ensure that veterans receive appropriate and satisfactory credit towards water and wastewater treatment system certifications in California for work experience, education, and knowledge gained in military service. 3. Lower employment barriers for military veterans and transitioning military and that sustain vital water and wastewater services for the next generation. 4. Recruit and support veterans and transitioning military through internships, cooperative work experiences, and other resources. 5. Recruit and support underserved communities in the water industry through internships, cooperative work experiences, and other resources. 6. Advocate and encourage candidate outreach and recruitment in relation to mission-critical job categories in water and wastewater. 7. Ensure advanced water treatment operators and distribution system operators of potable reuse and recycled water facilities have a career advancement path as certified water and/or wastewater treatment plant operators. 8. Increase the number of educational institutions that provide water-industry related training and related program criteria including but not limited to trades, certifications, and degrees. 9. Increase the talent pool of future water industry workers through educational programs, internships, and other resources. 10. Provide funding to educational institutions, water agencies, and workforce students regarding careers in the water industry. 11. Develop qualified candidates for positions in the water industry. 12. Build awareness of water industry-related jobs through student outreach including but not limited to K-12, community colleges, universities, and other educational institutions as well as outreach to the public. Oppose initiatives that: 1. Hinder military veterans from using previous experience, education, and knowledge toward a career in water. 2. Regulate agencies from hiring an experienced, educated, and talented water-industry workforce. Otay Water District Anticipated Top 10 Legislative Priorities for 2023 Presented by: Ruy Laredo Policy Advisor Baltazar Cornejo Policy Advisor April 5, 2023 Attachment D Updated (Minutes) Top 10 Legislative Priorities 2023 2 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Legislative Update •Legislature reconvened on January 4, 2022. —Over 30 new members in both the Assembly and Senate due to term limits expiring and other resignations. •In 2023, as of March 7, 2774 bills, resolutions and constitutional amendments have been introduced. —This is the third highest amount of bills introduced in the last 17 years. •Key Legislative Deadlines: —January 10 –Governor’s Budget Proposal —February 17 –Bill Introduction deadline —May 15 –May Revision of the January Budget (“May Revise”) —June 2 –Last day for each house pass bills introduced in that house. (“House of Origin Deadline”). —June 15 –Budget must be passed by midnight —September 14 –Deadline to pass bills out of Legislature. (“Final Recess upon Adjournment of Session”) —October 14 –Last day for Governor to sign or veto bills passed on or before September 1 •No lobby days for foreseeable future. 3 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | 1.Affordability •During the 2021-2022 legislative session, Senator Bill Dodd (D-Napa) introduced SB 222: Water Rate Assistance Program. —This legislation sought to establish the Water Rate Assistance Fund in the State Treasury to help provide water affordability assistance, for both drinking water and wastewater services, to low- income ratepayers and ratepayers experiencing economic hardship in California. —Otay adopted an “Oppose Unless Amended” position and joined the Association of California Water Agencies’ (ACWA) coalition. —The bill was vetoed by the Governor on September 28th due to lack of an ongoing funding source. —Following the veto, Senator Dodd, ACWA, and affordable water advocates said they would continue to work closely this year with the Governor’s office and the state water board to find funding for a long-term water assistance program. •Low Income Household Water Assistance Program (LIHWAP) —In 2020, the federal government funded LIHWAP to provide financial assistance to low-income Californians with residential water utility costs and debt repayment. —California has been allocated $116 million in one-time funding to provide LIHWAP assistance. —Administering Agency –Department of Community Services and Development (CSD). •In response to low LIHWAP participation and grant expenditure, CSD expanded eligibility to include current bills to maximize grant expenditures through August 2023, the end of the federal grant period. —LIHWAP benefit payments began to be issued to households in June 2022 and all funds must be expended by August 2023. 4 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | 2. Water Quality •MCL Compliance Periods –State Water Board/ACWA determined that legislation was not needed to establish compliance periods for MCLs; State Water Board to use its existing authority. —The SWRCB adopted a resolution for drinking water regulations development for this calendar year on the March 7-8 workshop. •The Division of Drinking Water has established a proposed prioritized list for regulatory development projects for 2023. •DDW staff use multiple factors in prioritizing drinking water regulations, including the protection of public health, establishment of a new or revised federal regulation or rule, existence of statutory mandates, as well as the existence of other priorities and staffing resources available for the development and implementation of regulations. •This includes MCLs for: •Chromium (hexavalent), Arsenic, Perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoro-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS), N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), Disinfection Byproducts, Styrene, Cadmium, and Mercury. •Lead Testing in Schools –Assemblymember Chris Holden has introduced AB 249, which would lower the standards for lead levels at TK-12 school buildings built after 2010. —Lowers standard from 15 parts per billion (ppb) to 5ppb. —Community water systems would have to test water faucets once over the next 5 years. —There are current changes pending to the federal Lead and Copper Rule through October 16, 2024, which could result in conflicting or duplicative requirements if this legislation is passed. 5 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | 3. Water Use and Efficiency •November 2021 –DWR and the State Water Board submitted its final report to the Legislature recommending an indoor water use efficiency standard of 55 GPCD by 2023, declining to 47 GCPD by 2025, and 42 GCPD by 2030 and beyond. •January 2022 –AB 1434 (Friedman) was amended to mirror the recommendations in this report. However, the bill failed to move forward. •In 2022, then-Senator Robert Hertzberg introduced SB 1157 (Hertzberg), which also mirrors the recommendations in the report and the language that was in AB 1434 (Friedman). —Otay initially joined ACWA’s “Oppose Unless Amended” coalition on SB 1157 but moved its position to neutral following language adding a quantitative study, adding flexibility to the timeline to achieve the standards, and adopting additional variances. —SB 1157 was signed by the Governor on September 28. •Assemblymember Friedman has now introduced AB 1572 to prohibit the use of potable water for irrigation of nonfunctional turf on specified properties. —Nonfunctional turf” would be defined as “any turf that is not located in areas designated by a property owner or a government agency for recreational use or public assembly. —Urban water retail suppliers would be required to adopt these same nonfunctional turf bans within their terms and conditions of water service by January 1, 2026. —A reduction in irrigation due to removal of turf may not have a large impact on urban water suppliers’ ability to meet their overall objective, but the proposed ban on the irrigation of nonfunctional turf on multifamily properties envisioned under AB 1572 may result in some water savings toward that overall objective for urban water suppliers. 6 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | 4. Drought Response & Extreme Weather •California experienced significant rainfall and flooding during the series of atmospheric rivers that hit the state in late December thru late March. —Winter storms temporarily alleviate water shortages, but these large precipitation events do not signal the end of the drought. —2020-2022 was the driest three-year period on record, and despite recent storms, we remain in a statewide drought emergency. •On March 24th the Governor issued an executive order amending the Emergency Drought Proclamation and previous executive orders on conservation. —Ends the voluntary 15% water conservation target, while continuing to encourage that Californians make conservation a way of life; —Ends requirement that local water agencies implement level 2 of their drought contingency plans; —Retains a state of emergency for all 58 counties to allow for drought response and recovery efforts to continue. •Governor Newsom announced California’s Water Supply Strategy in August 2022. —Water Supply Strategy created due to hotter and drier weather conditions (spurred by climate change) potentially reducing California’s water supply by up to 10% by the year 2040. —To help make up for the water supplies California could lose over the next two decades, the strategy prioritizes actions to capture, recycle, de-salt and conserve more water. •Create storage space for up to 4 million acre-feet of water. •Recycle and reuse at least 800,000 acre-feet of water per year by 2030. •Free up 500,000 acre-feet of water for new purposes each year. •Make new water available for use by capturing stormwater and desalinating ocean water and salty water in groundwater basins. 7 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | 5. Water Rights Modernization •Due to the ongoing drought and greater federal level discussions on the Colorado River water rights, water rights is poised to rise to the top of the Legislature’s agenda. —Several bills have been introduced this year that collectively present a fundamental change in California’s water rights system and a coordinated effort is underway to see that this year ends with a foundational change to how the water rights system is implemented and enforced. —AB 1337 (Wicks) gives the State Water Board authority to adopt sweeping curtailment regulations for water conservation purposes to prevent the waste, unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of diversion of water. —AB 460 (Bauer-Kahan)would authorize the State Water Board to issue an interim relief order on water rights. —Other spot bills on water rights have been introduced with no indication on what they will do. —AB 676 (Bennett) would declare ‘domestic purposes’ as the highest use of water, providing specific examples of ‘domestic purposes’ and explicitly states that all water rights remain subject to the reasonable use and public trust doctrines. •ACWA considered proposing its own water rights legislation as an alternative to the above-described legislation, however no agreement was reached by its membership. Instead ACWA will lead a coalition in opposition of the above-described legislation. 8 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | 6. Advanced Clean Fleets Rulemaking •Executive Order N-79-20 accelerates the state’s transition to carbon neutrality by setting a course to end sales of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035. •The 2021 and 2022 Budget Acts committed $10 billion over 5 years in investments to the state’s ZEV agenda—from cleaning up drayage trucks and school buses to accelerating equitable electrification of passenger vehicles—coupled with infrastructure and incentives for in-state manufacturing. •CARB is tasked with transitioning fleets to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) to meet the state’s goals. •The Advanced Clean Fleets proposed rulemaking for Public Fleets would require. —100 percent zero-emission drayage trucks by 2035. —100 percent zero-emission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035, where feasible. —100 percent zero-emission medium and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045, where feasible. •Otay Water District submitted comments to CARB and met with CARB staff, seeking an exemption for emergency response vehicles. •CARB will adopt rule on April 27th workshop after 15 days of public comment which began on March 23rd. Final day to submit comments on the 15 day document is on April 7th. •AB 1594 (E. Garcia) –Is back up legislation on clean fleets regulations if water agencies don’t get what they’re seeking in regulations •The Governor’s Budget Proposal maintains $8.9 billion (89%) of ZEV investments. —The Budget includes $2.5 billion of General Fund reductions across various ZEV programs, which are partially offset by approximately $1.4 billion in fund shifts to Cap and Trade funds. 9 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | 7. Proposed Bonds (Recycled Water, Climate Resiliency, Flood Protection) SB 867 (Allen): Drought and Water Resilience, Wildfire and Forest Resilience, Coastal Resilience, Extreme Heat Mitigation, Biodiversity and Nature-Based Climate Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, and Park Creation and Outdoor Access Bond Act of 2023. •Would authorize the issuance of bonds in an unspecified amount pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for drought and water resilience, wildfire and forest resilience, coastal resilience, extreme heat mitigation, biodiversity and nature- based climate solutions, climate smart agriculture, and park creation and outdoor access programs. AB 1567 (E. Garcia): Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparation, Flood Protection, Extreme Heat Mitigation, and Workforce Development Bond Act of 2023. Would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $15,105,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, drought preparation, flood protection, extreme heat mitigation, and workforce development programs. SB 638 (Eggman):Climate Resiliency and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2024 . Would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,500,000,000, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, for flood protection and climate resiliency projects. 10 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | 8. State Budget/Infrastructure Funding •The Governor’s 2023-24 proposed budget unveiled on January 10th included a projected budget deficit of $22.5 billion, which has since worsened by $7 billion according toa February report from the Legislative Analyst Office. To address this budget deficit, the Governor has proposed a combination of new funding, reductions and delays of previous budget commitments. •New Funding: —Water Urban Flood Risk Reduction —$135.5 million over two years to support local agencies working to reduce urban flood risk. —Delta Levee —$40.6 million for ongoing Delta projects that reduce risk of levee failure and flooding, provide habitat benefits, and reduce the risk of saltwater intrusion contaminating water supplies. —Central Valley Flood Protection —$25 million to support projects that will reduce the risk of flooding for Central Valley communities while contributing to ecosystem restoration and agricultural sustainability. —2023 Drought Contingency —$125 million one-time as a drought contingency set-aside to be allocated as part of the spring budget process, when additional water data will be available to inform future drought needs. —Modernizing Water Rights —$31.5 million one-time in 2023-’24 to continue development of the Updating Water Rights Data for California Project to enhance California’s water management capabilities. —Urban Water Use Objectives —$7 million over four years to implement legislation signed into law last year which established a new framework for water conservation and drought planning. 11 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | •Budget Reductions of Concern for ACWA: —Watershed Resilience Programs —A reduction of $24 million in 2023-’24 and a delay of an additional $270 million to 2024-’25. —PFAS Cleanup —A reduction from $100 million to $30 million for PFAS cleanup and a delay of that funding from 2023-’24 to 2024-’25. —Water Recycling/Groundwater Cleanup —A reduction from $210 million to $170 million in 2023-’24 to support water recycling and groundwater clean-up. 12 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | 9. Recycled Water •AB 1152 (Patterson): California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): exemption: recycled water. —Provides a CEQA exemption for the construction or expansion of recycled water pipelines built to mitigate drought conditions if the project meets certain criteria. —Lead agencies would be required to determine if a project qualified for the exemption under a state- mandated local program. —Also exempts development and approval of building standards by state agencies for recycled water systems. —Bill currently awaiting a hearing in Assembly Natural Resources. 13 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | 10. State Water Project/Delta Conveyance •State Water Project —State water officials in late January 2023 had announced a major boost, from 5% of requested water supply to 30%. February saw another update, with the SWP allocation increased to 35%, reflecting nine atmospheric river storms from late December through late January. On March 24th DWR increased the allocation to 75% after more recent storms. —The increase translates to an additional 1.7 million acre-feet of water for the 29 public water agencies that serve 27 million Californians. —State Water Project allotments are set each year on Dec. 1, then updated monthly through May or June. •Delta Conveyance Project —2022 marked the release and public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), evaluating the proposed Delta Conveyance Project under the California Environmental Quality Act. —Building on that progress, DWR states that it will continue to advance environmental planning and permitting activities, as well as public outreach and engagement, in 2023, including but not limited to CEQA, NEPA, CESA Incidental Take Permits, ESA Biological Opinions, etc. —DWR has released an Adapting to Climate Change fact sheet after the January winter storms, detailing that if the DCP had been operational, it would have moved 202,000-acre feet of water into the San Luis Reservoir, enough supply for 2.1 million people for one year or 710,000 households. This is about 35% of the total volume exported by the SWP in water year 2022. 14 Questions? CONTACT Ruy Laredo rlaredo@bhfs.com (916) 594-9709 Baltazar Cornejo bcornejo@bhfs.com (916) 594-9705 Anticipated Top 10 Legislative Priorities for 2023 1.Drought Response and Extreme Weather – In 2021, as drought conditions and record- breaking temperatures persisted throughout the state, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-10-21, which calls on Californians to voluntarily reduce water use by 15% compared to 2020 levels. Even though the state has experienced significant rainfall and flooding as a result of the atmospheric rivers that hit California in late December and January, the Governor’s executive order remains in effect. While the winter storms temporarily alleviated water shortages, the Department of Water Resources noted that these large precipitation events do not signal the end of the drought, as 2020-2022 was the driest three-year period on record, and more precipitation will be needed to pull the state out of the drought. Following the Governor’s executive order, the State Water Board implemented regulations in January 2022 that prohibited wasteful water use practices statewide. These regulations were readopted in December 2022 and will remain in effect through December 2023 unless they are ended, modified, or readopted. Drought response remains a top concern for the Newsom administration. In August 2022, the Governor announced a new Water Supply Strategy for California to help make up for the water supplies the state might lose over the next two decades. Due to climate change, hotter and drier weather conditions could potentially reduce California’s water supply by up to 10% by 2040. The water supply strategy prioritizes actions to capture, recycle, de-salt, and conserve more water. More information on the Governor’s strategy will be released at a later date. Drought response and extreme weather will remain a priority in 2023, and we will continue to monitor the progress of the state’s response and impacts on Otay Water District. 2.1.Water Rights Modernization – Due to the ongoing drought and the federal negotiations on the Colorado River, water rights have risen to the top of the Legislature’s agenda this year. Several bills have been introduced this year that collectively present a fundamental change in California’s water rights system. These bills would hand the State Water Board nearly unfettered authority to adopt sweeping curtailment regulations, issue interim relief orders without due process, and drag diverters before the State Water Board to defend their rights. Other spot bills related to water rights have also been introduced with no indication of what they will do. ACWA has spent months preparing for a water rights debate and may sponsor its own water rights legislation as an alternative to avoid more drastic legislation. This proposal includes a comprehensive set of ideas that would substantively improve water rights administration and enforcement during critical dry years and improve permitting for groundwater recharge, all while respecting local decision-making. Updated Attachment E (Minutes) 2 If Otay desires, BHFS will work with ACWA to ensure the Legislature takes a measured approach to water rights modernization. ACWA is already working with legislators who have signaled they will be taking on this issue. 3.1.Advanced Clean Fleets Rulemaking – In accordance with Executive Order N-79-20, which recognizes the need for the state to transition to carbon neutrality by setting a course to end sales of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is faced with the task of transitioning high priority private fleets and public fleets to zero-emission vehicles to meet the state’s goals set forth by the order, as outlined in the Advanced Clean Fleets Proposed Rulemaking. Otay Water District is seeking an exemption for emergency response vehicles under the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) Proposed Rulemaking for public fleets in order to ensure that the District’s first responders in the field responding to water and wastewater utility emergencies in specialized vehicles have the resources available to them to ensure that response is not delayed. Two letters were submitted by Otay to CARB during the public comment period last year. CARB will likely release its final draft rule this month with a 15-day public comment period. Following this period, CARB plans to adopt its final ACF rule during its April 27th workshop. In the event that water agencies do not get what they are seeking with these final regulations, there is legislation on standby to modify the ACF rules. Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia introduced AB 1594 as a spot bill to adjust the ACF rules. We will continue to monitor this issue as the ACF ruling is finalized. 4.1.Water Quality – For the past several years, ACWA has been working diligently on sponsored legislation to establish compliance periods for new Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) set by the State Water Board, with the goal of providing water providers a reasonable amount of time to comply with drinking water standards. It has been determined by State Water Board staff that legislation is not needed and that the State Water Board has the authority in statute to establish compliance periods for new MCLs. The State Water Board will consider a resolution for the adoption of drinking water regulations development during their March 7-8 workshop. The Division of Drinking Water (DDW) has established a proposed prioritized list for regulatory development projects for 2023. DDW staff use multiple factors in prioritizing drinking water regulations, including the protection of public health, establishment of a new or revised federal regulation or rule, existence of statutory mandates, as well as the existence of other priorities and staffing resources available for the development and implementation of regulations. This includes MCLs for the following: chromium (hexavalent), arsenic, perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoro-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS), n-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), disinfection byproducts, styrene, cadmium, and mercury. Lastly, legislation has been introduced by Assemblymember Chris Holden to lower lead- level standards in TK-12 school buildings. AB 249 would lower the current lead standard 3 from 15 parts per billion (ppb) to 5 ppb. Community water systems would be required to test their water faucets over the next five years to ensure compliance. ACWA is ready to oppose this bill, as there are current changes pending to the federal Lead and Copper Rule through October 16, 2024, which could result in conflicting or duplicative requirements if this legislation is passed. Otay has also indicated they will likely oppose this legislation. We will continue to monitor AB 249 as it works its way through the legislative process and other water quality issues as they arise in 2023. 5.1.Affordability – Water affordability became one of ACWA and Otay’s top issues during the 2021-2022 legislative session. In 2021, Senator Bill Dodd (D-Napa) introduced SB 222: Water Rate Assistance Program. This legislation sought to establish the Water Rate Assistance Fund in the State Treasury to help provide water affordability assistance, for both drinking water and wastewater services, to low-income ratepayers and ratepayers experiencing economic hardship in California. While the bill failed to advance in 2021, it was revived the next year due to affordability concerns stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Both ACWA and Otay adopted an “Oppose Unless Amended” position on the legislation due to the program's administration being pushed to water agencies. Additionally, the program lacked an ongoing funding source. While ACWA and Senator Dodd’s office engaged in good faith negotiations, an agreement could not be reached, and the bill was passed by the Legislature without a funding source. The bill was eventually vetoed by the Governor because of funding concerns. Following the veto, Senator Dodd, ACWA, and affordable water advocates said they would continue to work closely this year with the Governor’s office and the state water board to find funding for a long-term water assistance program. In the event a new bill is introduced, we will notify Otay immediately. Lastly, in 2020, the federal government funded LIHWAP to provide financial assistance to low-income Californians with residential water utility costs and debt repayment. California has been allocated $116 million in one-time funding to provide LIHWAP assistance. The Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) was designated as the administering agency for LIHWAP in California. In response to low LIHWAP participation and grant expenditure, CSD expanded eligibility to include current bills to maximize grant expenditures through August 2023, the end of the federal grant period. Funds for this program must be used as part of an overall emergency effort to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19, with the public health focus of ensuring that low- income households have access to safe and clean drinking water and wastewater services or to reduce arrearages and rates charged to households. The benefits of the program are paid directly to the owners and operators of public water systems. All funds in this program must be expended by August 2023. 2. Water Quality – For the past several years, ACWA has been working diligently on sponsored legislation to establish compliance periods for new Maximum Contaminant Levels 4 (MCL) set by the State Water Board, with the goal of providing water providers a reasonable amount of time to comply with drinking water standards. It has been determined by State Water Board staff that legislation is not needed and that the State Water Board has the authority in statute to establish compliance periods for new MCLs. The State Water Board will consider a resolution for the adoption of drinking water regulations development during their March 7-8 workshop. The Division of Drinking Water (DDW) has established a proposed prioritized list for regulatory development projects for 2023. DDW staff use multiple factors in prioritizing drinking water regulations, including the protection of public health, establishment of a new or revised federal regulation or rule, existence of statutory mandates, as well as the existence of other priorities and staffing resources available for the development and implementation of regulations. This includes MCLs for the following: chromium (hexavalent), arsenic, perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoro-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS), n-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), disinfection byproducts, styrene, cadmium, and mercury. Lastly, legislation has been introduced by Assemblymember Chris Holden to lower lead- level standards in TK-12 school buildings. AB 249 would lower the current lead standard from 15 parts per billion (ppb) to 5 ppb. Community water systems would be required to test their water faucets over the next five years to ensure compliance. ACWA is ready to oppose this bill, as there are current changes pending to the federal Lead and Copper Rule through October 16, 2024, which could result in conflicting or duplicative requirements if this legislation is passed. Otay has also indicated they will likely oppose this legislation. We will continue to monitor AB 249 as it works its way through the legislative process and other water quality issues as they arise in 2023. 6.3.Water Use and Efficiency – As you may recall, in November 2021, as required by AB 1668 and SB 606, DWR and the State Water Board submitted a report to the Legislature recommending that urban water suppliers achieve an indoor water use efficiency standard of 55 gallons per capita per day by 2023, declining to 47 gallons per day by 2025, and 42 gallons by 2030 and beyond. The Legislature introduced two bills in 2022 to mirror the recommendations in the report, AB 1434 (Friedman) and SB 1157 (Hertzberg). AB 1434 failed to move forward, while SB 1157 was signed by the Governor last September. All urban retail water suppliers are required, beginning January 1, 2024, and January 1 of each year thereafter, to calculate their own water use objective and submit a report to DWR that reports the urban water use objective and actual water use. While Otay initially joined ACWA’s “Oppose Unless Amended” coalition on SB 1157, it moved its position to “Neutral” following amendments adding a quantitative study, adding flexibility to the timeline to achieve the standards, and adopting additional variances. The Department of Water Resources will be conducting studies to quantify the benefits and impacts of these standards that will be due to the Legislature by October 1, 2028. Assemblymember Friedman has now introduced AB 1572 to prohibit the use of potable water for irrigation of nonfunctional turf on specified properties, which could potentially 5 affect water use objectives. Urban water retail suppliers would be required to adopt these same nonfunctional turf bans within their terms and conditions of water service by January 1, 2026. A reduction in irrigation due to the removal of turf may not have a large impact on urban water suppliers’ ability to meet their overall objective, but the proposed ban on the irrigation of nonfunctional turf on multifamily properties envisioned under AB 1572 may result in some water savings toward that overall objective for urban water suppliers. We will continue to monitor AB 1572 and related legislation, as well as ongoing discussions related to the adoption of the new standards. 4. Drought Response and Extreme Weather – In 2021, as drought conditions and record- breaking temperatures persisted throughout the state, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-10-21, which calls on Californians to voluntarily reduce water use by 15% compared to 2020 levels. Due to the state having experienced significant rainfall and flooding as a result of the atmospheric rivers that hit California in late December and through March, the Governor’s has rescinded several of his executive orders on conservation. The orders rescinded include ending the voluntary 15% water conservation target and ending the requirement that local water agencies implement level 2 of their drought contingency plans. While the winter storms temporarily alleviated water shortages, the Department of Water Resources noted that these large precipitation events do not signal the end of the drought, as 2020-2022 was the driest three-year period on record, and more precipitation will be needed to pull the state out of the drought. For that reason, the Governor retained the state of emergency for all 58 counties to allow for drought response and recovery efforts to continue. Following the Governor’s executive order, the State Water Board implemented regulations in January 2022 that prohibited wasteful water use practices statewide. These regulations were readopted in December 2022 and will remain in effect through December 2023 unless they are ended, modified, or readopted. Drought response remains a top concern for the Newsom administration. In August 2022, the Governor announced a new Water Supply Strategy for California to help make up for the water supplies the state might lose over the next two decades. Due to climate change, hotter and drier weather conditions could potentially reduce California’s water supply by up to 10% by 2040. The water supply strategy prioritizes actions to capture, recycle, de-salt, and conserve more water. More information on the Governor’s strategy will be released at a later date. Drought response and extreme weather will remain a priority in 2023, and we will continue to monitor the progress of the state’s response and impacts on Otay Water District. 5. Water Rights Modernization – Due to the ongoing drought and the federal negotiations on the Colorado River, water rights have risen to the top of the Legislature’s agenda this year. Several bills have been introduced this year that collectively present a fundamental change in California’s water rights system. These bills would hand the State Water Board nearly unfettered authority to adopt sweeping curtailment regulations, issue interim relief orders without due process, and drag diverters before the State Water Board to defend their rights. 6 Other spot bills related to water rights have also been introduced with no indication of what they will do. ACWA has spent months preparing for a water rights debate and had intended to sponsor its own water rights legislation as an alternative to avoid more drastic legislation. This proposal included a comprehensive set of ideas that would substantively improve water rights administration and enforcement during critical dry years and improve permitting for groundwater recharge, all while respecting local decision-making. However, no internal agreement amongst the ACWA membership was attained during the state legislative committee meetings. ACWA-sponsored legislation on water rights has been shelved indefinitely and instead, ACWA will lead a collation in opposition to the water rights bills currently in print. If Otay desires, BHFS will work with ACWA to ensure the Legislature takes a measured approach to water rights modernization. ACWA is already working with legislators who have signaled they will be taking on this issue. 6. Advanced Clean Fleets Rulemaking – In accordance with Executive Order N-79-20, which recognizes the need for the state to transition to carbon neutrality by setting a course to end sales of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is faced with the task of transitioning high priority private fleets and public fleets to zero-emission vehicles to meet the state’s goals set forth by the order, as outlined in the Advanced Clean Fleets Proposed Rulemaking. Otay Water District is seeking an exemption for emergency response vehicles under the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) Proposed Rulemaking for public fleets in order to ensure that the District’s first responders in the field responding to water and wastewater utility emergencies in specialized vehicles have the resources available to them to ensure that response is not delayed. Two letters were submitted by Otay to CARB during the public comment period last year. CARB released its final draft rule on March 23rd with a 15-day public comment period. The final day to submit any comments to CARB on the ACF final draft rule is April 7th. Following this period, CARB plans to adopt its final ACF rule during its April 27th workshop. In the event that water agencies do not get what they are seeking with these final regulations, there is legislation on standby to modify the ACF rules. Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia introduced AB 1594 as a spot bill to adjust the ACF rules. We will continue to monitor this issue as the ACF ruling is finalized. 7. Proposed Bonds – With significant budget cuts expected this year, several bills have been introduced in the Legislature to enact bonds for recycled water, climate resiliency, and flood protection funding. • SB 867 (Allen): Drought and Water Resilience, Wildfire and Forest Resilience, Coastal Resilience, Extreme Heat Mitigation, Biodiversity and Nature-Based 7 Climate Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, and Park Creation and Outdoor Access Bond Act of 2023 – Would authorize the issuance of bonds in an unspecified amount pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for drought and water resilience, wildfire and forest resilience, coastal resilience, extreme heat mitigation, biodiversity and nature-based climate solutions, climate-smart agriculture, and park creation and outdoor access programs. • AB 1567 (E. Garcia): Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparation, Flood Protection, Extreme Heat Mitigation, and Workforce Development Bond Act of 2023 – Would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $15,105,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, drought preparation, flood protection, extreme heat mitigation, and workforce development programs. • SB 638 (Eggman): Climate Resiliency and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2024 – Would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,500,000,000, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, for flood protection and climate resiliency projects. If approved by the Legislature, these bonds would be put on the ballot to be voted on in the next election. We will continue to monitor the progress and feasibility of these bonds as they go through the legislative process. 8. State Budget/Infrastructure Funding – The Governor’s 2023-24 proposed budget unveiled on January 10th included a projected budget deficit of $22.5 billion, which has since worsened by $7 billion, according to a February report from the Legislative Analyst Office. To address this budget deficit, the Governor has proposed a combination of new funding, reductions, and delays of previous budget commitments. Specifically, this budget proposes allocations in the following areas: • Water Urban Flood Risk Reduction — $135.5 million over two years to support local agencies working to reduce urban flood risk. • Delta Levee — $40.6 million for ongoing Delta projects that reduce the risk of levee failure and flooding, provide habitat benefits, and reduce the risk of saltwater intrusion contaminating water supplies. • Central Valley Flood Protection — $25 million to support projects that will reduce the risk of flooding for Central Valley communities while contributing to ecosystem restoration and agricultural sustainability. • 2023 Drought Contingency — $125 million one-time as a drought contingency set aside to be allocated as part of the spring budget process, when additional water data will be available to inform future drought needs. 8 • Modernizing Water Rights — $31.5 million one-time in 2023-’24 to continue development of the Updating Water Rights Data for California Project to enhance California’s water management capabilities. • Urban Water Use Objectives — $7 million over four years to implement legislation signed into law last year which established a new framework for water conservation and drought planning. With a tough budget year ahead, significant investments are not expected, and there are a few budget reductions of concern, including: • Watershed Resilience Programs — A reduction of $24 million in 2023-24 and a delay of an additional $270 million to 2024-25. • PFAS Clean-up — A reduction from $100 million to $30 million for PFAS clean- up and a delay of that funding from 2023-24 to 2024-25. • Water Recycling/Groundwater Clean-up — A reduction from $210 million to $170 million in 2023-24 to support water recycling and groundwater clean-up We will continue to monitor the progress of budget discussions and advocacy efforts as we enter the budget subcommittee process and approach the May Revision. Additionally, we will monitor the progress and feasibility of the proposed bond measure, AB 2387 (E. Garcia). 9. Recycled Water – The Otay Water District is committed to increasingincrease the use of recycled water in its service area and partneringpartner with other water agencies to minimize the overall demand for potable water. Currently, there is a bill BHFS is tracking on recycled water that is currently making it way through the legislative process. AB 1152 (Patterson) addresses the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in regardsregard to recycled water projects. The legislation would exempt a construction or expansion project to construct or expandfor a recycled water pipeline for the purpose of mitigating drought conditions if the project meets specific criteria. AB 1152 would also exempt the development and approval of building standards by state agencies for recycled water systems. It is important to note that CEQA exemptions are difficult to pass in the legislature, but BHFS will watch this bill for future developments. We will continue to advocate for more funding and monitor any issues related to recycled water. 10. State Water Project (SWP)/Delta Conveyance – As you know, each year, DWR makes an initial SWP allocation on December 1. Allocations are updated as snowpack and runoff information are assessed, with a final allocation typically determined in May or June. Following the series of heavy atmospheric rivers that hit the state in December and January, DWR announced two increases in SWP allocation: a major boost in January from 5% of requested water supply to 30% and again in February from 30% to 35%. On March 24th 9 DWR increased the allocation to 75% after more recent storms. We will continue to monitor issues pertaining to the SWP in 2023 as conditions evolve. On the proposed Delta Conveyance project, 2022 marked the release and public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluating the proposed Delta Conveyance Project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Building on that progress, DWR states that it will continue to advance environmental planning and permitting activities, as well as public outreach and engagement, in 2023, including but not limited to CEQA, NEPA, CESA Incidental Take Permits, ESA Biological Opinions, etc. DWR has released an Adapting to Climate Change fact sheet after the January winter storms, detailing that if the DCP had been operational, it would have moved 202,000-acre feet of water into the San Luis Reservoir, enough supply for 2.1 million people for one year or 710,000 households. This is about 35% of the total volume exported by the SWP in water year 2022. We will continue to monitor the progress of the Delta Conveyance project for related updates of interest. OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Pay To: Mark Robak • Employee 'umber 7014 From: ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES I 3/1/2023 ACWA Conterence Annual Washington DC discussions on infrastructure Investment & ongoing drought 2 3/2/2023 ACWA Conference Annual Washington DC discussions on infrastructure Investment & ongoing drought 3 3/7/2023 East County £DC Monthly Discussion of regional economic matters Meeting 4 3/9/2023 Otay Water District Commirtee Agenda briefing 5 3/13/2023 Water Conservation Garden Donor Appreciation Luncheon -l\O CHARGE 6 3/14/2023 Olay Water District Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources (EO&WR) Committee 7 3/14/2023 Dinner with !ID & CW A Discuss Colorado River Issues -NO CHARGE Board Members 8 3/15/2023 Colorado River Board of Meeting at San Diego County Water Authority California 9 3/16/2023 Otay Water District Conservation, Public Relations, Legal, and Legislative (CPRL&L) Committee 10 3/17/2023 LAFCO Special Districts Advisory Board 3/23/2023 Water Conservation Friends Board Meeting I I Garden 3/29/2023 Water Conservation Women in Water Reception -NO 12 Garden CHARGE 13 3/30/2023 Otay Water District Board agenda briefing Total Meeting Per Diem: $ 1,580 (SI58 PER 1VIEETING) Total Mileage Claimed: CM Receipt: ----------- Director Signature 177 Miles FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $ ____ _ Period Covered 3/1/2023 3/31/2023 i\llLEAGE HO�IE MILEAGE TOOW0OW0TO OTIIER HO!\IE LOCATIONS 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 13 7 0 7 40 0 20 11 0 0 34 0 13 0 0 0 0 25 152 Pay To: Jose Lopez OT A Y WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DLRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MlLEAGE CLAIM FORM Period Covered: Employee Number: 7010 03/1/23 To: 03/14/23 ITEM I 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 DATE MEETING 03/0 l/23 ACWA 03/02/23 ACWA 03/03/23 ACWA 03/07/23 SCEDC Engineering & Operations 03/14/23 Committee Meeting 03/l 4/23 IID/SDCWA Total Meeting Per Diem: $790 ($158 per diem) Total Mileage Claimed: 46 PURPOSE / ISSUES MILEAGE DISCUSSED HOME10OWD OIVD10HOME CA Water Agencies Conference in Washington, D.C. CA Water Agencies Conference in Washington, D.C. CA Water Agencies Conference in Washington, D.C. South County Economic Development Monthly Meeting Monthly committee meeting to discuss agenda items going to the April 5, 2023 board meeting Q-JO CHARGE1 IID/SDCW A Dinner Meeting miles GM Receipt: (Director's Signature) Date: I I FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSli:MENT: $ _____ _ MJLEAGE OTHER LOCATIONS 6 40 1896 From:3/1/23---3/31/23 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES MILEAGE HOME TO OWD OWD TO HOME MILEAGE OTHER LOCATIONS 1 3/1/2023 OWD Board Mtg Monthly Board Meeting 2 3/1/2023 Special Districts Leadership Academy Leadership Academy (no charge) 3 3/5/2023 CSDA Class SB 1383 Reducing Short Lived Climate Pollutants in CA 4 3/10/2023 Mtg. with Joe & Kevin Mtg. to discuss details of Finance Dept. 5 3/12/2023 CSDA Class Prevailing Wage Update 2023 6 3/14/2023 CSDA Dinner Presenation on status of Colorado River (No Charge) 7 3/18/2023 CSDA Class Final Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Safety Standard 8 3/22/2023 CSDA Class Building Relationships with Your Lawmaker's District Office 9 3/29/2023 CSDA Class Is Your District Recession Ready? 10 3/31/2023 CSDA Class RatePayer Assistance and Water Shutoff Laws $ 1,264.00 Miles GM Receipt: OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Pay To: Ryan Keyes Period Covered Employee Number Total Mileage Claimed: Director Signature ($158 PER MEETING) Total Meeting Per Diem: __ Pay To: Tim Smith OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Employee Number 1845 From: ITEM DATE I 3// I //2023 2 3/14/2023 3 3/15/2023 4 3/21/2023 5 3/22/2023 6 3/30/2023 7 8 9 10 Total Meeting Per Diem: (Sl58 PER i\lEETING) Total Mileage Claimed: GM Receipt: MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES OWD Board Meeting Monthly Board Meeting Colorado River Board Dinner Attended Colorado River Board Dinner and presemation by GM Martinez CW A Matters -Budget Discuss CWA preliminary Budget with Croucher and GIVI Martinez CWA Matters Discuss CWA Matters with GM Martinez and Director Croucher East County Caucus Dicuss East County issues with agencies and CWA SWP Tour Coordination Discuss SWP Tour Agenda with attendees for Meeting April tour $ 948.00 u1rcctor ::,igna1u,·e 118 Miles -----,,--Date: FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $ ____ _ Period Covered 3/1/2023 to 3/31/2023 MILEAGE 110!\IE i\llLEAGE TOOWDO\\'DTO OTHER IIOME LOCATIONS 26 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 26 92 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY May 3, 2023 1.The meeting was called to order by President Robak at 3:33 p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Directors Present:Croucher (Arrived at 3:54 p.m.), Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Directors Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Jose Martinez, General Counsel Dan Shinoff, Legal Counsel Jack Sleeth, Chief of Engineering Michael Long, Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Administration Adolfo Segura, Chief of Operations Andrew Jackson, Asst. Chief of Finance Kevin Koeppen, District Secretary Tita Ramos-Krogman and others per attached list. 3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4.APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Director Smith, seconded by Director Keyes, and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher to approve the agenda. 5.APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 1, 2023 A motion was made by Director Smith, seconded by Director Keyes, and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher AGENDA ITEM 4 2 to approve the minutes of the regular board meeting of March 1, 2023. 6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA No one wished to be heard. UCONSENT ITEM 7. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A PARTICULAR ITEM: A motion was made by Director Smith, seconded by Director Keyes and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher to approve the following consent calendar items: a) AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS FOR TERMS OF TWO-YEARS, PLUS THREE ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OPTIONS WITH INFOSEND TO PROVIDE BILL PRINT AND ELECTRONIC BILL PRESENTMENT SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $1,475,000 ($295,000 ANNUALLY, INCLUDES AVERAGE ANNUAL PASS- THROUGH POSTAGE COSTS OF $195,000); AND WITH i3 VERTICALS, LLC TO PROVIDE ONLINE PAYMENT TRANSACTION PROCESSING SERVICES ESTIMATED TO BE $3,100,000 (APPROXIMATELY $620,000 ANNUALLY, AMOUNT BASED ON 1% OF TOTAL PAYMENTS) b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4424 TO UPDATE THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF ORDINANCES’ BOARD POLICY NO. 34, STAFF TRAVEL AND BUSINESS- RELATED EXPENSES POLICY, AND BOARD POLICY NO. 46, MEDIA RELATIONS POLICY c) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4427 TO AMEND POLICY NO. 25, RESERVE POLICY, OF THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF ORDINANCES d) RECEIVE THE DISTRICT’S INVESTMENT POLICY, POLICY NO. 27 OF THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF ORDINANCES, FOR REVIEW AND RE-DELEGATE AUTHORITY FOR ALL INVESTMENT RELATED ACTIVITIES TO THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53607 3 ACTION ITEMS 8. BOARD a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4429, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT, CONGRATULATING VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT ON ITS 100TH ANNIVERSARY ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 A motion was made by Director Keyes, seconded by President Robak and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher to adopt Resolution No. 4429 congratulating Vista Irrigation District on its 100th anniversary on September 11, 2023. b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4430, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT, CONGRATULATING SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT ON ITS 100TH ANNIVERSARY ON JUNE 21, 2023 A motion was made by Director Lopez, seconded by President Robak and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher to adopt Resolution No. 4430 congratulating Santa Fe Irrigation District on its 100th Anniversary on June 21, 2023. c) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4428, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT, PLACING IN NOMINATION JOSE MARTINEZ AS A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES REGION 10 BOARD MEMBER A motion was made by President Robak, seconded by Director Keyes and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher 4 to adopt Resolution No. 4428 nominating General Manager Jose Martinez as a member of the Association of California Water Agencies Region 10 board member. d) DISCUSS THE 2023 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR (RAMOS-KROGMAN) In response to a question from Director Lopez, General Manager Martinez indicated that the District will be open on Monday, July 3rd, closed on July 4th for the holiday, and re-open on July 5th. There were no changes to the board calendar. UREPORTS 9. GENERAL MANAGER REPORT General Manager Jose Martinez shared that on April 3, 2023, he attended the CA- Nevada AWWA Spring Conference as a speaker to provide an update of the Veteran’s Workforce initiatives. Mr. Martinez provided his GM Report to the board and discussed training provided by the Safety and Security department and indicated that the Utility Maintenance staff attended the Rescue Vac Training. He shared that on April 12th, Operations staff coordinate with Sweetwater Authority staff for a portable pump test at the E. Oxford interconnection. Systems Operations Manager Jake Vaclavek responded to questions from President Robak regarding the coordination. Also discussed were potable and recycled water purchases that were impacted by the weather. Director Croucher arrived at 3:54 p.m. 10. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE Director Smith shared that CWA discussed factors that are impacting its proposed budget, which included Water Conservation Garden contributions, Carlsbad Desalination Plant, SDG&E increase, water sales, and other factors. He also discussed MWD’s operating statement and impacts and concerns with its proposed budget. Director Croucher shared that General Manager Sandy Kerl will be retiring from CWA at the end of June 2023 and indicated that Mr. Dan Denham will be the Interim General Manager. CWA’s chairperson will form a committee who will interview individuals for the general manager position, which Director Croucher has been asked to sit on the committee to be a part of the interview panel. He discussed concerns regarding the LAFCO detachment and shared that affected agencies in San Diego were encouraged to submit a letter of concern to LAFCO by May 22, 2023, prior to their June 5, 2023 meeting where the commissioners will consider the detachment. 5 11. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS Director Smith encouraged staff to meet with city of Chula Vista’s new Mayor John McCann to discuss water matters, which he believes meetings with the city were held in the past. Director Lopez provided more information on these meetings whereas Otay previously formed a task force to meet with city of Chula Vista staff to network and discuss water matters. Director Croucher shared that at a LAFCO meeting, there was a discussion to change its voting process by redefining “majority vote” to a “majority present vote.” Written reports from Directors Keyes, Lopez and Smith were submitted to District Secretary Ramos-Krogman, which will be attached to the minutes for today’s meeting. 12. PRESIDENT’S REPORT President Robak provided an update with meetings he had with local congressional delegation at the ACWA Mission to Washington D.C. Conference. He also provided information on the Spring Garden Festival on May 6, 2023, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. and encouraged board members and staff to attend. A written report from President Robak was submitted to District Secretary Ramos- Krogman and will be attached to the minutes for today’s meeting. U 13. UCLOSED SESSION The board recessed to closed session at 4:26 p.m. to discuss the following matters: a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] OTAY WATER DISTRICT vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO; CASE NO. 37-2017- 00019348-CU-WM-CTL b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] MARK COZIAHR, ET AL. vs. OTAY WATER DISTRICT, CASE NO. 37-2015- 000-CU-MC-CTL c) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – PENDING LITIGATION (§54956.9(b)) ONE MATTER: SCHEUSTER ET AL. vs. OTAY WATER DISTRICT 6 URETURN TO OPEN SESSION 14. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION The board reconvened from closed session at 5:41 p.m. and Legal Counsel Jack Sleeth reported that no reportable actions were taken in closed session. General Counsel Dan Shinoff left at 5:28 p.m. UUOTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY 15. NO MATTERS TO DISCUSS There were no items scheduled for discussion for the Otay Water District Financing Authority board. 16. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, President Robak adjourned the meeting at 5:41 p.m. President ATTEST: District Secretary 1 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BOARD MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OTAY WATER DISTRICT April 26, 2023 1.President Smith called the meeting to order at 12:09 p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Directors Present:Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Directors Absent:None Staff Present:General Manager Jose Martinez, General Counsel Dan Shinoff, Chief of Engineering Michael Long, Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Administration Adolfo Segura, Chief of Operations Andrew Jackson, Asst. Chief of Finance Kevin Koeppen, District Secretary Tita Ramos-Krogman and others per attached list. 3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA A motion was made by Director Smith, seconded by Director Keyes and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the agenda. 5.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA No one wished to be heard. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 6.CLOSED SESSION The board recessed to closed session at 12:11 p.m. to discuss the following matters: AGENDA ITEM 4 2 a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – PENDING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE § 54956.9(b)] MARK COZIAHR, ET AL. vs. OTAY WATER DISTRICT, CASE NO. 37-2015- 00400000-CU-MC-CTL b) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to California Government Code Section §54956.8 Property: SALT CREEK GOLF COURSE 525 HUNTE PARKWAY CHULA VISTA, CA 91914 Agency negotiator: General Counsel Under negotiation: Disposition of Property RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 7. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION The board reconvened from closed session at 12:43 p.m. and General Counsel Dan Shinoff reported that the board took no reportable actions in closed session. WORKSHOP 8. DISCUSSION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET KEY FIGURES AND ASSUMPTIONS Assistant Chief of Finance Kevin Koeppen provided the agenda for the budget workshop. A presentation was provided to the board by department chiefs and staff that included budget objectives, budget timeline, budget process, Proposition 218 – Water and Sewer, challenges, strengths and District actions, Strategic Plan strategies, and the development of the Capital Improvement Program for FY 2024 to FY 2029. Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem indicated that staff will ask for the board’s approval of the proposed budget at the June 7, 2023, board meeting. In response to a question from Director Croucher, Mr. Beachem stated that the Cost of Study’s (COS) and the Prop 218 notices’ timeline are not aligned. There is a two- year delay as the COS relies on the District’s AMI System that collects data usage in the summer, which will be collected in the summer of 2024. Once data is collected, a Prop 218 Public Hearing will be held in 2025 for customers to provide comments for rates beginning January 2026. Staff responded to additional questions from the board regarding this matter. 3 President Robak inquired about the life span of valves. General Manager Martinez stated that there are so many different factors that play a role in the condition and life span of valves. Mr. Beachem and Mr. Koeppen responded to comments and questions from Director Smith regarding OPEB and Pension Funding. Currently, OPEB’s funding level is at 85%. Staff is recommending to redirect $1.2 million currently being utilized to advance fund CalPERS to CERBT in order to return the OPEB to a 100% funding level. Director Croucher asked for an example of investments with software and equipment for a proactive approach to financial and operational stability. Mr. Martinez indicated that the District invested in a Cloud-base software due to COVID as it allows staff to access emails and OneDrive files from their work phone. Director Croucher inquired about the adjustments to right sizing storage and distribution system. Chief of Administrative Services Adolfo Segura stated that the District is analyzing storage capacity that is not being utilized and determining if the size of reservoirs and supporting elements need to be adjusted. Systems Operations Manager Jake Vaclavek added that staff is analyzing if some facilities with two water tanks can be reduced to one water tank. Director Croucher suggested that staff consider the overall picture by looking at the extremes of weather conditions where one year there is an overflow of water then the next year there’s a drought. Staff responded to several comments and questions from Director Smith and President Robak regarding impacts from inflation and materials. Director Smith discussed MWD’s budget plans for long-term financing. For Otay Water District’s planning purposes, he recommended that staff look at the “What Ifs” that may impact the District’s budget. He responded to additional comments and questions from the board. After the presentation, there was a discussion on the city of San Diego’s Take or Pay agreement. Staff responded to additional comments and questions from the board. 9. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, President Robak adjourned the meeting at 1:53 p.m. President ATTEST: District Secretary STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: June 7, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Brandon DiPietro Field Services Manager PROJECT NO./ SUBPROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: ☒ Kevin Cameron, Engineering Manger ☒Michael Long, Chief, Engineering ☒Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Award a Professional Services Contract for As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a Professional Services contract for As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects to West Yost & Associates, Incorporated (West Yost) and authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with West Yost in an amount not-to-exceed $350,000, for a period of two (2) fiscal years (FY 2024 and FY 2025). The contractual enddate will be June 30, 2025. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a Professional Services contract for As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects with West Yost in an amount not-to-exceed $350,000, for a period of two (2) fiscal years (FY 2024 and FY 2025). AGENDA ITEM 6a 2 ANALYSIS: The District will require the services of an engineering consulting firm to provide As-Needed Plan Checking Services in support of developer potable and recycled water projects. The consultant assists the Public Services Section of the Engineering Department in processing and performing plan check review for developer potable and recycled projects. The plan checking services require the consultant to be a registered Civil Engineer (Project Manager) familiar with the District’s standards and procedures. The Project Manager will provide quality control for all plan reviews. The Project Manager will provide approximately twenty (20) hours, on average, of plan review service per set of plans. Services the consultant will perform are as follows: perform plan review activities necessary to evaluate general compliance with the District, San Diego Water Agencies’ Standards, (SDWAS), Department of Environmental Health and Quality (DEHQ), and Division of Drinking Water (DDW) standards as required for each plan received. The consultant will coordinate approval with District, DEHQ, DDW, and developers, as required. The consultant will deliver reviewed recycled water plan(s) to DEHQ for their evaluation and approval. It is anticipated that the consultant will review approximately eighty (80) projects or more in the two-year contract period. Over the same period, staff estimates the cost to perform this responsibility will not exceed $350,000. Since these services are as needed, driven by development, and completely funded by developer deposits, the full amount of this contract may not be expended. On February 15, 2023, the District solicited for As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects by placing an advertisement on the District’s website, on Periscope S2G (formally BidSync), and in the San Diego Daily Transcript. Three (3) firms submitted a letter of interest and a statement of qualifications. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects was sent to the three (3) firms resulting in two (2) proposals received by Thursday, April 6, 2023, from the following firms: • Horrocks Engineers, Incorporated, San Diego, CA • West Yost & Associates, Incorporated, San Diego, CA 3 The one (1) firm that chose not to submit a proposal was Hunsaker & Associates. The two (2) submitted proposals were found to be responsive with respect to the District’s requirements. The remaining one (1) firm declined to propose due to an indicated difficulty finding capacity to accommodate the contracted work. In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, staff evaluated and scored the written proposals of the two (2) firms on Thursday, April 20, 2023. On April 25, 2023, the District conducted interviews via Teams with the two (2) firms. The District has chosen to utilize one consultant for this contract due to the volume of plan checks expected. West Yost received the highest score for their services based on their experience, understanding of the scope of work, and proposed method to accomplish the work. West Yost was the most qualified with the best overall rating or ranking. A summary of the complete evaluation is shown in Attachment B. West Yost submitted the Company Background Questionnaire, as required by the RFP, and staff did not find any significant issues. Staff checked their references and performed an internet search on the company. Staff found the references to be excellent and did not find any outstanding issues with the internet search. West Yost’s project manager, listed in the proposal, has vast plan checking and project management experience. Staff estimated that an average of $3,000 will be needed per project to perform the plan check review services. The District recuperates these funds by billing directly to the developer. The District has historically utilized professional As-Needed services to support the delivery of private developers’ potable and recycled water projects. The use of the As-Needed services is directly tied to the rate of development, which is influenced by the economy. As-Needed services are flexible and only used as development is initiated. As a result, the use of As-Needed services in support of developer projects has been a useful tool that can accommodate economic swings that may occur over time. FISCAL IMPACT: ☒ Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer Plan check, inspection, and project management services are an on-going effort provided by the District’s Public Services 4 Section in support of developer projects. This expense is completely funded by developer deposits and does not affect the District’s operating budget. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." GRANTS/LOANS: Not applicable. LEGAL IMPACT: None. BD/KC:jf https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engoperating/Shared Documents/As-Needed Services/Plan Checking/FY24-25/Staff Report/Staff Report As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Various Award of Professional Services Contract for As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on May 16, 2023. The Committee supported the staff's recommendation. • Staff presented the request to award $350,000.00 contract for an As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects to West Yost and Associates, Incorporated for a period of two fiscal years (FY24 and FY25) with contract end date of June 30, 2025. • In response to a question from the Committee, Staff stated that it is possible that the projects could exceed the proposed 80 projects and the District will just need to extend the contract if necessary, so long as it stays under $350,000.00. • In response to a question from the Committee, when performing internet searches on these companies, the District’s program Periscope (online bid portal) performs additional data analysis regardless of “online presence clean-up” of companies. This program can pick up on any rebranding from companies with Periscope’s data features. • In response to a question from the Committee, the reason for there being only two bidders is that it has been normal to receive fewer bids due to their staff already being committed to other work. The money necessary for these types of contracts was typical. • In response to a question from the Committee, the District has used West Yost staff in the past when they worked for other companies that were acquired by West Yost. • In response to a question from the Committee, the types of projects that are plan-checked are more complex than others. When engineers submit work that is deficient this 6 impacts the developers’ deposits as plan checking efforts are increased. When this happens, staff will work with developers to ensure they stay on track and with their budgets. • In response to a question from the Committee, with respect to work that is known to be coming into the District, there are close to 35 projects in Village 8 and other individual projects in Otay Mesa which are all stand-alone projects. The complexity of these projects and plan-checks varies. Upon completion of the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation to the full board as a consent item. Qualificatio ns of Team Responsiv eness and Project Understan Technical and Manageme nt INDIVIDUAL SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN AVERAGE SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN Consultant's Commitment to DBE Additional Creativity and Insight Strength of Project Manager Presentation and Communicatio n Skills Responses to Questions INDIVIDUAL TOTAL - ORAL AVERAGE TOTAL ORAL Proposed Rates*Total Score 30 25 30 85 85 Y/N 15 15 10 10 50 50 15 150 Poor/Good/ Excellent Mike O'Donnell 28 22 27 77 10 11 7 6 34 Hector Licon 27 24 26 77 10 12 7 6 35 Kevin Cameron 27 20 26 73 10 11 7 5 33 Brandon DiPietro 26 21 26 73 12 12 8 6 38 Aaron Hazard 26 20 25 71 9 12 6 5 32 Mike O'Donnell 29 24 28 81 13 13 8 9 43 Hector Licon 29 25 29 83 13 14 9 9 45 Kevin Cameron 28 24 27 79 13 14 9 9 45 Brandon DiPietro 28 24 28 80 14 14 10 8 46 Aaron Hazard 28 22 27 77 12 14 8 9 43 Consultant Weighted Rate Score Horrocks $220 1 *The fees were evaluated by comparing the weighted rates for six positions. The sum of the weighted rates are noted on the Rates Scoring Chart. West Yost $177 15 Note: Review Panel does not see or consider rates when scoring other categories. Rates are scored by a staff member who is not on the Review Panel. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS ATTACHMENT B As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects - Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 15 RATES SCORING CHART West Yost 80 ExcellentY44139 Horrocks MAXIMUM POINTS 1 REFERENCES Y 34 109 ORALWRITTEN 74 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: June 7, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Andrea Carey, Customer Service Manager PROJECT: DIV. NO.All APPROVED BY: Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 4431 to Continue Water and Sewer Availability Charges for District Customers for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 to be Collected Through Property Tax Bills GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Board adopt Resolution No. 4431 to continue water and sewer availability charges for District customers for fiscal year 2023-2024 to be collected through property tax bills. COMMITTEE ACTION: See Attachment A. PURPOSE: That the Board consider the adoption of Resolution No. 4431 to continue water and sewer availability charges for District customers for the fiscal year 2023-2024 to be collected through property tax bills. ANALYSIS: The District levies availability charges each year on property in both developed and undeveloped areas. State Water Code Section 71630- 71637 authorizes the District to assess such availability charges. To place these charges on the tax roll, the County of San Diego (the AGENDA ITEM 6b 2 County) requires the District to provide a resolution authorizing the charges. In late July of each year, the District provides a resolution along with the listing of charges by parcel to the County’s property tax services department. For a parcel to be assessed a sewer availability charge, it must be annexed into the District’s sewer Improvement District No. 18. Sewer availability charges are either a fixed fee of $10 for parcels one acre or less or $30 per acre for parcels greater than one acre. Unlike sewer, water availability charges are assessed on all parcels within the District’s boundaries and do not require annexation into an improvement district. For most parcels, water availability charges are the same as those shown for sewer availability above; however, there are exceptions. Parcels greater than one mile from a District pipeline, identified as an agricultural preserve, in a floodplain, or have a 30% slope are charged $3 per acre. Parcels identified as open space are charged 50% of the normal assessment fees ($5 for those one acre or less or $15 per acre for those greater than an acre). Current legislation provides that any amount up to $10 per parcel (one acre or less) is for general use and any amount over $10 per parcel ($30 per acre for parcels over one acre) is restricted, to be expended in and for that improvement district. The District uses amounts over $10 per parcel to develop water and sewer systems within the improvement districts where the funds are collected. In accordance with legislation, the District places amounts up to $10 per parcel in the General Fund. FISCAL IMPACT: Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The availability charges, as budgeted, will generate approximately $1.2 million in revenue. STRATEGIC GOAL: This revenue source will help the District meet its fiscal responsibility to its ratepayers. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Resolution No. 4431 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 4431 to Continue Water and Sewer Availability Charges for District Customers for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 to be Collected Through Property Tax Bills COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance and Administration Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on May 17, 2023, and the following comments were made: • Staff recommended that the Board adopt Resolution No. 4431 to continue water and sewer availability charges for District customers for fiscal year 2023-2024 to be collected through property tax bills. As noted in the staff report, the District levies availability charges each year on property in both developed and undeveloped areas. • The Committee inquired if the charges are fixed amounts or if the District can increase the charges based on inflation or other considerations. Staff informed the Committee that the amounts set forth in the staff report and accompanying resolution are set by the California Water Code and there are no provisions for increases due to inflation or other factors. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staff’s recommendation and presentation to the full board as a Consent Item. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4431 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT CONTINUING PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024; REQUESTING THE COUNTY TO COLLECT SUCH AVAILABILITY CHARGES ON THE 2023-2024 SECURED TAX ROLL AND TAKING OTHER RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the Otay Water District (herein "District") is a member of the San Diego County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and, as a member, the District is entitled to purchase water for distribution within the District and water so purchased is available to property in the District that is also within the San Diego County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, without further need for annexation to any agency; and WHEREAS, Improvement District No. 18 has been formed within the Otay Water District (herein "District") and sanitary sewers have been constructed and sewer service is available to land within the said District; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the benefit that water availability confers upon property within the District, and in further consideration of the need for revenue to pay the cost of water storage and transmission facilities which directly and specifically benefit property within the District, the District has previously determined that water availability charges be fixed and established under applicable provisions of law; and Attachment B 2 WHEREAS, in consideration of the benefit which sewer availability confers upon property within Improvement District No. 18, and in further consideration of the need to pay the cost of sanitary sewers which directly and specifically benefit those properties, the District has previously determined that sewer availability charges be fixed and established for Improvement District No. 18 as provided under applicable provisions of law; and WHEREAS, the District desires to continue the collection of such water and sewer availability charges without increases or revisions in methodology or application. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District resolves, determines and orders as follows: 1. SCHEDULE OF WATER CHARGES (A) The water availability charges previously fixed and established are hereby continued for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 at the existing rates, as follows: (1) In Improvement District No. 22 the charge shall be $30.00 per acre of land and $10.00 per parcel of land less than one acre. (2) For land located outside an improvement district and within one mile of a District water line, the charge shall be $10.00 per acre of land and $10.00 for each parcel less than one acre. (3) For land located outside an improvement district and greater than one mile from District facilities, the 3 charge shall be $3.00 per acre of land and $3.00 for each parcel less than one acre. (B) Modifications The charges provided for in subparagraphs (1) through (3) in (A) above shall be modified upon petition by the property owner where the property does not receive water from the District as follows: (1) where a parcel of land or a portion thereof is within an open space easement approved by San Diego County, the charge for such parcel or portion thereof shall be fifty percent (50%) of the charge determined pursuant to paragraph (A), provided the owner files with the District proof, satisfactory to the District, that said parcel of land or portion thereof is within such a designated permanent open space area; (2) where a parcel of land or portion thereof is in an agricultural reserve under a Land Conservation Contract with the County of San Diego, pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 as amended, the charge for such parcel shall be $3.00 per acre, provided the owner files with the District proof, satisfactory to the District, that said parcel of land or portion thereof is within such an agricultural preserve; (3) where a parcel of land or a portion thereof is within an area designated as a floodplain by the County of San Diego, the charge for such a parcel or portion 4 thereof shall be $3.00 per acre, provided the owner files with the District proof, satisfactory to the District, that said parcel of land or portion thereof is within such designated floodplain; and (4) where a parcel of land or portion thereof exceeds a 30% slope, and where such is not within a legal subdivision, lot-split or planned residential development, the charge for the slope portion shall be $3.00 per acre, or if such a parcel is less than one acre and more than one-half of the area exceeds 30% slope, $3.00 for the parcel, provided the owner files with the District proof, satisfactory to the District, that said parcel of land or portion thereof meets or exceeds the slope. (C) Exceptions The charges provided for in (A) and (B) above shall not apply, upon petition by the property owner, to the following: (1) land located within an area designated as a floodway by the County of San Diego; (2) land designated as a vernal pool area by a govern- mental agency authorized to make such a designation and which designation prohibits use of such area for any purpose; (3) land owned by non-profit, tax-exempt conservation organizations specializing in identifying and protecting the natural habitat of rare species; or 5 (4) land that is located within the boundaries of the Otay Water District but not within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the San Diego County Water Authority. 2. SCHEDULE OF SEWER CHARGES (A) Sewer standby assessment or availability charges are hereby fixed and established for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 as follows: (1) In Improvement District No. 18 the charges shall be $30.00 per acre of land and $10.00 per parcel of land less than one acre. The preceding charges shall not apply, upon petition by the property owner, to the following: (a) any portion of a parcel which is undeveloped and maintained in its natural state within an Open Space Area as a requirement under the San Diego County General Plan, provided the owner of such parcel files proof, satisfactory to the District, of such designed Open Space Area; (b) any portion of a parcel located within an area designated by the County of San Diego as a floodway or floodplain; or (c) any portion of a parcel of land which exceeds a slope of 30% and which is not within a legal subdivision, lot split or planned lot split or planned residential development. 6 3. DEFERRALS (A) Deferral of Charge, Purpose Situations may arise when an owner of a parcel of land does not use and has no present intention of using water and/or sewer provided by the District on a parcel of land, as defined in Section 4. The purpose of this section is to permit an evaluation by the District, on a case-by- case basis, of the circumstances which pertain to such situations to determine whether a deferral of charges should be approved according to the terms and conditions herein provided. Any owner of a parcel of land who believes that the amount of the water and/or sewer availability charges fixed against such parcel should be deferred may file an application with the District for deferral of the charge, as follows: (1) Application The application shall include a statement describing the circumstances and factual elements which support the request for deferral. (2) The General Manager shall consider the request within sixty (60) days after the filing of a completed application. If the application for deferral meets the established criteria, the General Manager may decide whether to approve the request and order the charge deferred accordingly. If the request is denied, the applicant shall be notified in writing stating the reasons for the denial. (B) Appeal to Board of Directors If the General Manager denies a request, the owner may file an appeal with the Board of Directors within sixty (60) days after such denial. No new 7 application for deferral need be considered by the General Manager until expiration of twelve (12) months from the date of a denial, unless differently directed by the Board of Directors. (C) Deferred Charges on Restricted Parcels, Criteria The levy of the charge may be deferred annually as to any parcel of land which meets each of the following criteria: (1) The owner of such parcel makes a timely application requesting deferral of the charge. (2) The parcel, which is the subject of the request, will become subject to enforceable restrictions which prohibits the connection to the District sewer system or use of water on the parcel, except by means of natural precipitation or runoff; provided, however, if considered appropriate by the General Manager, local water may be used for limited domestic stock watering and irrigation uses. (3) The owner executed a recordable agreement which includes provisions that: (a) set forth the enforceable restrictions pertinent to the subject parcel; (b) the agreement may be terminated upon written request by the owner and payment of all deferred water and/or sewer availability charges, plus interest thereon, compounded annually, and accruing at the legal rate from the date such charges would have been otherwise due and payable; 8 (c) no water and/or sewer service from the District shall be provided to such parcel for a period of ten (10) years after the total amount due for the charges deferred, plus annually compounded interest, is paid in full to the District, unless a surcharge penalty as described below is paid to the District prior to connection of any water and/or sewer service; (d) if the surcharge is not paid, during the ten (10) year period, while water and/or sewer service is not available to the subject land, the owner shall pay all annual water or availability charges as fixed; and (e) contains such other provisions considered by the General Manager to be appropriate. (D) Surcharge Upon termination of the deferral agreement, an owner may elect to receive water and/or sewer service prior to the expiration of the ten (10) year penalty period upon payment of a surcharge. The surcharge shall be equal to the amount of the annual water and/or sewer availability charges fixed for the parcel(s) of land in the year of election to receive water and/or sewer service multiplied by the number of years remaining of the ten (10) year penalty period. This surcharge shall also apply if a property owner develops a parcel that is subject to a deferral agreement without termination of said agreement. 9 (E) Enforcement Procedures In order to insure that terms and conditions of the recordable agreement are being met, the General Manager shall: (1) Maintain a record of all parcels approved for deferral of the water assessments or availability charges. (2) Report to the Board of Directors any instances where the terms of the agreement are being violated. (3) Take such other actions or procedures considered appropriate. 4. DEFINITION OF PARCEL The term "parcel" as used herein shall mean a parcel of land as shown on the assessment rolls of the County Assessor of San Diego County as of March, 2023. 5. NOTICE AND REQUEST TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND AUDITOR As provided in Sections 71634 to 71637, on or before the third Monday in August, 2023, the Secretary of this District shall furnish, in writing to the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County and to the County Auditor, a description of the land within the District upon which availability charges are to be levied and collected for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 together with the amount of the assessments or charges. At the time and in the manner required by law for the levying of taxes for county purposes, the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County shall levy, in addition to taxes it levies, water and/or sewer availability charges in the amounts fixed by this Resolution for the respective parcels of land described in Section 1 of this Resolution. All county officers charged with the duty of collecting taxes shall collect 10 the charges with the regular property tax payments in the same form and manner as county taxes are collected. Such availability charges are a lien on the property with respect to which they are fixed. Collection of the charges may be enforced by the same means as provided for the enforcement of liens for state and county taxes. 6. CERTIFICATION TO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The District certifies that this Resolution complies with the provisions of Article XIIID of the California Constitution in that the availability charges are existing charges first set by the Board of Directors of the District prior to November 6, 1996. At the time the availability charges were initially established, the District followed the applicable provisions of law then in effect, and the District has continued to comply with such provisions, including any requirements for notices or hearings, as from time to time in effect. Therefore, pursuant to Section 71632 and Section 71638 of the California Water Code, as currently in effect, the District may continue the availability charges in successive years at the same rate. The District further certifies that the charge is not increased hereby and the methodology for the rate is the same as in previous years. The charge is imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs, maintenance, and operating expenses of the water or sewer system of the District, as applicable. 7. CERTIFIED COPIES The Secretary of this District shall deliver certified copies of this Resolution to the Board of 11 Supervisors and to the Auditor of San Diego County with the list of charges described in Section 4 above. 8. CORRECTIONS; OTHER ACTIONS The General Manager of the District is hereby authorized to correct any clerical error made in any assessment or charge pursuant to this Resolution and to make an appropriate adjustment in any assessment or charge made in error. Furthermore, the General Manager and the Secretary of this District are hereby directed to take any further actions and deliver such documents and certificates as necessary to carry out the purpose of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District at a regular meeting duly held this 7th day of June, 2023. Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: President ATTEST: Secretary 12 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 4431 was duly adopted by the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the OTAY WATER DISTRICT at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of June, 2023 by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: District Secretary STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: June 7, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Suzie Lawson Human Resources Manager PROJECT: Various DIV. NO.ALL APPROVED BY: Adolfo Segura, Chief, Administrative Services Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: APPROVE THE SELECTION OF KEENAN & ASSOCIATES FOR BENEFITS CONSULTING SERVICES AND AS THE DISTRICT’S BENEFITS BROKER OF RECORD GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Board authorize the General Manager to negotiate and enter into a 5-year agreement, (three [3] years with two [2] additional years at the District’s option), with Keenan & Associates (Keenan) for benefits consulting and broker services and identifying Keenan as the District’s Benefits Broker of Record for a total amount not-to-exceed $136,500. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see “Attachment A”. PURPOSE: To authorize the General Manager to negotiate and enter into a 5-year agreement, (three [3] years with two [2] additional years at the District’s option), with Keenan for benefits consulting and broker services and identifying Keenan as the District’s Benefits Broker of Record for a total amount not-to-exceed $136,500. ANALYSIS: The District uses a benefits consultant to perform a full range of services related to the design, bidding, implementation, maintenance, renewal, communication, as well as the improvement of the District’s AGENDA ITEM 6c group health, dental, vision, life, short-term and long-term disability programs, and flexible benefits program. In 2012, the District issued a Request-for-Proposal (RFP) for the District’s Benefits Consulting and Brokerage Service. As a result of that 2012 competitive process, staff recommended moving from Willis Insurance Services of California (Willis) to Alliant Insurance Services (Alliant). In 2016, the District issued another RFP resulting in staff recommendation and Board approval to continue with Alliant as the District’s Benefits Consultant. Since that time, the parties mutually agreed on contract extensions. The most recent extension agreement will expire on June 30, 2023. In an effort to continue with best practices and to validate that the District is receiving the best available benefits consulting service at a competitive price, the District solicited bids once again for Benefits Consultant Service in March 2023. The District issued a public RFP through its online solicitation portal, Periscope, and received responses from the following three (3) firms: Benefits Consulting and Brokerage Firms Total Proposed Cost (3 years with 2 option years) Alliant Insurance Services $169,000 Keenan & Associates $136,500 Newfront Insurance $316,260 A four-person panel rated and reviewed the written proposals. The proposal review included an evaluation of the following topics: • Completeness, addressed requested information, and readability of proposal. • Perceived ability of Consultant to negotiate a benefits program that meets the needs of the District. • Qualifications, background, and experience of consultant and staff, and support team composition. • Consultant’s ability to provide proactive support to the District’s Human Resources function including dissemination of current general and legal updates as well as time-sensitive insurance carrier information. • Consultant’s and other assigned staff’s availability and accessibility including the location of the office and/or ability to meet remotely to effectively service our account. • Proposed fees. The firms with written proposals receiving the two highest scores, Alliant and Keenan, proceeded to the oral interview phase of the process. The same four raters evaluated the interview responses based on the following factors: • Consultant’s ability to provide creative or unique solutions to clients. • Strength of the account manager in leading and managing the interview process, demonstrating their ability to succeed in that role. • Communication skills of the team, including organization, time management, and rapport developed with the Evaluation panel. • Quality of responses to interview questions, including the ability to answer questions articulately, completely, and insightfully. Once the interview responses were evaluated, the initial proposed fees were revealed and rated; the score summary report is attached (Attachment B). Keenan received the highest interview score as well as the highest overall score by all four raters. Keenan’s initial proposed fee was $144,000. Nearing a final decision, staff reached out to the top two firms for their best and final offers at which point Keenan reduced their proposed fee by $7,500 to $136,500. Alliant’s best and final offer remained the same as their original proposed fee. Based on the overall evaluation score, which combined the ratings of written proposals, oral interviews, and fees, staff recommends that the District enter into a contract with Keenan. While all consultants considered are capable of providing the benefit consulting services requested, the following factors were considered when making a final recommendation: Keenan received the highest overall score and offered the most competitive fee which, for the five-year total, was $32,500 less than the next lowest fee. Keenan has 50 years of experience consulting with cities, counties, and special districts, and provides services to more than 1,100 public sector clients. The Core Account Service Team designated to service the District has extensive experience working for public agencies in HR and benefits. The interview responses indicated a very proactive approach to services. All reference checks, including a local water district, were extremely positive with no areas of concern. Keenan also has their own legal department, and an underwriting/actuarial department consisting of 15 subject matter experts, and a host of other value-added services that the District can further evaluate. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The annual cost of the agreement is listed below and will not exceed $136,500 over five (5) years. Keenan’s best & final fee proposal follows: Term Year Proposed Fees Initial Term FY24 (7/1/23 – 6/30/24) $26,500 Initial Term FY25 (7/1/24 – 6/30/25) $26,500 Initial Term FY26 (7/1/25 – 6/30/26) $26,500 Optional Renewal Term FY27 (7/1/26 – 6/30/27) $28,500 Optional Renewal Term FY28 (7/1/27 – 6/30/28) $28,500 5-Year Maximum Total Fee $136,500 This change in benefits consultant is expected to save the District approximately $6,500 annually with a total savings of approximately $32,500 over the five (5) years of the agreement, while still maintaining the excellent quality of benefit consulting services on an on-going basis. The proposed FY24 operating budget is sufficient to cover these costs. STRATEGIC GOAL: Maintain a long-range financing plan that sets forth the long-term funding needs of the District. LEGAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Committee Action Report Attachment B – Benefits Broker Score Summary Report Attachment C – PowerPoint Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: APPROVE THE SELECTION OF KEENAN & ASSOCIATES FOR BENEFIT CONSULTING SERVICES AND AS THE DISTRICT’S BROKER OF RECORD COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance and Administration Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on May 17, 2023, and the following comments were made: • Staff presented a brief PowerPoint presentation in conjunction with the staff report. The presentation, which included three slides that summarized proposals received, proposal score summary, and Keenan & Associates’ final fee proposal, was not included in the May 17, 2023 Committee packet. The PowerPoint presentation will be included in the June 7, 2023 Board Packet. • The Committee commended staff for their decision to request the top two scoring firms submit their best and final offers. This resulted in the chosen firm reducing their initial bid and thus saving the District, and ultimately customers, $7,500. • In response to a question from the Committee, staff explained that because the market is so vast, a consulting service supports the District’s Human Resources Department in locating the best options and most cost-effective solutions for the District. • It was discussed that the objective is for the cost-effective solutions found for the District by the consultant to result in savings and competitive benefits for the District. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staff’s recommendation and presentation to the full board as a Consent Item. 1. Completeness, readability… 2. Perceived ability of Consultant to negotiate… 3. Qualifications, background, and experience… 4. Consultant’s ability to provide proactive support… 5. Consultant’s availability and accessibility... Individual Subtotal Written Score 1. Ability to provide creative or unique solutions 2. Strength of account manager 3. Communication skills 4. Quality of response to interview questions Individual Subtotal Oral Score Fee Score Total Score Firm Maximum Points 10 25 25 20 10 90 90 15 15 10 10 50 50 10 150 Evaluator 1 9 20 22.5 17.5 8.5 77.5 12 12 7 8 39.00 130.38 Evaluator 2 9 22 23 19 9 82 11 11 7 7 36.00 Evaluator 3 9 24 23 19 10 85 11 14 7 7 39.00 Evaluator 4 10 24 24 19 10 87 12 13 8 7 40.00 $169,000 Evaluator 1 8.5 19 22.5 18 8 76 13 13 9 9 44.00 Evaluator 2 9 22 21 18 9 79 15 14 10 10 49.00 Evaluator 3 9 23 22 18 9 81 12 14 9 9 44.00 Evaluator 4 10 23 23 19 9 84 14 14 9 9 46.00 $144,000 Evaluator 1 7.5 21 19.5 17.5 7.5 73 Evaluator 2 9 22 23 19 8 81 Evaluator 3 9 22 21 18 8 78 Evaluator 4 8 20 20 18 8 74 $316,260 Full descriptions of evaluation criteria 1 77.50 Summary of Proposal Scores RFP #FY24-2200-016 - Benefit Brokerage & Consulting Services Alliant Insurance Services (HQ Irvine, CA) 82.88 9 Keenan & Associates (HQ Torrance, CA) 80.00 Newfront Insurance (HQ San Mateo, CA) 10 135.75 38.50 45.75 NOT INTERVIEWED Written Score Oral Score 76.50 1. Completeness, addressed requested information, readability of proposal. 2. Perceived ability of Consultant to negotiate a benefits program that meets the needs of the District. 3. Qualifications, background, and experience of Consultant, staff and team composition. 4. Consultant’s ability to provide proactive support to the District’s Human Resources function including dissemination of current general and legal updates as well as time-sensitive insurance carrier information. 5. Consultant’s and other assigned staff’s availability and accessibility including the location of the office and/or ability to meet remotely that will be servicing the District’s account. ATTACHMENT B Proposals Received Benefits Consulting and Brokerage Firms Total Proposed Cost (3 years with 2 option years) Alliant Insurance Services $169,000 Keenan & Associates $136,500 Newfront Insurance $316,260 ATTACHMENT C Proposal Score Summary (Attachment B) Written Score Oral Score Summary of Proposal ScoresRFP #FY24-2200-016 - Benefit Brokerage & Consulting Services 1. Completeness, readability… 2. Perceivedability ofConsultant to negotiate… 3. Qualifications,background, and experience… 4. Consultant’sability to provide proactive support… 5. Consultant’savailability and accessibility... Individual Subtotal Written Score 1. Ability toprovide creative orunique solutions 2. Strength ofaccount manager inleading interview process 3. Communication skills 4. Quality ofresponse tointerview questions Individual Subtotal Oral Score Fee Score Total Score Firm Max Pts 10 25 25 20 10 90 90 15 15 10 10 50 50 10 150 Alliant InsuranceServices(HQ Irvine, CA) Evaluator 1 9 20 22.5 17.5 8.5 77.5 82.88 12 12 7 8 39.00 38.50 9 130.38 Evaluator 2 9 22 23 19 9 82 11 11 7 7 36.00 Evaluator 3 9 24 23 19 10 85 11 14 7 7 39.00 Evaluator 4 10 24 24 19 10 87 12 13 8 7 40.00 $169,000 Keenan & Associates(HQ Torrance, CA) Evaluator 1 8.5 19 22.5 18 8 76 80.00 13 13 9 9 44.00 45.75 10 135.75 Evaluator 2 9 22 21 18 9 79 15 14 10 10 49.00 Evaluator 3 9 23 22 18 9 81 12 14 9 9 44.00 Evaluator 4 10 23 23 19 9 84 14 14 9 9 46.00 $144,000 Newfront Insurance (HQ San Mateo, CA) Evaluator 1 7.5 21 19.5 17.5 7.5 73 76.50 NOT INTERVIEWED 1 77.50 Evaluator 2 9 22 23 19 8 81 Evaluator 3 9 22 21 18 8 78 Evaluator 4 8 20 20 18 8 74 $316,260 Full descriptions of evaluation criteria (Written Score)1.Completeness, addressed requested information, readability of proposal. 2.Perceived ability of Consultant to negotiate a benefits program that meets the needs of the District. 3.Qualifications, background, and experience of Consultant, staff and team composition. 4.Consultant’s ability to provide proactive support to the District’s Human Resources function includingdissemination of current general and legal updates as well as time-sensitive insurance carrier information. 5.Consultant’s and other assigned staff’s availability and accessibility including the location of the officeand/or ability to meet remotely that will be servicing the District’s account. Keenan’s Best & Final Fee Proposal Term Year Proposed Fees Initial Term FY24 (7/1/23 –6/30/24)$26,500 Initial Term FY25 (7/1/24 –6/30/25)$26,500 Initial Term FY26 (7/1/25 –6/30/26)$26,500 Optional Renewal Term FY27 (7/1/26 –6/30/27)$28,500 Optional Renewal Term FY28 (7/1/27 –6/30/28)$28,500 5-Year Maximum Total Fee $136,500 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: June 7, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Tita Ramos-Krogman, District Secretary W.O./G.F. NO: DIV. NO. APPROVED BY: Tita Ramos-Krogman, District Secretary Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Board of Directors 2023 Calendar of Meetings GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: At the request of the Board, the attached Board of Director’s meeting calendar 2023 is being presented for discussion. PURPOSE: This staff report is being presented to provide the Board the opportunity to review the 2023 Board of Director’s meeting calendar and amend the schedules as needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: N/A ANALYSIS: The Board requested that this item be presented at each meeting so they may have an opportunity to review the Board meeting calendar schedule and amend it as needed. STRATEGIC GOAL: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: None. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachment: Calendar of Meeting for 2023 G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTS\Board Meeting Calendar 06-07-23.doc AGENDA ITEM 7a Board of Directors, Workshops and Committee Meetings 2023 Regular Board Meetings: Special Board or Committee Meetings (3rd Wednesday of Each Month or as Noted) January 4, 2023 February 1, 2023 March 1, 2023 April 5, 2023 May 3, 2023 June 7, 2023 July 5, 2023 August 2, 2023 September 6, 2023 October 4, 2023 November 1, 2023 December 6, 2023 January 18, 2023 February 15, 2023 March 15, 2023 April 19, 2023 May 17, 2023 June 21, 2023 July 19, 2023 August 16, 2023 September 20, 2023 October 18, 2023 November 15, 2023 December 20, 2023 Special Board Meeting: June 14, 2023, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. (Tentatively Scheduled) STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: June 7, 2023 PROJECT: Various DIV. NO.ALL SUBMITTED BY: Emilyn Zuniga Safety & Security Specialist APPROVED BY: Adolfo Segura, Chief, Administrative Services Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION #4432 TO APPROVE THE DISTRICT’S ANNEX TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO’S MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Board adopt Resolution #4432 to approve the 2023 Otay Water District’s Annex, which will be part of the County of San Diego’s Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan as a planning partner in coordination with other local jurisdictions, including municipalities and special districts. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see “Attachment A.” PURPOSE: To request that the Board adopt Resolution #4432 to approve the 2023 Otay Water District’s (District) Annex, which will be part of the County of San Diego’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). This is consistent with the District’s goal of engaging in interagency coordination efforts to address public safety, comprehensive planning, and customer service. AGENDA ITEM 8a 2 ANALYSIS: In November 2021, the District participated in the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services (County OES) five-year Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJMHP) update. The process included input from public agencies, special districts, California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The process validated the District’s mitigation practice of our day- to-day decision-making regarding land use planning, watershed management, reservoir retrofits, site design, and other functions. To reiterate, the benefits of mitigation planning include the following: • Protecting public safety and preventing loss of life and injury. • Reducing damage to existing and future development. • Avoiding damage to our current environmental assets. • Minimizing downtime, accelerating recovery, and reducing financial costs. • Helping accomplish other District objectives, such as capital improvements, infrastructure protection, open space preservation, and economic resiliency. • Ensuring FEMA and Cal OES grants eligibility. The local planning process and annex development consisted of an internal planning committee, which included representatives from Engineering, Finance, Operations, Communications, and Administrative Services. The internal development also resulted in approximately $75,000 of consultant savings. The development process included the following activities: 1. Identification of potential partners and resources and participation in the process within the planning area. 2. Identification of local natural and human-caused hazards such as flooding, drought, wildfire, landslides, severe weather, terrorism, cyber threats, pandemic, and the impact of climate change. 3. Development of actions to mitigate the risk and a plan to implement the measures over the next five years. 3 4. Review and approval of the Annex by Cal OES and FEMA. Lastly, other local water agency participation includes San Diego County Water Authority, Sweetwater Authority, Vista Irrigation District, and Rainbow Municipal Water District. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer This is consistent with the District’s goal of providing services to its stakeholders and customers. There is no fiscal impact on the approval of the MJHMP. At this time, implementation will only require District staff resources. Future funding requests, if needed, will come before the Board for consideration as part of the budget process or on a case- by-case basis. STRATEGIC GOAL: The Annex supports the District’s Strategic Planning Perspective, Financial, as it serves as a critical tool to access FEMA pre- and post- disaster mitigation funding. Accessing this funding can allow the District to leverage dollars spent on reducing risk and “building back better” after disasters. The Annex also supports the Strategic Planning Perspective, Internal Business Process, by monitoring and modifying the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, identifying, evaluating, and implementing new efficiencies for recycled water, and advancing the District’s Asset Management Program and Cyber and Physical Security. LEGAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Committee Action Report Attachment B – Resolution #4432 Attachment C – Otay Water District’s Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex Attachment D – Letter from FEMA regarding San Diego County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan Amendment Notice Attachment E – San Diego County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Attachment F – PowerPoint Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION #4432 TO APPROVE THE DISTRICT’S ANNEX TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO’S MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance and Administration Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on May 17, 2023, and the following comments were made: • Staff presented a brief PowerPoint presentation in conjunction with the staff report. The presentation, which included four slides that supported information in the staff report, was not included in the May 17, 2023 Committee Packet. The PowerPoint presentation will be included in the June 7, 2023 Board Packet. • The Committee recognized staff for their efforts on the internal development of the District’s Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). Developing the HMP internally saved the District approximately $75,000 by not having to hire an outside consultant firm. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staff’s recommendation and presentation to the full board as an Action Item. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4432 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT TO ADOPT THE DISTRICT’S ANNEX TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO’S MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Otay Water District have established policies, procedures, ordinances, and resolutions for the efficient operation of the District; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the District to establish procedures to review policies, procedures, ordinances, and resolutions periodically to ensure they are current and relevant; and WHEREAS, the Otay Water District will be part of the County of San Diego’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan as a planning partner in coordination with other local jurisdictions, including municipalities and special districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District adopt the District’s Annex to the County of San Diego’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan in the form presented to the Board at this meeting. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District at a regular meeting held this 7th of June 2023. __________________________ Board President ATTEST: ___________________________ District Secretary ATTACHMENT B Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan: Otay Water District Annex San Diego County, California June 2023 ATTACHMENT C i This page is intentionally left blank. SECTION 1 | Planning Area and Resources 2 SECTION 1: Planning Area and Resources 1.1. Planning Area: Otay Water District The Otay Water District (District) is a potable water, recycled water, and sewer services provider. The State Legislature authorized the establishment of the Otay Water District in 1956 as a California Special District under the provisions of the Municipal Water District Law of 1911, Division 20 (commencing with Section 71000) of the Water Code of the State of California. As a California Special District under the provisions of the Municipal Water District Law of 1911, Division 20 (commencing with Section 71000) of the Water Code of the State of California. Otay Water District is a "revenue neutral" public agency where each end-user pays only their fair share of the District's costs of acquiring, treating, transporting, or the operation and maintenance of the public water, recycled water, or sewer facilities. The District provides safe, reliable water service to a population of more than 226,000 within approximately 125 square miles of southeastern San Diego County, including the communities of eastern Chula Vista Bonita, Jamul, Spring Valley, Rancho San Diego, unincorporated areas of El Cajon and La Mesa, and eastern Otay Mesa along the international border with Mexico. The District's service area boundaries are nearly bounded on the northeast by the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, on the northwest by the Helix Water District, the west by the Sweetwater Authority/South Bay Irrigation District, and southwest by the City of San Diego. The southern boundary of the District is the international border with Mexico. The District provides potable water service to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers, and for environmental and fire protection uses. The potable water delivered by the District is purchased from the San Diego County Water Authority or the Helix Water District. Imported water is a mix of waters from the Colorado River and Northern California. Most of the water is purchased from the region's primary importer, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The District owns and operates a wastewater collection system providing public sewer service to homes and businesses within the Jamacha drainage basin. The District also owns and operates the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF), which produces up to 1.1 million gallons per day (MGD) of recycled water. The District has an additional recycled water source that can be purchased from the City of San Diego's South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The District delivers recycled water to customers through a dedicated distribution system used to irrigate golf courses, playing fields, public parks, roadside landscapes, and open spaces in eastern Chula Vista. SECTION 1 | Planning Area and Resources 3 1.2. Community Rating System Requirements The Community Rating System (CRS) is a FEMA program that rewards communities beyond the minimum standards for floodplain management under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Communities can potentially improve their Community Rating System and lower NFIP premiums by developing a CRS Plan. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program. Community Rating System (CRS) Local Mitigation Planning Handbook Tasks Planning Steps (44 CFR Part 201) Step 1. Organize Task 1: Determine the Planning Area and Resources Task 2: Build the Planning Team 44 CFR 201.6(c)(1) Step 2. Involve the public Task 3: Create an Outreach Strategy 44 CFR 201.6(b)(1) Step 3. Coordinate Task 4: Review Community Capabilities 44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) & (3) Step 4. Assess the hazard Task 5: Conduct a Risk Assessment 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(i) 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(ii) & (iii) Step 5. Assess the problem Step 6. Set goals Task 6: Develop a Mitigation Strategy 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(i) 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(ii) 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(iii) Step 7. Review possible activities Step 8. Draft an action plan Step 9. Adopt the Plan Task 8: Review and Adopt the Plan 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5) Step 10. Implement, evaluate, revise Task 7: Keep the Plan Current Task 9: Create a Safe and Resilient Community 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4) TABLE 1: FEMA LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING HANDB OOK WORKSHEET 1.1 DESCRIBES THE CRS REQUIREMENTS MET BY THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLA N. Any jurisdiction or special District may participate in the hazard mitigation planning process. However, to request FEMA approval, each of the local jurisdictions must meet all requirements of 44 CFR §201.6. In addition to the requirement for participation in the process, the Federal regulation specifies the following criteria for multi-jurisdictional plans: • The risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction's risk, which they may vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. (44 CFR §201.6(c)(2)(iii)) • There must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the Plan. (44 CFR §201.6(c)(3)(iv)) SECTION 1 | Planning Area and Resources 4 • Each jurisdiction requesting approval of the Plan must document that it has been formally adopted. (44 CFR §201.6(c)(5)) The hazard mitigation plan must clearly list the jurisdictions that participated in the Plan and seek plan approval. The San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) and annexes (Annex) meet all requirements. SECTION 2 | Planning Team 5 SECTION 2: Planning Team 2.1 Planning Participants In October 2021, the District expressed interest with the San Diego County Water Authority in developing its new plan through the County of San Diego’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Five-Year Update process. The District’s hazard mitigation planning team was formed in November 2021. Representatives of the OWD attended regular planning meetings as indicated in the County’s base plan. In keeping with the recommended approaches by FEMA and the County of San Diego, the development of this Plan was overseen by the District's Hazard Mitigation Planning Team, made up of representatives from different departments in the District and other stakeholder agencies. The following members comprised the Planning Team: •Adolfo Segura, OWD, Administrative Services •Andrew Jackson, OWD, Water Operations •Charles Mederos, OWD, Water Operations •Dominique Fonseca, County of San Diego, Office of Emergency Services •Eid, Fakhouri, OWD, Finance •Eileen Salmeron, OWD, Communications •Jake Vaclavek, OWD, Water Operations •Joe Beachem, OWD, Finance •Kent Payne, OWD, Administrative Services •Kevin Koeppen, OWD, Finance •Lisa Coburn-Boyd, OWD, Engineering •Michael Kerr, OWD, Administrative Services •Nicholas, Zubel, County of San Diego, Office of Emergency Services •Rod Posada, OWD, Engineering •Tenille Otero, OWD, Communications 2.2 Planning Process The effort to develop the District's Annex and mitigation strategies was also accomplished through Microsoft Teams meetings, emails, and phone discussions. The District Planning Team members identified the Plan's objectives, discussed, and prioritized the relevant hazards to the District, conducted a review and incorporation of existing information, and prepared and reviewed mitigation strategies to address vulnerabilities. Five formal meetings were held on the following dates: SECTION 2 | Planning Team 6 •MJHMP Annex Meeting #1, November 10, 2021 •MJHMP Annex Meeting #2, December 8, 2021 •MJHMP Annex Meeting #3, January 27, 2021 •MJHMP Annex Meeting #4, February 8, 2022 •MJHMP Annex Meeting #5, April 19, 2022 The specific discussion topics are given in Table 1.5. The information to create the District's Annex was collected by feedback from the staff who participated in the review and mitigation priority setting process. Subject matter experts (SMEs) reviewed the information and provided specific input on sections pertaining to their expertise. Table 1.5 Meeting Meeting Date Discussion Topics Annex Meeting 1 November 10, 2021 Project goals and objectives, requirements for the Plan, structure, and function of the Planning Team, review, update, and incorporate existing data, public outreach strategies, critical facilities, and relevant hazards. Annex Meeting 2 December 8, 2021 Details of each hazard (location and extent, past occurrences, risk of future events, and climate change considerations), hazard mapping, hazard prioritization. Annex Meeting 3 January 27, 2022 The meeting focused on discussing hazard mitigation actions and determining potential relative cost, responsible department, and action priority. Annex Meeting 4 February 8, 2022 Review final draft of mitigation action items. Annex Meeting 5 April 19, 2022 Review the final draft of the Annex. Incorporate changes and finalize. The Plan will be monitored over the next five years to ensure the project maintains alignment and coordination with other District internal objectives, including the Capital Improvement Plan, the Water Facilities Master Plan, the Integrated Resources Plan, OWD Strategic Plan, and other District Plan Documents. See the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan's Section Two for details about the county-wide Planning Process. 7 SECTION 3 | Outreach Strategy SECTION 3: Outreach Strategy See the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan's Section Three for details about the county-wide outreach strategy. 3.1 Existing Plans or Studies Reviewed During the planning process, the Planning Team reviewed documents, emergency services documents, County and local plans, local codes and ordinances, and other similar documents. These included: • Various Local Codes and Ordinances • FEMA Local Mitigation Handbook March 2013 • FEMA Mitigation Ideas January 2013 • Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool • Otay Water District Urban Water Management Plan • Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan 2015 • Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan • Otay Water District's Emergency Response Plan • Otay Water District AWIA Risk and Resiliency Assessment 2018 8 SECTION 4 | Community Capabilities SECTION 4: Community Capabilities Local mitigation capabilities are existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources that reduce hazard impacts or could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities and must be included in a hazard mitigation plan by the planning team. The Planning Team also may identify additional types of capabilities relevant to mitigation planning. 4.1 Capability Assessment The primary types of capabilities for reducing long-term vulnerability through mitigation planning are: • Planning and regulatory • Administrative and technical • Financial • Education and outreach 4.2 Planning and Regulatory Planning and regulatory capabilities are the plans, policies, codes, and ordinances that prevent and reduce the impacts of hazards. The District identified the programs within its jurisdiction which can be used to address risks, identify projects and used to implement mitigation actions: Does the plan address hazards? Yes/No Does the Plan identify projects to include Plans in the mitigation strategy? Year Can the Plan be used to implement mitigation actions? Comprehensive/Master Plan Yes Yes. The Potable Plan identifies projects and can be used to implement mitigation action items. Capital Improvements Plan Yes It identifies projects for mitigation and can be used to implement mitigation actions. Economic Development Plan N/A Local Emergency Operations Plan Yes Based on the AWIA Risk and Resiliency Assessment, the District updated its Emergency Response Plan (ERP), which can be used to implement mitigation actions. 9 SECTION 4 | Community Capabilities Plans Yes/No Year Does the plan address hazards? Does the Plan identify projects to include in the mitigation strategy? Can the Plan be used to implement mitigation actions? Continuity of Operations Plan No Transportation Plan N/A Stormwater Management Plan Yes The District follows the County's Stormwater Management Plan. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes The District's ERP – specific hazard response plan for wildland fire can be used to implement mitigation action items. M. Real estate disclosure requirements N/A Other unique plans (e.g., brownfields redevelopment, disaster recovery, coastal zone management, climate change adaptation) N/A TABLE 2: FEMA LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING HANDBOOK WORKSHEET 4.1 DATA. 4.3 Administrative and Technical Administrative and technical capabilities include staff and their skills and tools for mitigation planning and implementing specific mitigation actions. As a Special District, public resources in the City or County may provide technical assistance and also indicated below: Describe capability. Administration Yes/No Is coordination effective? Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes The District has its own Engineering Department, which includes Water Resources, Planning, Design, Environmental, Public Services, Survey, Inspection and Recycled Water Program. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Yes The District has its own Engineering Department, including Water Resources, Planning, Design, Environmental, Public Services, and Inspection. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or manmade hazards Yes The District has its own Engineering Department, including Water Resources, Planning, Design, Environmental, Public Services, and Inspection. 10 SECTION 4 | Community Capabilities Mitigation Planning Committee Yes Yes, through our Engineering Department with other Departments. Maintenance programs to reduce risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing drainage systems) Yes Our Facility Maintenance Operations coordinates mitigation actions with other Departments. Mutual aid agreements Yes. This is coordinated through the General Manager's Office, District Departments, and three partnering water agencies. Is staffing adequate to enforce regulations? Staff Yes/No Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation? FT/PT1 Is coordination between agencies and staff effective? Chief Building Official N/A Floodplain Administrator N/A Emergency Manager N/A The Safety & Security Specialist coordinates internal staff collaboration with the SDCWA-Water Emergency Water Agency Collaborative Group, San Diego Chapter InfraGard, County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services. Surveyors Yes Yes, through our Engineering Survey Group. Staff with education or expertise to assess the community's vulnerability to hazards Yes Representatives from each operation participated in the AWIA Risk and Resilience Assessment. Community Planner N/A Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community N/A However, the District coordinates its staff with Cal Fire, the San Miguel Fire Department, and the City of Chula Vista Emergency Services. Civil Engineer Yes Yes, internal staff regularly meet to discuss regulations, hazards, and mitigation actions during pre-design, planning, and construction meetings. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes This is conducted through our GIS Group, including our GIS Manager. Grant writers No However, the District retains contracted grant writers to apply for eligible grant funds. Other TABLE 3:FEMA LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING HANDBOOK WORKSHEET 4.1 DATA CONTINUED. 11 SECTION 4 | Community Capabilities 4.4 Financial The Planning Team has identified where the District has access to or is eligible to use the following funding resources for hazard mitigation: Has the funding resource been used in past Access/ and for what type of activities? Funding Resource Eligibility (Yes/No) Could the resource be used to fund future mitigation actions? Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No Capital improvements project funding Yes It was used for infrastructure. It could be used to fund future mitigation actions. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes It was used for infrastructure projects. It could be used to fund future mitigation actions. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes It was used for infrastructure projects. It could be used to fund future mitigation actions. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes It was used for infrastructure projects. It could be used to fund future mitigation actions. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes It was used for infrastructure projects. It could be used to fund future mitigation actions. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes It was used for infrastructure projects. It could be used to fund future mitigation actions. Incur debt through private activity bonds No Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) No Capital improvements project funding Yes It was used for infrastructure projects. It could be used to fund future mitigation actions. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes It was used for infrastructure projects. It could be used to fund future mitigation actions. How can these capabilities be expanded and improved to reduce risk? Mitigation grant funding can help the District expand and improve to reduce risks in our service areas. TABLE 4: FEMA LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING HANDBOOK WORKSHEET 4.1 DATA CONTINUED. 12 SECTION 4 | Community Capabilities 4.5 Education and Outreach The Planning Team has identified education and outreach programs and methods already in place that could be used to implement mitigation activities, communicate hazard-related information and capabilities that can be expanded and improved to reduce risk: Describe the program/organization and how it relates to disaster resilience and mitigation. Program/Organization Yes/No Could the program/organization help implement future mitigation activities? Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on environmental protection, emergency preparedness, access, functional needs populations, etc. Yes The District's Communications staff works with citizen groups and non-profits; meets with the Chamber of Commerce and Community Planning Groups Yes. Ongoing public education or information program (e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household preparedness, environmental education) Yes Water Conservation Programs, Fire Scaping (Defensible space) to prevent wildfire hazards. Yes. Natural disaster or safety-related school programs Yes The District collaborates with the City of Chula Vista Emergency Services Group, the County of San Diego, and other organizations/municipalities/special districts to supplement disaster preparedness information. The state requires the District to conduct water testing, for example, after an earthquake, during droughts, or to evaluate lead levels. StormReady certification N/A Firewise Communities certification N/A Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster-related issues Yes Developers (Engineering, Public Services) irrigation meters must follow a process. Cell towers – lease space at reservoirs to AT&T, T-Mobile: creating a partnership in case of an emergency explore using these companies for assistance or communication/outreach. HOA meetings, SDG&E (PSPS) Other The District has crisis communication with response agencies such as Cal Fire. RAVE has been implemented to facilitate mass employee and public communication. Internal text capability for customers is facilitated by our Information Technology (IT) staff. Email and out dial (similar to reverse 911). It was also used during the COVID-19 pandemic event to provide water quality messaging. This was facilitated by our Customer Service, IT, and Communications staff. 13 SECTION 4 | Community Capabilities How can these capabilities be expanded and improved to reduce risk? Explore renewable energy equipment such as solar power. The District will continue to work with our energy provider and receive timely info regarding the Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) to avoid significant disruption with customers' water service. TABLE 5: FEMA LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING HANDBOOK WORKSHEET 4.1 DATA CONTINUED. 4.6 Safe Growth Audit Various growth guidance instruments and improvement plans have been evaluated to reduce vulnerability to future development. As a Special District, public resources in the City or County may provide guidance and have been referenced below: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use Yes No 1.Does the future land-use map clearly identify natural hazard areas?N/A The District defers to the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista's comprehensive plans as it falls in their jurisdictions. 2.Do the land-use policies discourage development or redevelopment within natural hazard areas?N/A 3.Does the Plan provide adequate space for expected future growth in areas located outside natural hazard areas?N/A Transportation Yes No 1.Does the transportation plan limit access to hazard areas?N/A 2.Is transportation policy used to guide growth to safe locations?N/A 3.Are movement systems designed to function under disaster conditions (e.g., evacuation)?N/A TABLE 6: FEMA LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING HANDBOOK WORKSHEET 4.2 DATA. 14 SECTION 4 | Community Capabilities COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (continued) Environmental Management Yes No 1.Are environmental systems that protect development from hazards identified and mapped?X The District has an Engineering/Environmental Group which manages the plans. The District also defers to the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista's environmental management plans when they fall in their jurisdictions. 2.Do environmental policies maintain and restore protective ecosystems?X 3.Do environmental policies provide incentives to development located outside protective ecosystems?X Public Safety Yes No 1.Are the goals and policies of the comprehensive Plan related to those of the FEMA Local Hazard Mitigation Plan?N/A The District does not have a public safety operation. 2.Is safety explicitly included in the Plan's growth and development policies?N/A 3.Does the monitoring and implementation section of the Plan cover safe growth objectives?N/A TABLE 7: FEMA LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING HANDBOOK WORKSHEET 4.2 DATA CONTINUED. 15 SECTION 4 | Community Capabilities COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (continued) Zoning Ordinance Yes No 1.Does the zoning ordinance conform to the comprehensive Plan to discourage development or redevelopment within natural hazard areas?N/A The District defers to the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista's zoning ordinance plans. 2.Does the ordinance contain natural hazard overlay zones that set conditions for land use within such zones?N/A 3.Do rezoning procedures recognize natural hazard areas as limits on zoning changes that allow greater intensity or density of use?N/A 4.Does the ordinance prohibit development within, or filling of, wetlands, floodways, and floodplains?N/A Subdivision Regulations Yes No 1.Do the subdivision regulations restrict the subdivision of land within or adjacent to natural hazard areas?N/A The District defers to the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista subdivision regulations as it falls under their jurisdictions. 2.Do the regulations provide for conservation subdivisions or cluster subdivisions in order to conserve environmental resources?N/A 3.Do the regulations allow density transfers where hazard areas exist?N/A TABLE 8: FEMA LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING HANDBOOK WORKSHEET 4.2 DATA CONTINUED. 16 SECTION 4 | Community Capabilities COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (continued) Capital Improvement Program and Infrastructure Policies Yes No 1.Does the capital improvement program limit expenditures on projects that would encourage development in areas vulnerable to natural hazards?X 2.Do infrastructure policies limit extension of existing facilities and services that would encourage development in areas vulnerable to natural hazards?X 3.Does the capital improvement program provide funding for hazard mitigation projects identified in the FEMA Mitigation Plan?X Other Yes No 1.Do small area or corridor plans recognize the need to avoid or mitigation natural hazards?N/A 2.Does the building code contain provisions to strengthen or elevate construction to withstand hazard forces?N/A 3.Do economic development or redevelopment strategies include provisions for mitigation natural hazards?N/A 4.Is there an adopted evacuation and shelter plan to deal with emergencies from natural hazards?N/A The District coordinates with the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, and the SDCWA on its evaluation and shelter plans. TABLE 9: FEMA LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING HANDBOOK WORKSHEET 4.2 DATA CONTINUED. Questions were adapted from Godschalk, David R. Practice Safe Growth Audits, Zoning Practice, Issue Number 10, October 2009, American Planning Association. 17 SECTION 4 | Community Capabilities 4.7 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The District is not a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as it was not identified to be a requirement under the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) Joint Power Insurance Authority (JPIA). ACWA JPIA provides the District's comprehensive and economical property coverage. 18 SECTION 5 | Risk Assessment SECTION 5: Risk Assessment The Planning Team conducted a risk assessment to determine the potential impacts of hazards to the community's people, economy, and built and natural environments. The risk assessment provided the foundation for the rest of the mitigation planning process, which is focused on identifying and prioritizing actions to reduce the risk of hazards. In addition to informing the mitigation strategy, the risk assessment also can be used to establish emergency preparedness and response priorities, for land use and comprehensive planning, and for decision making by elected officials, city and county departments, businesses, and organizations in the community. 5.1 Hazards Summary The Planning Team evaluated the list of natural hazards that could impact the planning area and then identified the dangers that present a great concern. The process incorporated a review of state and local hazard planning documents and local, state, and federal information on the frequency, magnitude, and costs associated with threats that have impacted or could impact the planning area. Anecdotal information regarding natural hazards and the perceived vulnerability of the planning area's assets to them was also used. Based on the review, the Team evaluated the following dangers of concern: Maximum Probable Hazard Location (Geographic Extent Probability of Overall Significance Area Affected) (Magnitude/Strength) Future Events Ranking Avalanche N/A N/A N/A N/A Dam Failure Limited Weak Unlikely Low Drought Extensive Extensive Likely High Earthquake Extensive Extensive Likely High Erosion Negligible Weak Likely Low Expansive Soils Negligible Weak Unlikely Low Extreme Cold N/A N/A N/A N/A Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A Flood N/A N/A N/A N/A Hail N/A N/A N/A N/A Hurricane N/A N/A N/A N/A 19 SECTION 5 | Risk Assessment Hazard Location (Geographic Area Affected) Maximum Probable Extent (Magnitude/Strength) Probability of Future Events Overall Significance Ranking Landslide N/A N/A N/A N/A Lightning Limited Weak Likely Low Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Severe Wind Extensive Weak Likely Medium Severe Winter Weather Extensive Weak Likely Medium Storm Surge N/A N/A N/A N/A Subsidence N/A N/A N/A N/A Tornado N/A N/A N/A N/A Tsunami N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire Significant Significant Significant Significant TABLE 10: FEMA LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING HANDBOOK WORKSHEET 5.1 DATA. Definitions for Classifications Location (Geographic Area Affected) •Negligible: Less than 10 percent of planning area or isolated single-point occurrences •Limited: 10 to 25 percent of the planning area or little single-point occurrences •Significant: 25 to 75 percent of planning area or frequent single-point occurrences •Extensive: 75 to 100 percent of planning area or consistent single-point occurrences Maximum Probable Extent (Magnitude/Strength based on historic events or future probability) •Weak: Limited classification on scientific scale, slow speed of onset or short duration of event, resulting in little to no damage •Moderate: Moderate classification on scientific scale, moderate speed of onset or moderate duration of event, resulting in some damage and loss of services for days •Severe: Severe classification on scientific scale, fast speed of onset or long duration of event, resulting in devastating damage and loss of services for weeks or months •Extreme: Extreme classification on scientific scale, immediate onset or extended duration of event, resulting in catastrophic damage and uninhabitable conditions 20 SECTION 5 | Risk Assessment Hazard Scale / Index Weak Moderate Severe Extreme Drought Palmer Drought Severity Index3 -1.99 to +1.99 -2.00 to -2.99 -3.00 to -3.99 -4.00 and below Earthquake Modified Mercalli Scale4 I to IV V to VII VII IX to XII Richter Magnitude5 2, 3 4, 5 6 7, 8 Hurricane Wind Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale6 1 2 3 4, 5 Tornado Fujita Tornado Damage Scale7 F0 F1, F2 F3 F4, F5 Probability of Future Events •Unlikely: Less than 1 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years. •Occasional: 1 to 10 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. •Likely: 10 to 90 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years •Highly Likely: 90 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of less than 1 year. Overall Significance •Low: Two or more criteria fall in lower classifications, or the event has a minimal impact on the planning area. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a minimal or unknown record of occurrences or for hazards with minimal mitigation potential. •Medium: The criteria fall mostly in the middle ranges of classifications and the event's impacts on the planning area are noticeable but not devastating. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a high extent rating but very low probability rating. •High: The criteria consistently fall in the high classifications and the event is likely/highly likely to occur with severe strength over a significant to extensive portion of the planning area. o Cumulative meteorological drought and wet conditions: http://ncdc.noaa.gov/ o Earthquake intensity and effect on population and structures: http://earthquake.usgs.gov o Earthquake magnitude as a logarithmic scale, measured by a seismograph: http://earthquake.usgs.gov o Hurricane rating based on sustained wind speed: http://nhc.noaa.gov o Tornado rating based on wind speed and associated damage: http://spc.noaa.gov 21 SECTION 6 | Develop a Mitigation Strategy SECTION 6: Mitigation Strategy The mitigation strategy serves as the long-term blueprint for reducing potential losses identified in the risk assessment. The mitigation strategy describes how the District will accomplish the overall purpose, or mission, of the planning process. The mitigation strategy is made up of three main required components: mitigation goals, mitigation actions, and an action plan for implementation. These provide the framework to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to reduce risk to hazards. Mitigation goals are general guidelines that explain what the community wants to achieve with the Plan They are usually broad policy-type statements that are long-term, and they represent visions for reducing or avoiding losses from the identified hazards Mitigation actions are specific projects and activities that help achieve the goals. The action plan describes how the mitigation actions will be implemented, including how those actions will be prioritized, administered, and incorporated into the community's existing planning mechanisms. In a multi-jurisdictional plan, each jurisdiction must have an action plan specific to that jurisdiction and its vulnerabilities. The District choose to develop objectives to help define or organize mitigation actions. Objectives are broader than specific actions, but are measurable, unlike goals. Objectives connect goals with the actual mitigation actions. The following goals were set for this hazard mitigation plan: 1. Protect life and property. 2. Maintain continuity of essential water and sewer services. 3. Increase public awareness of the risks of loss of water/sewer service. 4. Facilitate partnerships with recognized stakeholders within the Otay Water District and implement a coordination plan between the stakeholders 5. Protect local water supply sources. 6. Protect against environmental consequences caused by water and sewer system failure initiated by natural hazards. SECTION 6 | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 22 6.1 Mitigation Action Evaluation The District used the FEMA Worksheet 6.1 to help evaluate and prioritize each mitigation action being considered by the planning team. For each action, the Team evaluated the potential benefits and/or likelihood of successful implementation for the criteria defined below. Rank each of the criteria with a -1, 0 or 1 using the following scale: •1 = Highly effective or feasible •0 = Neutral •-1 = Ineffective or not feasible Example Evaluation Criteria: •Life Safety – How effective will the action be at protecting lives and preventing injuries? •Property Protection – How significant will the action be at eliminating or reducing damage to structures and infrastructure? •Technical – Is the mitigation action technically feasible? Is it a long-term solution? Eliminate actions that, from a technical standpoint, will not meet the goals. •Political – Is there overall public support for the mitigation action? Is there the political will to support it? •Legal – Does the community have the authority to implement the action? •Environmental – What are the potential environmental impacts of the action? Will it comply with environmental regulations? •Social – Will the proposed action adversely affect one segment of the population? Will the action disrupt established neighborhoods, break up voting districts, or cause the relocation of lower income people? •Administrative – Does the community have the personnel and administrative capabilities to implement the action and maintain it or will outside help be necessary? •Local Champion – Is there a strong advocate for the action or project among local departments and agencies that will support the action's implementation? •Other Community Objectives – Does the action advance other community objectives, such as capital improvements, economic development, environmental quality, or open space preservation? Does it support the policies of the comprehensive Plan? SECTION 6 | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 23 Other Mitigation Action Life Property Technical Political Legal Environ Social Admini Local Community Total Safety Protection mental strative Champion Objectives Score Local Plans and Regulations OWD Climate Action Plan 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Enhance recycled water use in the District. 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 Structure and Infrastructure Projects Seismic retrofits for District infrastructure 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Wildfire Mitigation - Ensuring adequate defensible space around existing infrastructure 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8 Natural Systems Protection Dam Failure - Flash Flood Control and Prevention 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Education and Awareness Programs Enhance drought awareness and water conservation programs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Develop awareness program for San Miguel HMA to discourage vandalism 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 TABLE 11: FEMA LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING HANDBOOK WORKSHEET 6.1 DATA. 6.2 Mitigation Action Implementation A mitigation action is a specific action, project, activity, or process taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk from hazards and their impacts on people and property. Implementing mitigation actions helps achieve the Plan's mission and goals. The efforts to reduce vulnerability to threats and risks form the core of the Plan and are a vital outcome of the planning process. This Annex details the following mitigation action implementations: The Planning Committee selected actions in a hazard mitigation action plan based on the risk assessment of identified hazards of concern and the defined hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Table 6.3 lists the recommended hazard mitigation actions that make up the action plan. 24 SECTION 6 I Develop a Mitigation Strategy 6.3 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix The timeframe indicated in the table is defined as follows: •Short-term = Completion within 5 years •Long-term = Completion within 10 years Table 6.3 – Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Applies to New or Existing Assets Priority Lead Agency Support Agency Estimated Cost Sources of Funding Timeline Action #1 – Increase recycled water use within the service area Hazards Mitigated: Water shortage during drought periods New High OWD City of San Diego, RWQCB, and Sweetwater Authority Low ($75,000) FEMA HMA Grants, District Funds Short Term Action #2 – Educate residents on water-saving techniques Hazards Mitigated: Water shortage during drought periods New High OWD SDCWA, MWDSC, DWR, CCEDC, HOAs, County of SD, Schools, Local Municipalities, Businesses, and Developers Low ($250,000) FEMA HMA Grants, District Funds Short Term Action #3 – Conduct a seismic evaluation of existing critical facilities and develop an inventory of buildings that may be particularly vulnerable to earthquake damage. Prioritize the list of essential facilities to be seismically upgraded or retrofitted. Hazards Mitigated: Human and Property Loss New High OWD N/A Low ($75,000) FEMA HMA Grants, District Funds Short Term Action #4 – Conduct seismic retrofitting for critical facilities most at risk of earthquakes Hazards Mitigated: Human and Property Loss New Medium OWD N/A Medium ($500,000) FEMA HMA Grants, District Funds Long Term Action #5 – Upgrade the access road at the La Presa Potable Pump Station 10-04 Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire and Heavy Rainstorms New Medium OWD N/A Medium ($750,000) FEMA HMA Grants, District Funds Short Term Action #6 – Upgrade the access road at the Regulatory Pump Station 832-1 and 832-2 Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire and Heavy Rainstorms New Medium OWD Cal Fire Medium ($1,500,000) FEMA HMA Grants, District Funds Short Term 25 SECTION 6 I Develop a Mitigation Strategy Table 6.3 – Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Applies to New or Existing Assets Priority Lead Agency Support Agency Estimated Cost Sources of Funding Timeline Action #7 – Develop dam failure flood preparedness, response, and communications plan. Hazards Mitigated: Flood New Medium OWD N/A Low ($75,000) FEMA HMA Grants, District Funds Short Term Action #8 – Create defensible space around critical structures and infrastructure Hazards Mitigated: Wildfire New Medium OWD Cal Fire, US Fish & Wildlife, CA Dept Fish& Wildlife Low ($200,000) FEMA HMA Grants, District Funds Short Term Action #9 – Develop the District’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Hazards Mitigated: Flood, Wildfire, Extreme Heat, and Heavy Rainstorms New Medium OWD N/A Medium ($290,000) FEMA HMA Grants, District Funds Short Term Action #10 – Implement security protection for the San Miguel Habitat Management Area. Hazards Mitigated: Trespassing and vandalism New Medium OWD USFWS, CDFW CA Conservation Corp Low ($80,000) FEMA HMA Grants, District Funds Short Term 26 SECTION 7 | Keep the Plan Current SECTION 7: Keep the Plan Current Hazard Mitigation Plan (Annex) maintenance is the process the planning team establishes to track the Plan's implementation progress and to inform the plan update. The Plan must include a description of the method and a monitoring schedule, evaluating and updating it within a 5-year cycle. These procedures help to: •Ensure that the mitigation strategy is implemented according to the Plan. •Provide the foundation for an ongoing mitigation program in your community. •Standardize long-term monitoring of hazard-related activities. •Integrate mitigation principles into community officials' daily job responsibilities and department roles. •Maintain momentum through continued engagement and accountability in the Plan's progress. Hazard Mitigation Plan updates provide the opportunity to consider how well the procedures established in the previously approved Plan worked and revise them as needed. This Annex is part of the most recent San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan update. The Plan was last updated in 2018. See the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for more information. 7.1 Mitigation Action Progress Plan monitoring means tracking the implementation of the Plan over time. The Plan must identify how, when, and by whom the plan will be monitored. The District will track the mitigation actions for the next five-year cycle. The Planning Team will meet at least annually to monitor implementation progress and integration of mitigation actions into other documents. As part of this evaluation process, members of the Team ZLOO UHIHUHQFH $SSHQGL[ $ 5HJLRQ ,; /RFDO +D]DUG 0LWLJDLWRQ 3ODQ 5HYLHZ 7RRO DQG should review the following: •Any hazard events that occurred within the District's boundaries in the past year, including the scale of impact. •Mitigation activities in the Plan have been implemented and are achieving success. •The timeline for implementing mitigation activities and whether the timeline should be amended. •Any mitigation activities prioritized for the past year have not been completed, and why. •The need for any new or revised mitigation actions. •Any changes or potential for changes in funding options for mitigation activities. •Any new scientific data or mapping that informs the information in the Plan. SECTION 8 | Appendices SECTION 8: Appendices 27 FEMA Region IX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool 1 APPENDIX A REGION IX LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL Updated 12/4/2019 The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool demonstrates how the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan meets the regulation in 44 CFR §201.6 and offers State and FEMA Mitigation Planners an opportunity to provide feedback to the community. •The Regulation Checklist provides a summary of FEMA’s evaluation of whether the plan has addressed all requirements. •The Plan Assessment identifies the plan’s strengths as well as documents areas for future improvement. This section also includes a list of resources for implementation of the plan. •The Multi-Jurisdiction Summary Sheet is a mandatory worksheet for multi-jurisdictional plans that is used to document which jurisdictions are eligible to adopt the plan. •The Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Matrix is a tool for plan reviewers to identify if all components of Element B are met. Jurisdiction: County of San Diego Title of Plan: MJHMP OWD Annex 2023 Date of Plan: June 2023 Local Point of Contact: Emilyn B. Zuniga Address: 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd Spring Valley, CA 91978 Title: Safety and Security Specialist Agency: Otay Water District Phone Number: 619-670-2295 E-Mail:ezuniga@otaywater.gov State Reviewer: Title: Date: Date Received at State Agency Date Sent to FEMA FEMA Reviewer: Title: Date: Date Received in FEMA Region IX Date Not Approved Date Approvable Pending Adoption Date Approved 2 FEMA Region IX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool SECTION 1: REGULATION CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS: The Regulation Checklist must be completed by FEMA. The purpose of the Checklist is to identify the location of relevant or applicable content in the plan by element/sub- element and to determine if each requirement has been ‘Met’ or ‘Not Met.’ The ‘Required Revisions’ summary at the bottom of each element must be completed by FEMA to provide a clear explanation of the revisions that are required for plan approval. Required revisions must be explained for each plan sub-element that is ‘Not Met.’ Sub-elements should be referenced in each summary by using the appropriate numbers (A1, B3, etc.), where applicable. Requirements for each Element and sub-element are described in detail in the Local Plan Review Guide in Section 4, Regulation Checklist. 1. REGULATION CHECKLIST Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met Not Met ELEMENT A. PLANNING PROCESS A1. Does the plan document the planning process, including how it was prepared and who was involved in the process for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(1)) a. Does the plan provide documentation of how the plan was prepared? This documentation must include the schedule or timeframe and activities that made up the plan’s development as well as who was involved. b. Does the plan list the jurisdiction(s) participating in the plan that are seeking approval? c. Does the plan identify who represented each jurisdiction? (At a minimum, it must identify the jurisdiction represented and the person’s position or title and agency within the jurisdiction.) A2. Does the plan document an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development as well as other interests to be involved in the planning process? (Requirement §201.6(b)(2)) a. Does the plan document an opportunity for neighboring communities, local, and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as other interested parties to be involved in the planning process? b. Does the plan identify how the stakeholders were invited to participate in the process? A3. Does the plan document how the public was involved in the planning a. Does the plan document how the public was given the opportunity to be involved in the planning process? 1.REGULATION CHECKLIST Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met Not Met process during the drafting stage? (Requirement §201.6(b)(1)) b.Does the plan document how the public’s feedback was incorporated into the plan? A4. Does the plan describe the review and incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? (Requirement §201.6(b)(3)) A5. Is there discussion of how the community(ies) will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii)) A6. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the plan current (monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan within a 5- year cycle)? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i)) a. Does the plan identify how, when, and by whom the plan will be monitored (how will implementation be tracked) over time? b.Does the plan identify how, when, and by whom the plan will be evaluated (assessing the effectiveness of the plan at achieving stated purpose and goals) over time? c.Does the plan identify how, when, and by whom the plan will be updated during the 5-year cycle? ELEMENT A: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT (Reviewer: See Section 4 for assistance with Element B) B1. Does the plan include a description of the type, location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction(s)? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i)) a. Does the plan include a general description of all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction? b.Does the plan provide rationale for the omission of any natural hazards that are commonly recognized to affect the jurisdiction(s) in the planning area? c.Does the plan include a description of the type of all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction? d.Does the plan include a description of the location for all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction? e. Does the plan include a description of the extent for all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction? B2. Does the plan include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard a. Does the plan include information on previous occurrences of hazard events for each jurisdiction? FEMA Region IX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool 3 1. REGULATION CHECKLIST Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met Not Met events for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i)) b. Does the plan include information on the probability of future hazard events for each jurisdiction? B3. Is there a description of each identified hazard’s impact on the community as well as an overall summary of the community’s vulnerability for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)) a. Is there a description of each hazard’s impacts on each jurisdiction (what happens to structures, infrastructure, people, environment, etc.)? b. Is there a description of each identified hazard’s overall vulnerability (structures, systems, populations, or other community assets defined by the community that are identified as being susceptible to damage and loss from hazard events) for each jurisdiction? B4. Does the plan address NFIP insured structures within the jurisdiction that have been repetitively damaged by floods? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)) ELEMENT B: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY C1. Does the plan document each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, policies, programs and resources and its ability to expand on and improve these existing policies and programs? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)) a. Does the plan document each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, policies, programs and resources? b. Does the plan document each jurisdiction’s ability to expand on and improve these existing policies and programs? C2. Does the plan address each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii)) C3. Does the plan include goals to reduce/avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i)) C4. Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being considered to reduce the effects of hazards, with emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii)) a. Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects to reduce the impacts from hazards? b. Does the plan identify mitigation actions for every hazard posing a threat to each participating jurisdiction? 4 FEMA Region IX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 1.REGULATION CHECKLIST Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met Not Met c.Do the identified mitigation actions and projects have an emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure? C5. Does the plan contain an action plan that describes how the actions identified will be prioritized (including cost benefit review), implemented, and administered by each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv)); (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii)) a. Does the plan explain how the mitigation actions will be prioritized (including cost benefit review)? b.Does the plan identify the position, office, department, or agency responsible for implementing and administering the action, potential funding sources and expected timeframes for completion? C6. Does the plan describe a process by which local governments will integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii)) a. Does the plan identify the local planning mechanisms where hazard mitigation information and/or actions may be incorporated? b.Does the plan describe each community’s process to integrate the data, information, and hazard mitigation goals and actions into other planning mechanisms? c.The updated plan must explain how the jurisdiction(s) incorporated the mitigation plan, when appropriate, into other planning mechanisms as a demonstration of progress in local hazard mitigation efforts. ELEMENT C: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT D. PLAN REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION (Applicable to plan updates only) D1. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) D2. Was the plan revised to reflect progress in local mitigation efforts? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) D3. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) ELEMENT D: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT E. PLAN ADOPTION FEMA Region IX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool 5 1.REGULATION CHECKLIST Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) Location in Plan (section and/or page number) Met Not Met E1. Does the plan include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval? (Requirement §201.6(c)(5)) E2. For multi-jurisdictional plans, has each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan documented formal plan adoption? (Requirement §201.6(c)(5)) ELEMENT E: REQUIRED REVISIONS OPTIONAL: HIGH HAZARD POTENTIAL DAM RISKS (Applicable to jurisdictions interested in becoming sub applicants to FEMA’s Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams (HHPD) Grant Program only) HHPD1. Did Element A4 (planning process) describe the incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information for high hazard potential dams? HHPD2. Did Element B3 (risk assessment) address HHPDs? HHPD3. Did Element C3 (mitigation goals) include mitigation goals to reduce long- term vulnerabilities from high hazard potential dams that pose an unacceptable risk to the public? HHPD4. Did Element C4-C5 (mitigation actions) address HHPDs prioritize mitigation actions to reduce vulnerabilities from high hazard potential dams that pose an unacceptable risk to the public? REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT F. ADDITIONAL STATE REQUIREMENTS (Optional for State Reviewers only; not to be completed by FEMA) F1. F2. ELEMENT F: REQUIRED REVISIONS 6 FEMA Region IX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool FEMA Region IX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool 7 SECTION 2: PLAN ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS: The purpose of the Plan Assessment is to offer the local community more comprehensive feedback to the community on the quality and utility of the plan in a narrative format. The audience for the Plan Assessment is not only the plan developer/local community planner, but also elected officials, local departments and agencies, and others involved in implementing the Local Mitigation Plan. The Plan Assessment must be completed by FEMA. The Assessment is an opportunity for FEMA to provide feedback and information to the community on: 1) suggested improvements to the Plan; 2) specific sections in the Plan where the community has gone above and beyond minimum requirements; 3) recommendations for plan implementation; and 4) ongoing partnership(s) and information on other FEMA programs, specifically RiskMAP and Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs. The Plan Assessment is divided into two sections: 1.Plan Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement 2.Resources for Implementing Your Approved Plan Plan Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement is organized according to the plan Elements listed in the Regulation Checklist. Each Element includes a series of italicized bulleted items that are suggested topics for consideration while evaluating plans, but it is not intended to be a comprehensive list. FEMA Mitigation Planners are not required to answer each bullet item and should use them as a guide to paraphrase their own written assessment (2-3 sentences) of each Element. The Plan Assessment must not reiterate the required revisions from the Regulation Checklist or be regulatory in nature and should be open-ended and to provide the community with suggestions for improvements or recommended revisions. The recommended revisions are suggestions for improvement and are not required to be made for the Plan to meet Federal regulatory requirements. The italicized text should be deleted once FEMA has added comments regarding strengths of the plan and potential improvements for future plan revisions. It is recommended that the Plan Assessment be a short synopsis of the overall strengths and weaknesses of the Plan (no longer than two pages), rather than a complete recap section by section. Resources for Implementing Your Approved Plan provides a place for FEMA to offer information, data sources and general suggestions on the plan implementation and maintenance process. Information on other possible sources of assistance including, but not limited to, existing publications, grant funding or training opportunities, can be provided. States may add state and local resources, if available. 8 FEMA Region IX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool A.Plan Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement This section provides a discussion of the strengths of the plan document and identifies areas where these could be improved beyond minimum requirements. Element A: Planning Process How does the Plan go above and beyond minimum requirements to document the planning process with respect to: •Involvement of stakeholders (elected officials/decision makers, plan implementers, business owners, academic institutions, utility companies, water/sanitation districts, etc.); •Involvement of Planning, Emergency Management, Public Works Departments or other planning agencies (i.e., regional planning councils); •Diverse methods of participation (meetings, surveys, online, etc.); and •Reflective of an open and inclusive public involvement process. Element B: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment In addition to the requirements listed in the Regulation Checklist, 44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans identifies additional elements that should be included as part of a plan’s risk assessment. The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of: 1)A general description of land uses and future development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions; 2)The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas; and 3)A description of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures, and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. How does the Plan go above and beyond minimum requirements to document the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment with respect to: •Use of best available data (flood maps, HAZUS, flood studies) to describe significant hazards; •Communication of risk on people, property, and infrastructure to the public (through tables, charts, maps, photos, etc.); •Incorporation of techniques and methodologies to estimate dollar losses to vulnerable structures; •Incorporation of Risk MAP products (i.e., depth grids, Flood Risk Report, Changes Since Last FIRM, Areas of Mitigation Interest, etc.); and •Identification of any data gaps that can be filled as new data became available. FEMA Region IX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool 9 Element C: Mitigation Strategy How does the Plan go above and beyond minimum requirements to document the Mitigation Strategy with respect to: •Key problems identified in, and linkages to, the vulnerability assessment; •Serving as a blueprint for reducing potential losses identified in the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment; •Plan content flow from the risk assessment (problem identification) to goal setting to mitigation action development; •An understanding of mitigation principles (diversity of actions that include structural projects, preventative measures, outreach activities, property protection measures, post- disaster actions, etc); •Specific mitigation actions for each participating jurisdiction that reflects their unique risks and capabilities; •Integration of mitigation actions with existing local authorities, policies, programs, and resources; and •Discussion of existing programs (including the NFIP), plans, and policies that could be used to implement mitigation, as well as document past projects. Element D: Plan Update, Evaluation, and Implementation (Plan Updates Only) How does the Plan go above and beyond minimum requirements to document the 5-year Evaluation and Implementation measures with respect to: •Status of previously recommended mitigation actions; •Identification of barriers or obstacles to successful implementation or completion of mitigation actions, along with possible solutions for overcoming risk; •Documentation of annual reviews and committee involvement; •Identification of a lead person to take ownership of, and champion the Plan; •Reducing risks from natural hazards and serving as a guide for decisions makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards; •An approach to evaluating future conditions (i.e. socio-economic, environmental, demographic, change in built environment etc.); •Discussion of how changing conditions and opportunities could impact community resilience in the long term; and •Discussion of how the mitigation goals and actions support the long-term community vision for increased resilience. 10 FEMA Region IX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool B. Resources for Implementing and Updating Your Approved Plan This resource section is organized into three categories: 1) Guidance and Resources 2) Training Topics and Courses 3) Funding Sources Guidance and Resources Local Mitigation Planning Handbook https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/31598 Beyond the Basics http://mitigationguide.org/ Mitigation Ideas https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/30627 Plan Integration: Linking Local Planning Efforts https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/108893 Integrating Disaster Data into Hazard Mitigation Planning https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/103486 Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into Hazard Mitigation Planning https://www.fema.gov/ar/media-library/assets/documents/4317 Community Rating System User Manual https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/8768 U.S. Climate Resilient Toolkit https://toolkit.climate.gov/ 2014 National Climate Assessment http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/ Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf FY15 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/103279 Climate Resilient Mitigation Activities for Hazard Mitigation Assistance https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/110202 Training More information at https://training.fema.gov/emi.aspx or through your State Training Officer Mitigation Planning IS-318 Mitigation Planning for Local and Tribal Communities https://training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=is-318 IS-393 Introduction to Hazard Mitigation https://training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=is-393.a G-318 Preparing and Reviewing Local Plans G-393 Mitigation for Emergency Managers FEMA Region IX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Tool 11 Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Grant Programs IS-212.b Introduction to Unified HMA http://www.training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=IS-212.b IS-277 Benefit Cost Analysis Entry Level http://www.training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=IS-277 E-212 HMA: Developing Quality Application Elements E-213 HMA: Application Review and Evaluation E-214 HMA: Project Implementation and Programmatic Closeout E-276 Benefit-Cost Analysis Entry Level GIS and Hazus-MH IS-922 Application of GIS for Emergency Management http://www.training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=IS-922 E-190 ArcGIS for Emergency Managers E-296 Application of Hazus-MH for Risk Assessment E-313 Basic Hazus-MH Floodplain Management E-273 Managing Floodplain Development through the NFIP E-278 National Flood Insurance Program/ Community Rating System Potential Funding Sources Hazard Mitigation Grant Program POC: FEMA Region IX and State Hazard Mitigation Officer Website: https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program POC: FEMA Region IX and State Hazard Mitigation Officer Website: https://www.fema.gov/pre-disaster-mitigation-grant-program Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program POC: FEMA Region IX and State Hazard Mitigation Officer Website: https://www.fema.gov/flood-mitigation-assistance-grant-program Emergency Management Performance Grant Program POC: FEMA Region IX Website: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-management-performance-grant-program SECTION 3: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY SHEET INSTRUCTIONS: For multi-jurisdictional plans, this summary sheet must be completed by listing each participating jurisdiction that is eligible to adopt the plan. MULTI-JURISDICTION SUMMARY SHEET # Jurisdiction Name Jurisdiction Type Eligible to Adopt the Plan? Plan POC Email 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 12 FEMA RIX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX (OPTIONAL) INSTRUCTIONS: This matrix can be used by the plan reviewer to help identify if all of the components of Element B have been met. List out natural hazard names that are identified in the plan in the column labeled “Hazards” and put a “Y” or “N” for each component of Element B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX Requirement Met? (Y/N) Hazard Type Location Extent Previous Occurrences Probability Impacts Vulnerability Mitigation Action 13 FEMA RIX Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region IX 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 www.fema.gov April 24, 2023 Nicholas Zubel Senior Emergency Services Coordinator County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services 5580 Overland Ave, Ste. 100 San Diego, CA 92123 Dear Nicholas Zubel: The San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan has been amended to include the following jurisdictions as official planning participants: City of Coronado City of Del Mar City of El Cajon City of Escondido City of Encinitas City of Imperial Beach City of Poway City of San Diego City of Santee City of Lemon Grove Otay Water District Padre Dam Municipal Water District San Diego Unified Port District Sweetwater Authority These new jurisdictions must submit an adoption resolution to FEMA in order to be considered fully approved. FEMA’s approval of the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan remains for a period of five years from the original approval date of March 31, 2023 for all approved participants. An updated list of the status of current participating jurisdictions is enclosed with this letter. ATTACHMENT D San Diego County Hazard Mitigation Plan Amendment Notice April 24, 2023 Page 2 of 3 If you have any questions regarding the planning or review processes, please contact the FEMA Region 9 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team at fema-r9-mitigation-planning@fema.dhs.gov. Sincerely, Alison Kearns Planning and Implementation Branch Chief Mitigation Division FEMA Region 9 Enclosures (2) San Diego County Amended Plan Review Tool, dated April 24, 2023 Status of Participating Jurisdictions, dated April 24, 2023 cc: Ron Miller, Mitigation Quality Assurance Division Chief, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Robyn Fennig, Planning Division Chief, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Victoria LaMar-Haas, Hazard Mitigation Planning Chief, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services San Diego County Hazard Mitigation Plan Amendment Notice April 24, 2023 Page 3 of 3 Status of Participating Jurisdictions as of April 24, 2023 Jurisdictions – Adopted and Approved # Jurisdiction Date of Adoption 1 San Diego County February 7, 2023 2 City of National City March 21, 2023 3 San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) March 23, 2023 Jurisdictions – Approvable Pending Adoption # Jurisdiction 1 City of Coronado 2 City of Del Mar 3 City of El Cajon 4 City of Encinitas 5 City of Escondido 6 City of Imperial Beach 7 City of La Mesa 8 City of Lemon Grove 9 City of Poway 10 City of San Diego 11 City of Santee 12 Otay Water District 13 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 14 San Diego Unified Port District 15 Sweetwater Authority 16 Vista Irrigation District SECTION SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 1 San Diego County, California 2023 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Decorative Image ATTACHMENT E i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. I INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1. SECTION ONE: DETERMINE THE PLANNING AREA AND RESOURCES ....................................................... 5 1.1. PLANNING AREA: SAN DIEGO COUNTY ............................................................................................... 5 1.2. COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................ 22 2. SECTION TWO: BUILD THE PLANNING TEAM ........................................................................................ 26 2.1. PLANNING PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................................. 27 2.2. PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................................................................... 33 3. SECTION THREE: CREATE AN OUTREACH STRATEGY ............................................................................. 48 3.1. WHOLE COMMUNITY APPROACH ..................................................................................................... 48 3.2. COMMUNITY OUTREACH STRATEGY ................................................................................................. 51 4. SECTION FOUR: REVIEW COMMUNITY CAPABILITIES ........................................................................... 54 4.1. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 54 4.2. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) ............................................................................. 68 5. SECTION FIVE: CONDUCT A RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 76 5.1. HAZARD ASSESSMENT SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 77 5.2. ALL HAZARD PROFILES ...................................................................................................................... 86 5.3. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 159 6. SECTION SIX: DEVELOP A MITIGATION STRATEGY .............................................................................. 266 6.1. MITIGATION ACTION EVALUATION ................................................................................................. 266 6.2. MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ............................................. 270 7. SECTION SEVEN: KEEP THE PLAN CURRENT ........................................................................................ 288 7.1. MITIGATION ACTION PROGRESS ..................................................................................................... 288 7.2. PLAN UPDATE EVALUATION ............................................................................................................ 297 7.3. PLAN MAINTENANCE, MONITORING, EVALUATION, & UPDATES .................................................... 298 APPENDIX 1. BASE DATA SOURCES 2021 ............................................................................................... 305 APPENDIX 2. HAZARD DATA SOURCES 2021 .......................................................................................... 308 APPENDIX 3. OTHER SOURCES/REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 309 APPENDIX 4. SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY REFERENCES, UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO ..... 311 APPENDIX 5. SURVEY RESULTS FOR SD MULTIJURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVISION . 318 APPENDIX 6. MEETINGS ......................................................................................................................... 326 ii THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION PLAN DESCRIPTION Across the United States, natural and human-caused disasters lead to increasing levels of death, injury, property damage, and interruption of business and government services. The impact on families and individuals can be immense, and damages to businesses can result in regional economic consequences. The time, money, and effort to respond to and recover from these disasters divert public resources and attention from other important programs and situations. With experience in presidential disaster declarations, gubernatorial proclamations, and local emergency proclamations, San Diego County, California recognizes the consequences of disasters, the need to reduce impacts of natural and human-caused hazards, and the importance of increasing regional resiliency. Elected and appointed County officials also know that carefully selected mitigation actions (in the forms of projects and programs) can become long-term, cost-effective means for reducing natural and human-caused hazard impacts. This San Diego County, California, Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (The/This Plan) was prepared with input from: • County public • County of San Diego Groups, Agencies and Departments • Eighteen Incorporated Cities • The Port of San Diego • Water Districts • Fire Protection Districts • Air Pollution Control District • The National Weather Service • Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego • California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This plan update included over three years of coordination with planning participants and will help guide the region toward greater disaster resilience in harmony with the community layout and needs. PLAN PURPOSE Federal legislation has historically provided funding for disaster relief, recovery, and some hazard mitigation planning. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) is the most current legislation to improve this planning process (Public Law 106-390). The legislation reinforces the importance of mitigation planning and emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. As such, DMA 2000 establishes a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). INTRODUCTION 2 Section 322 of DMA 2000 specifically addresses mitigation planning at state and local levels. It identifies new requirements that allow HMGP funds to be used for planning activities, and increases the amount of HMGP funds available to states that have developed a comprehensive, enhanced mitigation plan prior to a disaster. States and communities must have an approved mitigation plan in place prior to receiving post-disaster HMGP funds. Local and Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plans must demonstrate their proposed mitigation measures are based on a sound planning process that account for the risk to and the capabilities of the individual communities. State governments have certain responsibilities for implementing Section 322, including: • Preparing and submitting a standard or enhanced state mitigation plan • Reviewing and updating the state mitigation plan every three years • Providing technical assistance and training to local governments to assist them in applying for HMGP grants and in developing local mitigation plans • Reviewing and approving local plans if the state is designated a managing state and has an approved enhanced plan. The intent of DMA 2000 is to facilitate cooperation and collaboration between state and local authorities, which encourages and rewards local and state pre-disaster planning and promotes sustainability as disaster resilience strategy. This enhanced planning network is intended to enable local and state governments to articulate accurate needs for mitigation— resulting in faster allocation of funding and more effective risk reduction projects. FEMA prepared an Interim Final Rule, published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002 (44 CFR Parts 201 and 206), which establishes planning and funding criteria for states and local communities. This plan was prepared to meet state and federal statutes and requirements, thus making the County and all participating jurisdictions and special districts eligible for funding and technical assistance from state and federal hazard mitigation programs. EXISTING AUTHORITIES In the early 1960s, the incorporated cities and the County of San Diego formed a Joint Powers Agreement which established the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization (USDCESO) and the Unified Disaster Council (UDC) as the policy making group. This Plan is intended to serve many purposes, including: • Enhance Public Awareness and Understanding– to help the public better understand the natural and human-caused hazards that threaten public health, safety, and welfare; economic vitality; and the operational capability of important institutions. • Create a Decision Tool for Management – to provide information that managers and leaders of local government, business and industry, community associations, and other key institutions and organizations need to take action to address vulnerabilities to future disasters. • Promote Compliance with State and Federal Program Requirements– to ensure San Diego County and its incorporated cities can take full advantage of state and federal grant programs, policies, and regulations that encourage or mandate that local governments develop comprehensive hazard mitigation plans. INTRODUCTION 3 • Enhance Local Policies for Hazard Mitigation Capability– to provide the policy basis for mitigation actions that should be promulgated by participating jurisdictions to create a more disaster-resistant future, and to document each jurisdiction’s ability to expand on and improve existing policies and programs. • Provide Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination of Mitigation-Related Programming – to ensure proposals for mitigation initiatives are reviewed and coordinated among the participating jurisdictions within the County. • Achieve Regulatory Compliance – To qualify for certain forms of federal aid for pre- and post-disaster funding, local jurisdictions must comply with the federal DMA 2000 and its implementing regulations (44 CFR Section 201.6). DMA 2000 intends for hazard mitigation plans to remain relevant and current. Therefore, it requires State Hazard Mitigation Plans are updated every three years and local plans, including this San Diego County Plan, every five years. This means San Diego’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan uses a five-year planning cycle, which is designed to coordinate the region’s edits of data, assumptions, goals, objectives, and actions/projects before the plan is submitted for re-approval to Cal OES and FEMA. The UDC, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, City Councils, and governing Boards for each participating municipality or special district will adopt the Plan (according to their existing authorities) once the State of California and FEMA have granted provisional plan approval in the form of an “Approved Pending Adoption” Letter. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 4 SECTION ONE: Determining the Planning Area and Resources San Diego County, California 2023 Decorative Image CAL FIRE San Diego Communications Bureau SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 5 1. SECTION ONE: DETERMINE THE PLANNING AREA AND RESOURCES Overall, San Diego County is comprised of 18 incorporated cities and a vast number of unincorporated communities. The county’s total population in 2020 was approximately 3.3 million—making San Diego County the second most populous county in the state.0F0F0F 1 1.1. PLANNING AREA: SAN DIEGO COUNTY San Diego County, one of 58 counties in the state of California, was established on February 18, 1850, just after California became the 31st state. The County stretches 65 miles from north to south, and 86 miles from east to west, covering 4,261 square miles.1F1F1F 2 Elevation ranges from sea level to about 6,500 feet. Orange and Riverside Counties border the north, the agricultural communities of Imperial County border the east, the Pacific Ocean lies west, and the State of Baja California, Mexico borders the south. 1.1.1. UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES (POPULATION: 505,675)2F2F2F 3 The Unincorporated County consists of approximately 34 Community Planning and Sub- regional Areas. Many of the communities in the Unincorporated County jurisdiction are in the mountains, desert, North County, or on the border of Mexico. Rancho Santa Fe, an affluent residential and resort community, is one of the exceptions, located within the urban core area. The community of Julian is in the central mountains, along a principal travel route between the desert and Metropolitan San Diego, and is a common tourist destination. Alpine is located east of El Cajon on Interstate 8 and is considered a gateway to San Diego County’s wilderness areas of mountains, forests, and deserts. The Sub-regional Planning Areas are Central Mountain, County Islands, Mountain Empire, North County Metro, and North Mountain. Communities within the Central Mountain Sub- region are Cuyamaca, Descanso, Guatay, Pine Valley, and Mount Laguna. The County Islands Community Plan area consists of Mira Mesa, Greenwood, and Lincoln Acres. The North Mountain Sub-region is mostly rural and includes Santa Ysabel, Warner Springs, Palomar Mountain, Mesa Grande, Sunshine Summit, Ranchita and Oak Grove. The Mountain Empire Sub-region contains Tecate, Potrero, Boulevard, Campo, Jacumba, and the remainder of the plan area. The Community Planning Areas are Alpine, Bonsall, Borrego Springs, Boulevard, Crest/Dehesa/Granite Hills/Harbison Canyon, Cuyamaca, Descanso, Desert, Fallbrook, Hidden Meadows, Jacumba, Jamul/Dulzura, Julian, Lake Morena/Campo, Lakeside/Pepper Drive-Bostonia, Otay, Pala-Pauma, Palomar/North Mountain, Pendleton/Deluz, Pine Valley, Portrero, Rainbow, Ramona, San Dieguito (Rancho Santa Fe), Spring Valley, Sweetwater, Tecate, Twin Oaks, Valle De Oro, and Valley Center. The following subsections provide County of San Diego Economy, Physical Features, Infrastructure, and Jurisdictional summaries, with data and research provided within the 1 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/auditor/pdf/adoptedplan_21-23.pdf 2 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/auditor/pdf/adoptedplan_21-23.pdf 3 2020 Jurisdiction Population Estimate from SANDAG: https://datasurfer.sandag.org/dataoverview SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 6 County of San Diego’s existing “Adopted Operational Plan Fiscal Years 2021-2022 and 2022- 2023”: 1.1.2. ECONOMY San Diego offers a vibrant and diverse economy, along with a strong and committed partnership of local government and businesses dedicated to the creation and retention of quality jobs. The San Diego County business climate continues to thrive due to the diversification of valuable assets, such as world class research institutions; proximity to Mexico and the Pacific Rim; a well-educated, highly productive work force; and an unmatched entrepreneurial spirit. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) can be an indicator of the nation’s economic health, and its growth is driven by multiple sectors, including net exports of goods and services, government consumption expenditures, and gross investment. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), calendar year 2020 saw a decrease in real GDP, as the national economy was impacted by the response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. The economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted federal fiscal stimulus efforts, which provided support to economic activity in 2020 and potentially in 2021 (COVID-19 pandemic economic impacts are regularly assessed). As the State of California economically recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic, experts predict consumers will resume pre-pandemic behaviors like spending money on clothing, cars, housing, and furniture. In 2019, San Diego County accounted for more than $222.3 billion (7.9%) of California’s GDP and 8.4 percent of the State’s population (based on U.S. Census data). San Diego’s abundant and diverse supply of labor at competitive rates is one of the area’s greatest assets. A 2019 study using 2019 data found that 23% of San Diego County’s workforce is either in the retail or hospitality sectors. San Diego County also includes the largest concentration of U.S. military in the world, which is an important contributor to the region’s economy.3F3F3F 4 1.1.3. EMPLOYMENT According to the California Employment Development Department, low and middle San Diego County wage workers made more than the state average, however, high wage earners made less than the state average. In 2019, the median household income for San Diego County was nearly $79,000, but other factors, like inflation, could have reduced spending availability. 4F4F4F 5 The COVID-19 pandemic also affected jobs that relied on tourism. A study using 2019 data found that 23% of San Diego County’s workforce were employed in the retail or leisure & hospitality sectors. Therefore, unemployment numbers increased during the COVID-19 Pandemic.5F5F5F 6 Unemployment rates rose to 15.9% by the end of April 2020, dropped to 6.8% by November 2020, and fell again to 6.3% by May 2021. This unemployment rate was slightly higher than 4 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/auditor/pdf/adoptedplan_21-23.pdf 5 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/auditor/pdf/adoptedplan_21-23.pdf 6 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/auditor/pdf/adoptedplan_21-23.pdf SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 7 the national average of 5.5%, but also significantly lower than the state’s rate of 7.5%.6F6F6F 7 7F7F7F 8 Overall, the region's job and unemployment numbers are improving, and labor supply is still strong. There are several reasons for the strong labor supply in San Diego. The area’s appealing climate and renowned quality of life are two main factors that attract a quality workforce. The excellent quality of life continues to be an important advantage for San Diego companies in attracting and retaining workers. In addition, local colleges and universities augment the region’s steady influx of qualified labor.8F8F8F 9 1.1.4. PHYSICAL FEATURES The physical, social, and economic development of the region has been influenced by its unique geography, which encompasses over 70 miles of coastline, broad valleys, lakes, forested mountains, and the desert. The county can be divided into three basic geographic areas, all generally running in the north-south direction. The coastal plain extends from the ocean to inland areas for 20 to 25 miles. The foothills and mountains, rising in elevation to 6,500 feet, comprise the middle section of the county. The third area is the desert, extending from the mountains into Imperial County, 80 miles east of the coast. San Diegans can live in the mountains, work near the ocean, and take recreational day trips to the desert. One of San Diego’s greatest assets is its climate, with mild winters, pleasant summers, and an abundance of sunshine and light rainfall. 9F9F9F 10 San Diego County experiences climatic diversity due to its varied topography. Traveling inland, temperatures tend to be warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter. In the local mountains, the average daily highs are 70 degrees and lows are about 55 degrees. 10F10F10F 11 The local mountains also get a light snowfall several times a year. East of the mountains is the Anza Borrego Desert—where rainfall is minimal, and summers are hot. The dry, mild climate of San Diego County is conducive to productivity. Outdoor work and recreational activities are possible almost year-round. In addition, storage and indoor work can be handled with minimum investment in heating and air conditioning, although extreme heat events have recently increased in both frequency and severity. 1.1.5. INFRASTRUCTURE According to FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, infrastructure systems are critical for life safety and economic viability, and include transportation, power, and water systems. Many critical facilities depend on infrastructure to function. For example, hospitals need electricity and water to continue treating patients. As with critical facilities, the continued operations of infrastructure systems during and after a disaster are key factors in the severity of regional impacts and the speed of recovery.11F11F11F 12 7 https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-county-metro-and-other-areas 8 https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/ 9 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/auditor/pdf/adoptedplan_21-23.pdf 10 https://usafacts.org/issues/climate/state/california/county/san-diego-county?endDate=2022-06-06&startDate=2018-02- 01#climate 11 https://www.weather.gov/wrh/climate?wfo=sgx 12 https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/fema-local-mitigation-planning-handbook_03-2013.pdf SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 8 TRANSPORTATION San Diego has a well-developed road system. There are freeways and state highways maintained by Caltrans, private roads maintained by property owners, and other public roads like those within incorporated cities (not within the County Maintained System). 12F12F12F 13 All urbanized areas in the region and some rural areas are served by public transit. The San Diego region is divided into two transit development boards: the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), and the North County Transit Development Board (NCTD). The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) operates transit service under MTDB and owns assets of San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI), San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC), and the San Diego & Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railway Company (which owns 108 miles of track and right-of-way). Pre-COVID-19 Pandemic, MTS served approximately 3 million people in San Diego County, generated 88 million annual passenger trips (300,000 trips each workday), and responded to demand by scheduling 7,000 trips each workday. MTS licenses and regulates taxicabs, jitneys, and other private for-hire passenger transportation services by contract with the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Poway, Santee, and portions of San Diego County’s unincorporated areas. Routes also connect with other regional operators’ routes, and San Diego Trolley operates the light rail transit system under MTDB. 13F13F13F 14 Alternatively, the North County Transit District (NCTD) is governed by Board of Directors with voting members from Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, Solana Beach, San Marcos, Vista, and San Diego County, and one non-voting member from the City of San Diego. NCTD operates within a geographical area of approximately 1,020 square miles, and primarily carries passengers in North San Diego County (from the Pacific Ocean east to Ramona, and from the Orange County border south to Del Mar, with connections extending to downtown San Diego). NCTD provides about 10.3 million passenger trips per year, and its bus system has 30 routes. In addition, NCTD runs special Express Buses for certain sporting and special events in San Diego. Other services include SPRINTER hybrid rail, COASTER commuter trains, FLEX demand response, and LIFT ADA paratransit service. NCTD shares the use of its tracks with rail partners: Amtrak, Metrolink, BNSF, and Pacific Sun Railroad. Amtrak and Metrolink operate more than 264 commuter trains on our tracks every week, while BNSF and Pacific Sun move more than 9.6 million pounds of freight. 14F14F14F 15 15F15F15F 16 GAS & ELECTRICITY (POWER) San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) is a public utility company that provides natural gas and electric service to 3.7 million consumers through 1.4 million electric meters and 873,000 natural gas meters in San Diego County and South Orange County.16F16F16F 17 Overall, SDG&E’s service area encompasses 4,100 square miles, two counties, and 25 communities. SDG&E is a subsidiary of Sempra Energy, a Fortune 500 energy services holding company based in 13 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/roads/maintroad.html 14 https://www.sdmts.com/about/about-mts 15 NCTD-At-A-Glance-Fact-Sheet-February-2022.pdf (gonctd.com) 16 Facts Sheets | North County Transit District (gonctd.com) 17 About Us | San Diego Gas & Electric (sdge.com) SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 9 San Diego. All petroleum products in the region are delivered via a pipeline system operated by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners. 17F17F17F 18 18F18F18F 19 WATER The San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) is a public agency serving the San Diego region as a wholesale supplier of water. Water Authority works through its 24 member agencies to provide a safe, reliable water supply to support the region’s $240 billion economy and the quality of life of 3.3 million public members.19F19F19F 20 The 24 member agencies are comprised of six cities, three public utility districts, three irrigation districts, eleven municipal water districts, and one federal agency (military base) and cover a service area of 934,778 acres.20F20F20F 21 In 2020, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California supplied 18% of San Diego County Water Authority’s water, while 82% came from local and other supplies. Metropolitan Water District imports the water from two sources: the Colorado River and the State Water Project (Bay-Delta) in Northern California.21F21F21F 22 22F22F22F 23 Traveling hundreds of miles over aqueduct systems (including pump stations, treatment plants and reservoirs), water is transported through the Water Authority’s five primary pipelines, then distributed to the member agencies for delivery to the public. In 2020, 127 gallons of water per person, per day, were used in San Diego County.23F23F23F 24 1.1.6. PLANNING AREA: LOCAL JURISDICTIONS The planning area for this document also includes local jurisdictions, such as the eighteen incorporated cities and special districts. More details are provided in participating jurisdictions’ respective annexes. Carlsbad (Population: 114,746) Carlsbad is a coastal community located 35 miles north of Downtown San Diego. It is bordered by Encinitas to the south, Vista and San Marcos to the east, and Oceanside to the north. Carlsbad is home to world-class resorts, such as the La Costa Resort and Spa and the Four Seasons Resort at Aviara (offering championship-level golf and tennis facilities). Carlsbad’s commercial/recreational landscape also includes Legoland, which opened in spring 1999. The City of Carlsbad has a strong economy, much of which has come from industrial development. For example, Callaway Golf, Cobra Golf, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and Immune Response are a few of the local companies located in Carlsbad.24F24F24F 25 25F25F25F 26 18 https://www.sdge.com/more-information/our-company 19 https://www.sdge.com/more-information/our-company/about- us#:~:text=3.7%20million%20consumers,Diego%20and%20southern%20Orange%20counties. 20 https://www.sdcwa.org/about-us/ 21 https://www.sdcwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/overview-fs.pdf 22 https://www.mwdh2o.com/media/12208/2022-annual-achievement-report-full.pdf 23 https://www.sdcwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/overview-fs.pdf 24 Ibid 25 https://ir.ionispharma.com/news-releases/news-release-details/isis-pharmaceuticals-changes-name-ionis-pharmaceuticals 26 https://ir.callawaygolf.com/corporate-governance/contact-the-board County OES Decorative Image SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 10 The City of Carlsbad has four high performing school districts (Carlsbad Unified, Encinitas Union, San Dieguito Union & San Marcos Unified). Distinguished private and parochial schools also serve Carlsbad (including the internationally renowned Army & Navy Academy), which offer specialties in STEM/STEAM, the arts, International Baccalaureate, and other curricula.26F26F26F 27 27F27F27F 28 Chula Vista (Population: 275,487) The City of Chula Vista is located at the center of one of the richest cultural, economic, and environmentally diverse zones in the United States. It is the second-largest city in San Diego County and boasts more than 52 square miles of coastal landscape, canyons, rolling hills, mountains, quality parks, and trails. Chula Vista is a leader in conservation and renewable energy and has outstanding public schools. Established neighborhoods, contemporary communities, start-up firms, corporations, nationally recognized entertainment venues, the nation’s only warm weather athlete training center (the Chula Vista Elite Athlete Training Center), an award-winning nature center, and a historic downtown all contribute to Chula Vista’s attraction for both families and businesses.28F28F28F 29 A range of educational opportunities, from preschool to college are available in Chula Vista. Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) is the largest K-6 district in California with over 28,500 students and 46 campuses. The CVESD is a high-performing and frequently honored district for student academic achievement, The city is also home to the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD), the largest secondary school 7-12 district in California. The district encompasses 41,000 students, and 24,000 adult students on 32 campuses.29F29F29F 30 Coronado (Population: 20,192) The City of Coronado is a small, 13.5 square mile beach community, with an island feel. The military bases of the Naval Air Station North Island and Naval Amphibious Base occupy 5.3 square miles, and Coronado is connected to San Diego by a 2.3-mile bridge and to Imperial Beach (its neighbor to the south) by a six-mile scenic highway (the Silver Strand).30F30F30F 31 It is primarily a bedroom community for San Diego and an internationally renowned tourist destination. This vibrant community welcomes more than two million visitors annually to soak up the sun and the sand, while enjoying the lush surroundings and village appeal of Coronado. The city contains world-class resorts, including the Hotel Del Coronado, and highly acclaimed restaurants. Coronado Unified School District serves local students and includes eight schools.31F31F31F 32 Del Mar (Population: 4,268) Incorporated in 1959, the City of Del Mar is a quaint, seaside village located 20 miles north of San Diego. Del Mar is the smallest city in the County, covers just 2.2 square miles, and is known for its vibrant small-town atmosphere. Del Mar attracts locals and upwards of 2 million 27 https://www.carlsbadca.gov/residents/schools 28 https://www.armyandnavyacademy.org/ 29 https://trainatchulavista.com/about-olympic-athlete-training-site/ 30 chulavistaca.gov/residents/education 31 https://www.coronado.ca.us/210/About-Coronado 32 https://coronadousd.net/Our-District/index.html SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 11 visitors annually from all over the world, who come to enjoy the beautiful dog-friendly beaches, hiking trails, scenic views, and the many shops and dining opportunities located within the Del Mar Village. The community is primarily comprised of single-family residential neighborhoods, with retail uses and restaurants in the downtown, a small commercial area, and several hotels. Located 27 miles north of Downtown San Diego, this coastal community is known for its affluence and comfortable standard of living. It is a beautiful, wooded hillside area overlooking the ocean and has a resort-like atmosphere. The Del Mar Racetrack and Thoroughbred Club serve as Del Mar’s most noted landmark. This racetrack is also the location for the annual San Diego County Fair. The City of Del Mar’s shoreline includes the Del Mar City Beach and the Torrey Pines State Beach. The city provides law enforcement services through a contract with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, and fire administration is provided through a mutual agreement between the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach.32F32F32F 33 El Cajon (Population: 106,215) El Cajon is located 15 miles east of the City of San Diego. El Cajon is an inland valley surrounded by rolling hills and mountains. As one of the most eastern cities in the County, El Cajon has a warm and dry climate. El Cajon is a diverse residential, commercial, and industrial area, and serves as the main commerce center for several surrounding communities. Gillespie Field, a general aviation airport, is a major contributing factor to the city’s vibrant industrial development. There are three School Districts that serve El Cajon: Cajon Valley Unified School District, La Mesa-Spring Valley Unified School District, and Grossmont Union High School District. There are also several charter schools within the city.33F33F33F 34 Encinitas (Population: 62,780) Encinitas is located along six miles of Pacific coastline in the northern half of San Diego County. Approximately 21 square miles, Encinitas is characterized by coastal beaches, cliffs, flat-topped coastal areas, steep mesa bluffs, and rolling hills. Incorporated in 1986, the city encompasses the communities of Old Encinitas, New Encinitas, Olivenhain, Leucadia, and Cardiff-By-The-Sea. Encinitas is bordered by Carlsbad to the north, Solana Beach to the south and the community of Rancho Santa Fe to the east. The Los Angeles/San Diego (LOSSAN) rail passes through the city, and other transit corridors traversing the city include El Camino Real and Coast Highway 101. The San Elijo Lagoon Reserve boasts the largest coastal wetland in San Diego County and is home to nearly 300 different bird species throughout the year. The century-old Downtown 101 coastal shopping district features historic architecture, quaint shops, sidewalk cafes, specialty retail stores and upscale restaurants. The city is served by the Encinitas Union School and San Dieguito Union High School Districts.34F34F34F 35 33 https://www.delmar.ca.us/764/About-Del-Mar 34 https://www.elcajon.gov/resident-services/living-in-el-cajon/el-cajon-schools 35 https://coronavirus.encinitasca.gov/public-schools SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 12 Escondido (Population: 151,038) Escondido is located 30 miles north of San Diego and is approximately 18 miles inland from the coast. In 1994, the people of Escondido conceived a vision of cultural excellence.35F35F35F 36 Today, the $73.4 million California Center for the Arts stands as a product of this vision. Inland North San Diego County, of which Escondido is at the core, is emerging as a regional economic leader at the forefront of job development and new industries. Escondido has a comprehensive mix of successful businesses—supplying a diverse job base and high quality of life.36F36F36F 37 There is a unique mix of agriculture, industrial firms, high-tech firms, recreational centers, parks, and residential areas in the city. The area’s largest shopping mall, the North County Fair, houses major retail and smaller stores. California State University, San Marcos and Palomar Community College are located within minutes of Escondido. Escondido is served by two public school districts—Escondido Union and San Pasqual Union.37F37F37F 38 Imperial Beach (Population: 26,137) Imperial Beach claims the distinction of being the “Most Southwesterly City – in the continental United States.” The city is in the Southwest corner of San Diego County, only five miles from the Mexican Border and 15 miles from downtown San Diego. With a population of 26,137, Imperial Beach occupies an area of 4.4 square miles. Imperial Beach offers some of the least expensive housing west of Interstate 5. It is primarily a resort/recreation community with a vast beach area, as well as a 12,000-foot pier for fishing. Looking south, just across from the international border, Tijuana’s famous “Bullring by the Sea,” the Plaza De Monumental can be seen. The city is served by two school districts—South Bay Union and Sweetwater Union.38F38F38F 39 La Mesa (Population: 61,121) La Mesa is centrally located 12 miles east of Downtown San Diego, and is a suburban residential community as well as a commercial and trade center. The area is characterized by rolling hills and has many hilltop home sites that take advantage of the beautiful views. La Mesa offers affordable housing within a wide range of prices, as well as high-end luxury homes atop Mount Helix. La Mesa has an abundance of mixed-use condominiums for those who prefer a downtown village atmosphere. There is balance between single-family housing and multi-family housing within La Mesa’s city limits. One of the region’s major retail facilities, Grossmont Center, is in the heart of the city and adjacent to another major activity center— Grossmont Hospital. The La Mesa-Spring Valley Elementary School District provides elementary and junior high schools. There are two high schools in the area and Grossmont College, a two-year community college, is also located in La Mesa.39F39F39F 40 36 https://artcenter.org/about/history/ 37 https://escondido.org/employment-in-escondido 38 https://escondido.org/escondido-schools 39 https://www.imperialbeachca.gov/community 40 https://www.guhsd.net/ SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 13 Lemon Grove (Population: 27,627) Lemon Grove lies about nine miles east of Downtown San Diego and has the charm of small- town living with the conveniences of big city proximity. Initially the site of expansive lemon orchards, the city remains a small town with a rural ambiance.40F40F40F 41 The Sheriff’s Department Lemon Grove Substation has provided contract law enforcement services to the City of Lemon Grove and unincorporated communities of Spring Valley, Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Mt. Helix, Casa De Oro, La Mesa, and El Cajon since 1977.41F41F41F 42 The city is also served by two school districts—Lemon Grove School and Grossmont Union High School Districts, which include six elementary schools, one middle school, and three high schools.42F42F42F 43 National City (Population: 56,173) Incorporated in 1887, National City is one of the county’s oldest incorporated areas. Just five miles south of the City of San Diego, National City is the South Bay’s center of industrial activity and has a rich history. The city embodies a proud tradition of commerce, urban agriculture, production, and transportation.43F43F43F 44 There are a great number of historical sites in National City and homes in the area are usually 50 years or older. Stately Victorians reflect the early part of the century when shipping and import/export magnates lived there. Additionally, the San Diego Naval Station overlaps both Cities of San Diego and National City and is the largest naval facility in the country. Served by National Elementary and Sweetwater High School districts, National City also offers several private schools for all grade levels. National City is best known for its Mile of Cars; the title describing its abundant auto dealerships. Two large shopping malls, Plaza Bonita, and South Bay Plaza are also located in National City. Oceanside (Population: 174,068) Oceanside is centrally located between San Diego and Los Angeles. Located just 36 miles north of Downtown San Diego, Oceanside is bordered by Camp Pendleton to the north, Carlsbad to the south, Vista to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The current population of makes Oceanside the largest coastal community. Industrial real estate rates tend to be lower than the county average, and housing tends to be more affordable than in other areas of Southern California coastal cities. With a near-perfect year-round climate and recognition as one of the most livable places in the nation, Oceanside offers both an incomparable lifestyle and abundant economic opportunity. Its extensive recreational facilities include 3.5 miles of sandy beaches, Oceanside Harbor, and Oceanside Lagoon. 44F44F44F 45 41 https://www.lemongrove.ca.gov/community 42 https://www.lemongrove.ca.gov/city-hall/law-enforcement 43 https://www.lemongrove.ca.gov/community/local-schools 44 https://www.nationalcityca.gov/government/city-manager/economic-development 45 https://visitoceanside.org/ SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 14 The city is served by the Oceanside Unified School District with 15 elementary, six middle, and three high school options.45F45F45F 46 Port of San Diego The Port was established in 1962 under the Port Act and is charged with implementing the Tidelands Trust Doctrine.46F46F46F 47 47F47F47F 48 The Port of San Diego manages San Diego Bay and 34 miles of its natural waterfront for the people of California. For over 50 years, the Port's five member cities (Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City, and San Diego) have worked together to develop and promote commerce, navigation, recreation, and fisheries on and around San Diego Bay. Self-funded, The Port contributes billions annually to San Diego’s economy, benefiting the community, local businesses, and employees. Businesses at The Port provide thousands of well-paying jobs, supporting individuals and families throughout the region. The Port is governed by a seven-member Board of Port Commissioners representing five cities and provides leadership that transcends local boundaries. The Port’s daily operations are carried out by a workforce of over 550 dedicated employees.48F48F48F 49 The Port of San Diego is the fourth largest of the eleven ports in California, and it has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in public improvements within its five member cities. The Port oversees two maritime cargo terminals, two cruise ship terminals, 22 public parks, the Harbor Police Department, and the leases of hundreds of tenant and subtenant businesses around San Diego Bay. These include 17 hotels, 74 restaurants, three specialty retail centers and numerous other attractions including museums and bay tours. 49F49F49F 50 Each year, millions of people enjoy a remarkable way of life offered by San Diego Bay and its waterfront communities. 50F50F50F 51 Poway (Population: 48,841) Poway is located 23 miles northeast of the City of San Diego, within the well-populated I-15 corridor. Poway is distinct because it is set into the foothills. Poway’s main recreational facility is the 350-acre Lake Poway Park. This lake also serves as a reservoir for the water supplied to San Diego by the Colorado River Aqueduct. The area has many recreational facilities, providing complete park sites, trails, and fishing opportunities. Poway is also home to the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve—700 acres of natural habitat with hiking, horseback riding and interpretive trails. The Poway Center for the Performing Arts is an 809-seat professional theater that also provides local entertainment.51F51F51F 52 The Poway Unified School District (PUSD) is excellent and has consistently been rated as top tier. PUSD operates 25 elementary schools (K-5), one elementary & middle school combination (TK-8th), six middle schools (6-8), one continuation high school, five 46 https://www.oside.us/ 47 https://pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows.net/administration/San-Diego-Unified-Port-District-Act.pdf 48 https://pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows.net/administration/California-Public-Trust-Doctrine.pdf 49 https://www.portofsandiego.org/people 50 https://www.portofsandiego.org/about-port-san-diego/history 51 https://www.portofsandiego.org/about-port-san-diego 52 https://www.powaycenter.com/156/Technical-Information SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 15 comprehensive high schools (9-12), and one adult school. Twenty-six schools are in the City of San Diego and twelve schools are in Poway. The district serves over 36,000 students and is the third largest school district in the county.52F52F52F 53 San Diego (Population: 1,386,932) The City of San Diego is the largest city in San Diego County and is the second largest city in the state. San Diego is renowned for its idyllic climate, 70 miles of pristine beaches and a dazzling array of world-class family attractions. Popular attractions include the world-famous San Diego Zoo, San Diego Zoo Safari Park, SeaWorld San Diego, LEGOLAND California, Cabrillo National Monument, and Old Town State Historic Park. San Diego's arts and culture and culinary arts are also booming. New culinary arts talents prepare award-winning meals throughout the region's 6,400 eating establishments, and Balboa Park (the largest urban cultural park in the U.S.) is home to 15 museums, numerous art galleries, beautiful gardens, and the Tony Award-winning Old Globe Theatre.53F53F53F 54 54F54F54F 55 The city is served by the San Diego Unified School District for elementary, middle, and high school options.55F55F55F 56 San Marcos (Population: 94,833) San Marcos is located between Vista and Escondido, approximately 35 miles north of Downtown San Diego. San Marcos is known for its resort climate, rural setting, central location, and affordable housing prices. Although San Marcos has experienced rapid growth over the last decade, it continues to maintain the small-town atmosphere that initially attracted many new community members.56F56F56F 57 It is also home to two of the region’s major educational facilities, Palomar College and California State University, San Marcos.57F57F57F 58 The city is served by the San Marcos Unified School District, which is the seventh largest district in San Diego with 19 schools—10 elementary schools, two K-8 schools, three middles schools, three high schools, and one independent study school.58F58F58F 59 59F59F59F 60 Santee (Population: 60,037) “Sunny climate, good schools, small-town friendliness”—Santee prides itself on having a lean government that responds to its community’s concerns. Collectively, these are among the key attributes of the city. Santee is ideally located between the Pacific Ocean and the mountains of the Cleveland National Forest. While Santee is considered part of the East County Region, the city is only 18 freeway miles from San Diego’s premier beaches. Santee is connected to the coastline by State Route 52, a six-lane freeway that connects Interstate 5 in La Jolla to State Route 67. State Route 125 also intersects with State Route 52, forming a transportation hub in the heart of Santee. Since the expansion of the San Diego Trolley, Santee community 53 https://www.powayusd.com/en-US/District/About-Us 54 https://www.sandiego.org/articles/about-san-diego-ca.aspx 55 https://www.balboapark.org/performing-arts/the-old-globe 56 https://www.sandiegounified.org/schools/all_schools 57 https://www.san-marcos.net/live/about-us 58 https://www.san-marcos.net/live/about-us 59 https://www.smusd.org/about_us 60 https://drive.google.com/file/d/15YZn-2ZnVwoAxEy-UTf1ETQvK9oVy7m9/view SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 16 members can ride the Trolley to Mission Valley, Downtown San Diego and as far as the U.S./Mexico Border. Santee lies 18 miles northeast of Downtown San Diego and is bordered on the east and west by slopes and rugged mountains. The San Diego River runs through this community, which was once a dairy farming area. It is now a residential area that has experienced phenomenal growth since the 1970’s. Water services are provided by Padre Dam Municipal Water District. The Santee School District and Grossmont Union High School District oversee K-12 education. Elementary and middle school students attend one of the nine available schools, while high school students attend Santana or West Hills High School. Nearby higher education facilities include San Diego State University and Grossmont Community College. 60F60F60F 61 61F61F61F 62 Solana Beach (Population: 12,941) Solana Beach was incorporated in 1986 and is a four square-mile city regarded as one of the county’s most attractive coastal communities. Solana Beach is known for its small-town atmosphere and pristine beaches, and has one of the highest median income levels in the County—as well as an outstanding school system (recognized with state and national awards of excellence). The Pacific Ocean is to the west, the City of Encinitas to the north, and the City of Del Mar to the south. The unincorporated village of Rancho Santa Fe is located on the east side. Property values in this upscale community have appreciated significantly since incorporation. The business community has equally enjoyed the prosperity of a healthy economy, as Solana Beach is home for many artisans, high-tech businesses, and professionals. The elementary school district is composed of five elementary schools, two of which are within the city limits. The middle school is under the administration of the San Dieguito Union High School District. High school students in the area attend Torrey Pines High School located to the southeast of Solana Beach. Additionally, there are several private and parochial schools in Solana Beach.62F62F62F 63 Lomas Santa Fe, located east of the freeway, is a master planned community, which features shopping, homes, and condominiums, two golf courses and the family-oriented Lomas Santa Fe Country Club. Vista (Population: 98,381)63F63F63F 64 Vista is a thriving community that continues to grow and develop many new activities and attractions. The Moonlight Amphitheatre, AVO Playhouse, and the Wave Waterpark are just some of the many cultural activities the offered in Vista. Vista's Business Park is home to over 800 companies, with many global businesses relocating their headquarters, manufacturing, distribution, and marketing facilities to this business park. In addition, Vista 61 https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/our-city/about-santee-new 62 https://www.santeesd.net/schools/district_school_sites 63 https://www.ci.solana-beach.ca.us/index.asp?SEC=6BACDB03-96AC-47CC-9F5C-57082740FDAF&Type=B_BASIC 64 https://datasurfer.sandag.org/dataoverview SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 17 Village has brought revitalization to the downtown area with dining, entertainment, shopping, and public amenities.64F64F64F 65 The City of Vista is approximately 19 square miles and contracts with Vista Irrigation District for its water services. The city operates its own fire department and contracts with the San Diego Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services. 65F65F65F 66 There are 17 elementary and magnet schools, six middle schools, and seven high schools and magnet schools.66F66F66F 67 Tribal Communities Indigenous Americans have lived in the region for thousands of years. The four tribal groupings that make up the indigenous American Indians of San Diego County are the Kumeyaay (also referred to as Diegueño or Mission Indians), the Luiseño, the Cupeño, and the Cahuilla. San Diego County has the largest number (18) of Indian reservations of any county in the United States. The reservations include total land holdings of an estimated 193 square miles.67F67F67F 68 Tribes can develop a Tribal Mitigation Plan independently or participate in a Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, either with other Tribes or with one or more local governments.68F68F68F 69 Special Districts A Special District is an independent unit of local government set up to perform a specific function or a restricted number of related functions, such as street lighting or waterworks. A special district might be composed of cities, townships, counties, or any part or combination. The 61 Special Districts in San Diego County are separate legal entities (governed by the Board of Supervisors) that provide for specialized public improvements and services deemed to benefit properties and community members, and financed by specific taxes and assessments. The Special Districts provide authorized services including sanitation, flood control, road, park, lighting maintenance, fire protection, or ambulance service to specific areas in the county.69F69F69F 70 Therefore, Special Districts have the option to either create their own Local Hazard Mitigation Plan or partner with a local government to create a plan annex.70F70F70F 71 65 https://www.moonlightstage.com/about-us/rentals/avo-playhouse 66 https://www.cityofvista.com/residents/about-vista 67 https://www.vistausd.org/our_schools 68 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/auditor/pdf/adoptedplan_21-23.pdf 69 https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/fema-tribal-planning-handbook_05-2019.pdf 70 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/auditor/pdf/adoptedplan_21-23.pdf. 71 https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/fema-local-mitigation-planning-handbook_03-2013.pdf SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 18 1.1.7. DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME The San Diego County General Plan (which informs and is informed by this plan) applies to the unincorporated area of the county and is the County’s long-term blueprint for the vision of the future. It reflects an environmentally sustainable approach to planning that balances the need for adequate infrastructure, housing, and economic vitality while maintaining and preserving existing communities, agricultural areas, and open spaces. San Diego County is approximately 2.9 million acres of which 2.3 million acres are unincorporated areas. Within the unincorporated area, the County’s land-use jurisdiction is limited by Tribal lands, and State and Federally owned lands, and military installations including Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. As a result, the County has land use jurisdiction over 772,239 acres or 35 percent of the unincorporated area.71F71F71F 72 Wildfire and flooding are the chief vulnerabilities affecting development in San Diego County. When areas that were previously wildlands subject to periodic wildfires and flooding are developed, combustible structures and densified populations are necessarily introduced, and there may be changes to the threat potential for life and property. These vulnerabilities cannot be entirely eliminated but are significantly mitigated by development standards that require adherence to fire-resistant building codes; the creation and maintenance of defensible space; the avoidance of over-densification; the provision of safe and adequate population egress routes and the creation of buffer zones with low combustibility open spaces. County staff have updated long range planning documents including the General Plan Safety Element in 2022 to include new evacuation route data, analysis, and policies in response to state law. Additionally, a Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Report was added to the Safety Element, which identifies how climate change is forecast to impact the county's unincorporated areas and summarizes climate adaptation plans and programs already in place. This Vulnerability Assessment also evaluates anticipated climate change impacts to the people and physical assets in the county’s unincorporated areas and assesses the capacity to adapt to these impacts. When reviewing proposed land development projects, from discretionary reviews through building permit plan check, staff ensure all local and state requirements are applied to projects. Plan check of discretionary projects includes a General Plan conformance review to ensure compliance with documents such as the newly adopted Safety Element, as well as an environmental review, to examine potential project specific impacts and risks through the lens of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), working to lessen potential impacts such as wildfire and egress through analysis and mitigation efforts, to address potential vulnerability. This analysis includes close collaboration with local fire and emergency response entities to work towards projects that are designed and constructed safely. The County of San Diego has local building code requirements that go above and beyond the requirements of the California Building Code, to further provide homes and developments the opportunity to be built safely to protect communities and address vulnerability. The County of San Diego routinely enhances its approach to analyzing and planning for development that may be in hazard prone areas. This is done through regular updates to documents such as the County General Plan, County Building Code, Consolidated Fire 72 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/generalplan.html SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 19 Code, and Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, among other planning documents. These updates enhance the safety of future development by evaluating impacts and incorporating mitigation efforts prior to construction. Local changes that enhance mitigation measures include the County of San Diego review of development in fire severity zones. The County of San Diego applies the same building code requirements to areas in moderate fire severity zones as it does to development in high and very high fire severity zones. The result is enhanced design and construction for moderately zoned fire severity locations in new homes and structures built today. In 2020, the County of San Diego further expanded wildfire protections by requiring more restrictive attic ventilation requirements to reduce the risk of embers entering homes. Mitigation efforts to protect against flood include building code requiring all new construction in flood-prone areas must provide raised finish floor elevation 1’ above freeboard elevation. For the period between 2018-2022, single family residences made up approximately 43 percent of the development activity in the unincorporated areas, while mobile homes and tracts of land comprised an additional 56 percent of the development activity. Permits for commercial development constituted 1 percent of the development activity. For a more detail description of development trends, see the 2021 General Plan Annual Progress Report available here: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/advance/GeneralPlan/2021%20Gener al%20Plan%20Annual%20Progress%20Report.pdf The table below summarizes development trends in the unincorporated County in the period since the preparation of the previous (2018) Hazard Mitigation Plan update, as well as expected future development trends: SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 20 TABLE 1: RECENT AND EXPECTED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Criterion Response Has your jurisdiction annexed any land since the preparation of the previous hazard mitigation plan? • If yes, give the estimated area annexed and estimated number of parcels or structures. No Is your jurisdiction expected to annex any areas during the performance period of this plan? • If yes, describe land areas and dominant areas. • If yes, who currently has permitting authority over these areas? No How many permits for new construction were issued in your jurisdiction since the preparation of the previous hazard mitigation plan? 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 as of 10/31/22 2022 Annualized Single Family 531 528 446 631 598 652 Tract 581 509 462 626 505 551 Mobile Home 235 211 145 156 107 117 Multi-Family (Commercial) 3 7 17 17 45 49 Total 1,350 1,255 1,070 1,430 1,255 1,369 SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 21 Criterion Response Describe the level of buildout in the jurisdiction, based on your jurisdiction’s buildable lands inventory. If no such inventory exists, provide a qualitative description. Dwelling unit capacity is an estimate of how much new development could occur theoretically over an unlimited time period. It represents the difference between the amount of development on the land today and the likely amount that could be built under the current land use. The remaining dwelling unit capacity for the unincorporated area is 60,748 units. Construction of these units may or may not happen and depends on obtaining approvals from the County. Infrastructure such as roads, sewers, storm drains, and water connections may be needed. Also, site-specific conditions may limit the number of units constructed such as animal habitats, steep slopes, and flood areas; and demand for new homes. For a more detailed description of dwelling unit capacity in the County, see the 2020 Housing Production & Capacity Portal Summary Report available here: PortalSummaryReport.pdf (sandiegocounty.gov) While this development over time does not appear to be significant on it’s own, the County’s population growth associated with this development does appear significant. The County of San Diego grew from the third to the second most populous County in California since the last update of this plan with the addition of 100,000 population members. This increase is population was accounted for throughout the update of this plan to help ensure vulnerabilities to hazards did not increase as well. Therefore, development and growth over time were incorporated into the Local Planning Group’s (LPG’s) priorities as this plan’s Goals, Objectives, and Actions/Priority Actions were updated. Over the next five years and beyond, the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services (County OES) will continue to collaborate with other County Department partners, such as the County Department of Planning & Development Services (the authors of the County’s General Plan and related Progress Reports) to remain briefed on development short-term and long-term trends and potential changes in hazard vulnerabilities, and collaborate on hazard mitigation solutions. These briefings will also help County OES and the Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) determine if priorities within this plan and it’s projects need to be reevaluated and/or updated. SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 22 1.2. COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS Flooding is a hazard that affects San Diego County. Meeting National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements is the most cost-effective way to reduce the flood risk to new buildings and infrastructure.72F72F72F 73 The County of San Diego currently participates in NFIP. The Community Rating System (CRS) is a FEMA program and rewards communities that go beyond the minimum standards for floodplain management under the NFIP. Communities can potentially improve their Community Rating System and lower NFIP premiums by developing a CRS Plan. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program. The following table compares CRS and Hazard Mitigation Plan requirements/tasks: TABLE 2: FEMA LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING HANDBOOK WORKSHEET 1.1 DESCRIBES THE CRS REQUIREMENTS MET BY THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. Community Rating System (CRS) Planning Steps Local Mitigation Planning Handbook Tasks (44 CFR Part 201) Step 1. Organize Task 1: Determine the Planning Area and Resources Task 2: Build the Planning Team 44 CFR 201.6(c)(1) Step 2. Involve the public Task 3: Create an Outreach Strategy 44 CFR 201.6(b)(1) Step 3. Coordinate Task 4: Review Community Capabilities 44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) & (3) Step 4. Assess the hazard Task 5: Conduct a Risk Assessment 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(i) 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(ii) & (iii) Step 5. Assess the problem Step 6. Set goals Task 6: Develop a Mitigation Strategy 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(i) 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(ii) 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(iii) Step 7. Review possible activities Step 8. Draft an action plan Step 9. Adopt the plan Task 8: Review and Adopt the Plan 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5) Step 10. Implement, evaluate, revise Task 7: Keep the Plan Current Task 9: Create a Safe and Resilient Community 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4) Two planning partners currently participate in the CRS program. The following table summarizes the CRS status of each. Many of the mitigation actions identified in this plan are creditable activities under the CRS program. Therefore, successful implementation of this plan offers the potential to enhance the CRS classification. 73 https://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/manage-risk SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 23 TABLE 3: CRS STATUS OF PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS. Jurisdiction NFIP Community # CRS Entry Date Current CRS Classification Premium Discount SFHA Non-SFHA Oceanside 060294 10/1/1991 8 10 5 San Diego County 060284 10/1/1994 7 15 5 Any jurisdiction or special district may participate in the hazard mitigation planning process. However, to request FEMA approval, each of the local jurisdictions must meet all requirements of 44 CFR §201.6. In addition to the requirement for participation in the process, the federal regulation specifies the following requirements for multi-jurisdictional plans: • The risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s risk where they may vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. (44 CFR §201.6(c)(2)(iii)) • There must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. (44 CFR §201.6(c)(3)(iv)) • Each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that is has been formally adopted. (44 CFR §201.6(c)(5)) A hazard mitigation plan must clearly list the jurisdictions that participated in the plan and are seeking plan approval. The San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan meets all requirements, including CRS requirements. More information about this topic is discussed in Section 4 and 6 of this plan. 1.2.1. CATEGORIES OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Floodplain management is a community-based effort to prevent or reduce the risk of flooding, resulting in a more resilient community. Multiple groups with a stake in protecting their communities from flooding conduct floodplain management functions like zoning, building codes, enforcement, education, and other tasks. While FEMA has minimum floodplain management standards for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), adopting higher local standards will lead to safer, stronger, more resilient communities.73F73F73F 74 The different categories of floodplain management activities are detailed within this section. Related community capabilities and potential local projects (to be completed at future dates) are described respectively in Section 4 and Section 6 of this plan: 1. Preventive activities keep flood problems from getting worse. The use and development of flood-prone areas is limited through planning, land acquisition, or regulation. They are usually administered by building, zoning, planning, and/or code enforcement offices. • Floodplain mapping and data • Planning and zoning • Open space preservation 74 Floodplain Management | FEMA.gov • Stormwater management • Floodplain regulations • Drainage system maintenance SECTION ONE | Determine the Planning Area and Resources 24 • Erosion setbacks • Building codes 2. Property protection activities are usually undertaken by property owners on a building-by- building or parcel basis. • Relocation • Retrofitting • Acquisition • Sewer backup protection • Building elevation • Insurance 3. Natural resource protection activities preserve or restore natural areas or the natural functions of floodplain and watershed areas. They are implemented by a variety of agencies, primarily parks, recreation, or conservation agencies or organizations. • Wetlands protection • Water quality improvement • Erosion and sediment control • Coastal barrier protection • Natural area preservation • Environmental corridors • Natural area restoration • Natural functions protection 4. Emergency services measures are taken during an emergency to minimize its impact. These measures are usually the responsibility of city or county emergency management staff and the owners or operators of major or critical facilities. • Hazard threat recognition • Critical facilities protection • Hazard warning • Health and safety maintenance • Hazard response operations • Post-disaster mitigation actions 5. Structural projects keep flood waters away from an area with a levee, reservoir, or other flood control measure. They are usually designed by engineers and managed or maintained by public works staff. • Reservoirs • Channel modifications • Levees/floodwalls • Storm drain improvements • Diversions 6. Public information activities advise property owners, potential property owners, and visitors about the hazards, ways to protect people and property from the hazards, and the natural and beneficial functions of local floodplains. They are usually implemented by a public information office. • Map information • Library • Outreach projects • Technical assistance • Real estate disclosure • Environmental education SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 25 SECTION TWO: Build the Planning Team San Diego County, California 2023 Decorative Image CAL FIRE San Diego Communications Bureau SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 26 2. SECTION TWO: BUILD THE PLANNING TEAM This San Diego County, California Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (The Plan) was prepared with input from: • County public • County of San Diego Groups, Agencies and Departments • Eighteen Incorporated Cities • The Port of San Diego • Water Districts • Fire Protection Districts • Air Pollution Control District • The National Weather Service/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego • California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). County public participation will be discussed in Section 3 of this plan. Feedback and approval of this plan is provided by Cal OES and FEMA. County Board of Supervisors’ approval then follows. SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 27 2.1. PLANNING PARTICIPANTS Below is a detailed list of all other planning participant names, positions/titles, and agencies—All below listed jurisdictions sought local, state, and federal approval as Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Annexes: TABLE 4: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO GROUPS, AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS: Name Title Department Jeff Toney Director Office of Emergency Services Stephen Rea Assistant Director Office of Emergency Services Daniel Vasquez Group Program Manager Office of Emergency Services Dominique D. Fonseca Program Coordinator Office of Emergency Services Nick Zubel Senior Emergency Services Coordinator Office of Emergency Services Rob Andolina Emergency Services Coordinator Office of Emergency Services Shannon Nuzzo Emergency Services Coordinator Office of Emergency Services Michael Robles Senior Geographic Information Systems Analyst Office of Emergency Services Laura Caracciolo Emergency Services Coordinator Office of Emergency Services Cody Gallagher Emergency Services Coordinator Office of Emergency Services Tracy Dahlkamp Student Worker (Graduate/Tech) Office of Emergency Services Ryan DeHart Senior Emergency Services Coordinator Office of Emergency Services (Fmr.) Garrett Cooper Deputy Director Agriculture, Weights & Measures Jesus Amial Administrative Analyst Agriculture, Weights & Measures Austin Shepherd Deputy Commissioner/Sealer Agriculture, Weights & Measures Vince Acosta IT/GIS Coordinator Agriculture, Weights & Measures Brian Christison Emergency Medical Services Coordinator Emergency Medical Services Todd Burton Environmental Health Specialist III Environmental Health & Quality SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 28 Name Title Department Brad Long Supervising Environmental Health Specialist Environmental Health & Quality Amy Harbert Director Environmental Health & Quality Dave Nissen Deputy Chief Fire Ryan Silva Battalion Chief CAL FIRE/Fire Jessica A. Martinez Community Risk Reduction Program Coordinator Fire Ashley Risueno Administrative Analyst Fire (Fmr.) Jo Ann Julien Health Planning and Program Specialist Health & Human Service Agency Sandi Hazlewood Chief, Departmental Operations Parks & Recreation Judy Tjiong-Pietrezak Senior Park Project Manager Parks & Recreation Chelsea Jander Senior Park Project Manager Parks & Recreation Marco Mares Region Manager Parks & Recreation Jason Hemmens Deputy Director Parks & Recreation Tyler Farmer Group Program Manager Planning & Development Services Mike Madrid Land Use/Environmental Planner-Long Range Planning Planning & Development Services Robert Efird Program Manager-Long Range Planning Planning & Development Services (Fmr,) Vince Nicoletti Deputy Director Planning & Development Services Shannon Ackerman GIS Analyst-Quartic Solutions Planning & Development Services (GIS) Jason Batchelor GIS Coordinator Planning & Development Services (GIS) Ian Dawes Senior GIS Analyst Planning & Development Services (GIS) Donna Johnson Senior Emergency Services Coordinator Public Health Services / Emergency Medical Services (Fmr.) Derek Gade Assistant Director Public Works SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 29 Name Title Department Mehdi Khalili Civil Engineer Public Works (Flood Control) Matthew Schmid Senior Civil Engineer Public Works (Roads) Greg Carlton Senior Civil Engineer Public Works (Roads) Leann Carmichael Senior Hydrologist Public Works (Sustainability Planning Division) Rene Vidales Program Coordinator Public Works Richard Chin Project Manager Public Works (Roads) EIGHTEEN INCORPORATED CITIES: Name City Title Don Rawson Carlsbad Emergency Services Coordinator Kim Young Carlsbad Assistant Director of Emergency Services David Harrison Carlsbad Assistant Director of Emergency Services (Fmr.) Marie Jones-Kirk Carlsbad Program Manager Marlon King Chula Vista Program Manager Jayson Summers Coronado Division Chief Jeff Terwilliger Coronado Emergency Management Coordinator (Fmr.) Clem Brown Del Mar Environmental Sustainability & Special Projects Manager Corina Jimenez Encinitas Senior Management Analyst Lois Yum Encinitas Management Analyst Jeff Murdock Escondido Emergency Preparedness Manager Andy McKellar Heartland (El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove) Emergency Preparedness Coordinator John French Imperial Beach Fire Chief Walter Amedee National City Management Analyst III David Parsons Oceanside Division Chief Pete Lawrence Oceanside Division Chief Katelynn Rise Oceanside Emergency Services Assistant (Fmr.) Russ Cunningham Oceanside Principal Planner Brian Mitchell Poway Deputy Fire Chief Susy Turnbull Poway Disaster Preparedness Coordinator (Fmr.) James Holmes San Diego Program Coordinator SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 30 Name City Title Jennifer Dymicki San Diego Advanced Planning Eugene Ruzzini San Diego Provisional Program Manager Tiffany Allen San Diego Senior Homeland Security Coordinator (Fmr.) Hannah Chasteene San Diego Senior Homeland Security Coordinator Jamie Smith San Marcos Emergency Manager Dave Pender San Marcos Fire Battalion Chief Justin Matsushita Santee Deputy Fire Chief Dustyn Garhartt Santee Fire Captain DeVerna Rogers Santee Recreation Supervisor Patricia Letts Solana Beach Administrative Assistant III Rigma Viskanta Solana Beach Senior Management Analyst Ned Vanderpol Vista Fire Chief Edward Kramer Vista Emergency Manager Jamie Smith Vista Emergency Management Coordinator (Fmr.) PORT OF SAN DIEGO Name Jurisdiction Title Dave Foster Port of San Diego Homeland Security Program Manager Cid Tesoro Port of San Diego Vice President, Facilities & Engineering WATER AND IRRIGATION DISTRICTS: Name District Title Lisa Coburn-Boyd Otay Water District Environmental Compliance Specialist Emilyn Zuniga Otay Water District Safety and Security Specialist Larry Costello Padre Dam Municipal Water District Safety and Risk Manager Charmaine Esnard Rainbow Municipal Water District Risk Management Officer Lisa Prus San Diego County Water Authority Supervising Management Analyst Eric Rubalcava San Diego County Water Authority Principal Asset Management Specialist Anjuli Corcovelos San Diego County Water Authority Senior Water Resources Specialist Clay Clifton Sweetwater Authority Program Specialist SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 31 Name District Title Frank Wolinski Vista Irrigation District Director of Operations & Field Services Alisa Nichols Vista Irrigation District Management Analyst (Fmr.) FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS: Name District Title Jason McBroom Alpine Fire Protection District Fire Marshal Dave McQuead Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District Fire Chief Gehrig Browning San Miguel Fire Protection District Division Chief Andrew Lawler San Miguel Fire Protection District Division Chief W. Brent Napier San Miguel Fire Protection District Deputy Fire Marshal Colton Israels San Miguel Fire Protection District Fire Inspector *AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT: Name District Title David Sodeman Air Pollution Control District Chief, Department Operations Domingo Vigil Air Pollution Control District Deputy Director *THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE (NWS)/ NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA): Name Organization Title Alex Tardy NWS/NOAA Warning Coordination Meteorologist, Manager *SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO: Name Institute Association (Titles N/A) Dan Cayan Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego California Nevada Applications Program Alexander Gershunov Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego California Nevada Applications Program Laura Engeman Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 32 Name Institute Association (Titles N/A) Diego Julie Kalansky Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego California Nevada Applications Program *These three organizations are not seeking Annex approval. SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 33 2.2. PLANNING PROCESS The overall planning process for The Plan was led by the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services (County OES), who established a Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) to coordinate development of the Plan. Representatives from each listed incorporated city, special district and the unincorporated county were designated by their jurisdiction as the HMPG member. Each HMPG member identified a Local (internal) Mitigation Planning Team for their department, jurisdiction, special district, and other organizations that included decision- makers from police, fire, emergency services, community development/planning, transportation, economic development, public works, and emergency response/services personnel, as appropriate. The Local Mitigation Planning Team assisted in identifying the specific hazards/risks that are of concern to each jurisdiction and to prioritize hazard mitigation measures. The HMPG members brought this information to HMPG meetings— held regularly to provide jurisdiction- specific input to the multi-jurisdictional planning effort and to assure that all aspects of each jurisdiction’s concerns were addressed. A list of the lead contacts for each participating jurisdiction is included above, in Section 2. All HMPG members were provided an overview and training of hazard mitigation planning elements at the HMPG meetings. The HMPG training was designed after FEMA's "Local Mitigation Planning Handbook" worksheets, which led the HMPG members through the process of defining the jurisdiction’s assets, vulnerabilities, capabilities, goals, objectives, and actions. The HMPG members were also given additional action items at each meeting to be completed by their Local Mitigation Planning Team. HMPG members also participated in workshops to present the risk assessment, preliminary goals, objectives, and actions. In addition, several HMPG members met with OES staff specifically to discuss hazard-related goals, objectives, and actions. Preliminary goals, objectives and actions developed by jurisdiction staff were then reviewed with necessary partners for approval. Throughout the planning process, the HMPG members were given maps of the profiled hazards as well as detailed jurisdiction-level maps that illustrated the profiled hazards and critical infrastructure. These maps were created using data sources listed in references. These data sources contain the most recent data available for the San Diego region. A large portion of this data was supplied by the regional GIS agency, SanGIS. The SanGIS data is updated periodically with the new data being provided by the local agencies and jurisdictions. This ensured the data used was the most recent available for each participating jurisdiction. The HMPG members reviewed these maps and were provided the opportunity to communicate updates or changes to the critical facilities/assets or hazard layers to County OES in November 2021. Data received from HMPG members were added to the hazard database and used in the modeling process described in the Risk Assessment portion of the Plan (Section 5). The data used in this plan revision is considered more accurate than the original plan. SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 34 2.2.1. EXISTING POLICIES, PLANS, PROGRAMS, & RESOURCES Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) members and their corresponding Local Mitigation Planning Teams prior to and during the planning process reviewed and incorporated several existing policies, plans, studies, guides, programs, and other resources to inform the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) and its processes. These items included FEMA documents, emergency services documents as well as county and local general plans, community plans, local codes and ordinances, and other similar documents. The documents included, but were not limited to: • San Diego County’s/Cities’ General Plans & Safety Element o In 2021, the Board of Supervisors adopted the update to the San Diego County General Plan's Safety Element. The County proactively addresses hazards through the General Plan Safety Element and has many references to the MJHMP. Representatives from the General Plan’s planning group are also members of the HMPG—ensuring that both plans are integrated and contain mutually-reinforcing policies. The General Plan and the 2023 MJHMP Update work together to achieve the goal of hazard risk reduction. Future updates of the General Plan, including incorporation by reference of the 2023 MJHMP into the Safety Element will continue to ensure consistency between both plans. o This specific update of The Plan required incorporation of updates into the County’s Safety Element (lead by Planning & Development Services) to demonstrate progress of local hazard mitigation efforts. Plan leads (listed in Section 2 of this plan) met as needed to collaborate on cohesive updates, then discuss how and where to include the update within their respective plans. • San Diego County Strategic Plan/Initiatives o Informs all existing/new County Plans and priorities, such as new/updated programs and projects, including this plan. o The County’s Strategic Initiatives (Sustainability, Equity, Empower, Community, and Justice) were all incorporated into this plan’s updated Goals, Objectives, and Actions.74F74F74F 75 • County of San Diego Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan 2022 o Annexes inform this plan/delegation of responsibilities, and this plan also informs the County of San Diego Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan 2022. o A key element of the update process for the MJHMP was the review of the County of San Diego Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (OA EOP). The HMPG stayed informed of major review findings of the OA EOP with the intent to integrate with key components of the MJHMP. Future updates to the OA EOP will coincide with the future updates of the MJHMP. • Geographic Information System (GIS) Data & Maps o Base map shape files used for items such as city jurisdictions, county jurisdictions, parcels, rivers, and roads to establish critical facilities and a GIS map for this plan. • FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map o 100- and 500-year floodplain data was acquired to profile flood hazard and carry out the related vulnerability assessment. 75 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/cao/docs/stratplan.pdf SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 35 • Legislation o Newly passed legislation is often required to be included in County plans, including this plan, which is completed by the Planning Group every December. o Various legislation/statutes added requirements and guidance for inclusion into the Hazard Mitigation Plan. For example, Assembly Bill No. 1409 (Planning and Zoning: General Plan: Safety Element) describes the need to integrate evacuation routes and locations used for shelters (e.g. Temporary Evacuation Points (TEPs) and more). • Various Local Codes and Ordinances o Local Emergency Managers, including members of the Planning Group, meet bi- monthly to discuss plan and procedure updates (including new/updated local codes and ordinances) that may affect the planning area and require incorporation into plans. Examples of these local codes and ordinances include building codes and fire codes, which help the HMPG inform this plan’s Goals, Objectives, and Actions. • FEMA Local Mitigation Handbook March 2013 o The Planning Group researched, trained on, and referenced this item on a weekly basis to inform this plan and all related procedures. • FEMA Mitigation Ideas January 25, 2013 o The Planning Group researched, trained on, and referenced this item while completing Sections 4-6 of this plan, which also informed all related procedures. • Integrating Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Planning – ICLEI o The Planning Group researched, trained on, and referenced this item while completing Section 4-6 of this plan, which also informed all related procedures. o The Planning Group partnered with scientists and researchers at UCSD Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who study and contribute work related to Climate Change impacts and adaptation. The Planning Group provided the Scripps team with a list of all hazards included in this plan and asked them to provide descriptions of climate change impacts, and mitigation recommendations. UCSD Scripps Institution of Oceanography’s work and responses are incorporated throughout this plan and are included in this plan’s sources and footnotes. • Climate Change Impacts in the United States – U.S. Government Printing Office o The Planning Group researched, trained on, and referenced this item while completing Section 4-6 of this plan, which also informed all related procedures. o The Planning Group partnered with scientists and researchers at UCSD Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who study and contribute work related to Climate Change impacts and adaptation. The Planning Group provided the Scripps team with a list of all hazards included in this plan and asked them to provide descriptions of climate change impacts, and mitigation recommendations. UCSD Scripps Institution of Oceanography’s work and responses are incorporated throughout this plan and are included in this plan’s sources and footnotes. SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 36 • Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 2019 o The Planning Group researched, trained on, and referenced this item on a weekly basis to inform this plan and all related procedures. • California State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018 o The Planning Group researched and referenced this item on a monthly basis to inform this plan and all related procedures. The HMPG reviewed hazard profiles, hazard assessment data to ensure consistency with the information contained within this plan. o The California State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018 was also used to inform this plan’s layout, hazard inclusion/omission rationale, and the risk assessment/consequence analysis, which is included within Section 5 of this plan. Task Four of the FEMA Local Mitigation Handbook, Sections 1, 4, and 7 of this plan, and jurisdiction-specific annexes describe the process by which local governments will integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans. The County of San Diego specifically meets with all necessary partners to collaborate on planning mechanisms/updates, conducts an approval process through the public, department leadership, Unified Disaster Council (UDC) voting/approval, then Board of Supervisor and other elected official approval. All listed steps were conducted on necessary and required bases. This specific update of The Plan required incorporation of updates into the County’s Safety Element (lead by Planning & Development Services) and Emergency Operations Plan (lead by County OES) to demonstrate progress of local hazard mitigation efforts. Plan leads (listed in Section 2 of this plan) met as needed to collaborate on cohesive updates, then discuss how and where to include the update within their respective plans. Additionally, listed below is a summary of existing departments in the County and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation, as well as existing planning documents and policies/regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of the County, as discussed below, and in Section 4 of this plan, provide an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in Section 6 of this plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners, and engineers with an understanding of natural or human-caused hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community: • San Diego County Planning Development Services The goals of these departments are to maintain and protect public health, safety, and well-being, and preserve and enhance the quality of life for County community members by maintaining a comprehensive general plan and zoning ordinance, implementing habitat conservation programs, ensuring regulatory conformance, and performing comprehensive community outreach. This Department is comprised of the following six divisions: SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 37 o Long Range Planning Division: Implements the long-range vision planning for the unincorporated portion of San Diego County. This division is responsible for maintaining the zoning ordinance and County's General Plan, a document that provides the framework for future growth and development in the County. Long Range Planning processes regular updates to other land development policies and ordinances and manages a variety of ongoing activities that derive from federal, state, and local mandates o Sustainability Planning Division: Composed of the Sustainability Team, the Conservation Team, and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Team. The Sustainability Team manages implementation of the County’s 2018 Climate Action Plan (CAP), which contains a series of measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next 30 years; along with the CAP Update, which will culminate in the adoption of a plan that will exceed State GHG emissions reductions of 40% below the 1990 level by 2030 and meet a goal of reducing emissions to net zero between 2035-2045. The Conservation Team develops and implements programs that contribute to the conservation of biological, environmental, and agricultural resources in the unincorporated area. The SGMA Team oversees County implementation of SGMA, which provides a framework to regulate groundwater in certain basins in California. o Building Division: Reviews site and building plans for compliance with all applicable codes, issues land use and building permits, and enforces building and zoning regulations. o Code Compliance Division: Enforces building, grading, zoning, brushing and clearing, junk, graffiti, signs, abandoned vehicle complaints and noise control. o Land Development Division: Provides engineering and review services for construction and development projects throughout the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. o Project Planning Division: reviews “discretionary” projects—projects that builders and homeowners cannot do “by right,” but which may be approved by PDS’s director, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission, or the Board of Supervisors if the projects meet certain conditions. Discretionary projects include lot splits, major subdivisions and conditionally permitted uses. They also process applicants' requests for General Plan Amendments and Zoning changes. • San Diego County Department of Public Works Preserve, enhance, and promote quality of life and public safety through the responsible development of reliable and sustainable infrastructure and services. o Land Development Division: Provides engineering and review services for construction and development projects throughout the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. Services such as Stormwater, Flood Control, Map Processing, Cartography, Surveys, the Geographic and Land Information Systems and dealing with land development issues are the daily job of this division. The division processes more than 5,000 permits each year. o Transportation Division: Roads Section is the most visible part of DPW, responding to requests for services ranging from pothole repair to tree trimming. Traffic Engineering provides traffic management and determines the need for stop signs and traffic lights. Route Locations updates the County’s General Plan Circulation Element, provides transportation planning support and more. County SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 38 Airports include eight unique facilities scattered throughout the area. McClellan- Palomar Airport provides commercial service to Los Angeles and Phoenix; Ramona Airport is home to the busiest aerial firefighting base in the USA; and, the County Sheriff's aerial support unit, ASTREA, is based at Gillespie Field. o Engineering Services Division: The division includes Wastewater, Flood Control, Design Engineering, Environmental Services, Construction Engineering, Materials Lab, Project Management and Flood Control Engineering and Hydrology. The Director of Public Works has assigned the Deputy Director of Engineering Services as the County Engineer and Flood Control Commissioner. o Management Services Division: This division provides a variety of services to department employees and the public. It includes Personnel, Financial Services, Communications, Recycling, Inactive Landfills and Management Support. Special Districts serve small areas in unincorporated areas providing a variety of services to community members in rural areas. • San Diego County Housing & Community Development Improve the quality of life in our communities—helping families find safe and affordable housing, and partnering with property owners to increase the supply and availability of affordable housing. This department provides many valuable services to both property owners and tenants, and strives to create more livable neighborhoods that community members are proud to call home. Key service programs include improving neighborhoods by assisting community members who have low incomes, increasing the supply of affordable, safe housing, and rehabilitating both business and residential properties in San Diego County. They serve the communities of: Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Escondido, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) provides funding to agencies or businesses that provide a benefit to persons with low- and moderate- income, prevent or eliminate slums and blight, or meet needs having a particular urgency. In addition to funding housing and shelter programs, the County also allocates grant funds toward various community improvements in the Urban County area. These include Developer Incentive programs, Housing Opportunity for Persons with Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and the Emergency Solutions Grant Program. Participating cities, community members, nonprofit organizations and other county departments may submit grant proposals. • County of San Diego Emergency Medical Services (EMS) The mission of this department is to ensure all community members and visitors to San Diego County receive timely and high-quality emergency medical services, specialty care, prevention services, disaster preparedness and response. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is a department within the Public Safety Group. • County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services The Office of Emergency Services (OES) coordinates the overall county response to disasters. OES is responsible for alerting and notifying appropriate agencies when disaster strikes, coordinating all agencies that respond, ensuring resources are SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 39 available and mobilized in times of disaster, developing plans and procedures for response to and recovery from disasters, and developing and providing preparedness materials for the public. This department’s function is to protect life and property within the San Diego County Operational Area in the event of a major emergency or disaster by: 1. Alerting and notifying appropriate agencies when disaster strikes 2. Coordinating all Agencies that respond 3. Ensuring resources are available and mobilized in times of disaster 4. Developing plans and procedures for response to and recovery from disasters 5. Developing and providing preparedness materials for the public. • County of San Diego Sheriff’s Department The San Diego County Sheriff's Department is the chief law enforcement agency in San Diego County. The department is comprised of approximately 4,000 employees, both sworn officers and professional support staff. The department provides general law enforcement, detention, and court services for the people of San Diego County in a service area of approximately 4,200 square miles. In addition, the department provides specialized regional services to the entire county, including the incorporated cities and the unincorporated areas of the county. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department provides contract law enforcement services for the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, and Vista. In these cities the Sheriff's Department serves as their police department, providing a full range of law enforcement services including patrol, traffic, and investigative services. In the unincorporated (non-city) areas, the Sheriff's Department provides generalized patrol and investigative services. The California Highway Patrol has the primary jurisdiction for traffic services in unincorporated areas. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department operates seven detention facilities. Male arrestees are booked at the San Diego Central Jail and Vista Detention Facility, while female arrestees are booked at the Las Colinas and Vista Detention Facilities. The remaining jails house inmates in the care of the Sheriff. • County Public Health Preparedness and Response Public Health Preparedness and Response coordinates with Emergency Medical Services, Office of Emergency Services, community organizations, medical providers, prehospital provider agencies (Fire/EMS), hospitals, clinics, skilled nursing facilities, businesses, and other partners in developing public health and disaster preparedness by dissemination of risk assessments, trainings, and public health guidance. • County Department of Environmental Health and Quality's (DEHQ) This department’s mission is to protect the environment and public health. It accomplishes this through the work of its four divisions: o Food and Housing (FHD) Division: Conducts retail food facility inspections and issues the appropriate A-B-C grade card. The division is also responsible for inspecting swimming pools, body art facilities, apartments, hotels and motels in contracted cities and the unincorporated area, organized camps and detention facilities. FHD responds to public health threats and environmental hazards SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 40 associated with these regulated facilities, including illness investigations, fires, food recalls and boil water orders, all in the interest of promoting safe communities. o Land and Water Quality Division: Conducts water quality testing of beaches and bays and posts the results for residents and visitors; reviews plans for and inspects onsite wastewater treatment systems, recycled water systems, water wells, monitoring wells, and mobile home parks in the unincorporated county; is the Local Enforcement Agency for solid waste facilities; and conducts collection of household hazardous materials in the unincorporated county. In addition, this division oversees cleanup of contaminated property, including from clandestine drug laboratories, and enforces state solid waste laws and regulations at landfills and composting facilities throughout the county, with the exception of the City of San Diego. o Community Health Division: Coordinates the county's asbestos and lead programs, operates the radiological health program, and runs the vector control program to keep the region safe from diseases such as West Nile virus, hantavirus, Lyme disease, and others. It was also instrumental in the new countywide program to control eye gnats. o Hazardous Materials Division: Regulates more than 13,000 businesses to ensure that hazardous materials, and hazardous and medical wastes are properly catalogued, stored, and managed. The Hazardous Incident Response Team (HIRT) responds to spills and works with various other agencies in cleanup operations. Public outreach and educational programs range from schools to newsletters and web sites. • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAL FIRE is an emergency response and resource protection department that responds to wildland fires that burn across the state. In addition, department personnel respond to other emergency calls, including structure fires, automobile accidents, medical aid, swift water rescues, civil disturbance, search and rescue, floods, and earthquakes. CAL FIRE is the State’s largest fire protection organization, whose fire protection team includes extensive ground forces, supported by a variety of fire-fighting equipment. CAL FIRE has joined with Federal and local agencies to form a statewide mutual aid system. This system ensures a rapid response of emergency equipment by being able to draw on all available resources regardless of jurisdiction. CAL FIRE is responsible for wildland fire protection within the District’s State Responsibility Areas, even though the Fire District is the first responder to an incident. 2.2.2. INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE The San Diego County Operational Area consists of the County of San Diego and the eighteen incorporated cities located within the county’s borders. Planning for emergencies, training and exercises are all conducted on a regional basis. In 1961 the County and the cities formed a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) to facilitate regional planning, training, exercises, and responses. This JPA is known as the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization (USDCESO). Its governing body is the Unified Disaster Council (UDC) (as described in Section 1 of this plan). SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 41 The membership of the UDC is defined in the JPA. Each city and the County have one representative. Representatives from the cities can be an elected official, the City Manager or from the municipal law enforcement or fire agency. The County is represented by the Chairperson of the County Board of Supervisors, who also serves as Chair of the UDC. In addition, there are 26 fire protection districts and 17 water districts within the San Diego Region. Each were offered the opportunity to participate in the development of this plan. The original development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, as well as this current revision, were conducted under the auspices of the UDC. At the direction of the UDC, the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) acted as the lead agency in the revision of this plan. San Diego County OES requested input from each jurisdiction in the county. Each municipality, special district, and neighboring jurisdictions were formally invited to attend a meeting to develop an approach to the planning process and to form the Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG). These invitations were in the form of an email to each jurisdiction. At the August 29, 2019 UDC meeting, it was announced that the plan was reaching the five-year mark and required updating.75F75F75F 76 Each jurisdiction/participating party (documented within Section 2 of this plan) later confirmed their participation in the HMPG. In addition to the eighteen incorporated cities, County OES provided an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as business, academia and other private or non-profit organizations interested in the involvement of the planning process. The HMPG formed to undertake the planning process and meeting dates were set for all members to attend. Each participating jurisdiction then formed their own Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team. Details on the membership of those teams can be found in each jurisdiction’s annex. Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Teams met either before or after the overall HMPG met to discuss regional meeting topics and assignments. The UDC received briefings regularly on the progress of the planning process. UDC meetings are open to the public, with agendas and notices posted according to California’s Brown Act, with emailed invitations and reminders sent out one to two weeks prior to the meetings. Included on that email list are representatives from the following agencies: • American Red Cross • Chamber of Commerce • Federal Agencies (USN, USMC, USCG, DHS) • Hospitals • Port of San Diego • State Agencies (Cal OES, DMV, Caltrans) • School Districts • Universities and colleges 76 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/docs/UDC_Documents/2019/October/04.%20August%20UDC%20Minutes_ 2019.pdf. SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 42 • Utilities (Power- SDG&E, Water – San Diego County Water Authority and Water Districts, Cable, telephone, and internet – Cox Communications) Tribal Communities were also invited to participate in this plan update and/or discuss Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plans on April 26, 2022. 2.2.3. HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GROUP MEETINGS The Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) met regularly, as did the County of San Diego Local (County-specific) Hazard Mitigation Planning Group. The following is a list of meeting dates and objectives: 1. Initial HMPG and County Planning Meetings: September 2019—Kickoff meetings and Formation of HMPG 2. HMPG Meeting 1: October 8, 2019—Overview of Planning Process/Assessing Risks, Identify Partners, and Review Due Dates 3. County Local Planning Meeting 1: November 1, 2019—2018 Plan Version Capabilities Review, Assignment of Review, Review Objectives and Due Dates 4. HMPG Meeting 2: December 3, 2019—Review Schedule and Process, Review/Complete FEMA Task 4 (Review Community Capabilities) 5. County Local Planning Meeting 2: January 21, 2020—Review Objectives/Due Dates and Discuss Subject Matter Experts for each project, Assignment of County Departments for FEMA worksheet Tasks, Discuss Community Assets 6. FEMA Meeting: November 13, 2020—Meeting with federal and state partners to review the current plan update process 7. HMPG Refresher Meeting: January 11, 2021—Review updated planning calendar/schedule and allowed time for questions-and-answer session with state and federal partners 8. Refresher County Planning Meeting: January 18, 2021—Review updated planning calendar/schedule and allowed time for questions-and-answer session with state and federal partners 9. County Local Planning Meeting 3: March 1, 2021—Discussion from Subject Matter Experts about assignments/projects and update on progress/completion of FEMA Tasks 1-4 SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 43 10. County Local Planning Meeting 4: March 15, 2021—Discussion from Subject Matter Experts about assignments/projects and update on progress/completion of FEMA Tasks 1-4 11. County Local Planning Meeting 5: April 12, 2021—Discussion from Subject Matter Experts about assignments/projects and update on progress/completion of FEMA Tasks 1-4 12. HMPG Meeting 3: April 26, 2021—Review Risk Assessment/Development of Mitigation Plan, GIS roles, Hazard Identification/Risk Assessment Processes, due dates, and Review/Complete FEMA Tasks 1-4 13. Hazards Workshops/Seminars: May-July 2021 (Tuesdays and Thursdays) —Subject Matter Experts present about different operational area hazards and suggest mitigation actions. Panel discussions and opportunity for planning group questions 14. County Local Planning Meeting 6: July 22, 2021—Review supplemental data associated with the risks, Discuss Risk Assessment Process and county mitigation strategies with Subject Matter Expert guidance 15. County Local Planning Meeting 7: October 20, 2021—Discuss assignment turnover to new project manager, Review/Complete FEMA Task 5 (Conduct a Risk Assessment) 16. HMPG Meeting 4: October 26, 2021—Review updated schedule/due dates, Hazard Identification Process, Risk Assessment Process, Hazard Profiling and Loss Estimation, Review/Complete FEMA Task 5 (Conduct a Risk Assessment) 17. Cal OES 2021 HMGP Webinar November 18, 2021—Discussion of HMGP sub-application instructions and requirements 18. Cal OES Grant Program Notice of Interest (NOI) Webinar: December 14, 2021 19. County Local Planning Meeting 8: January 19, 2022—Review/Complete FEMA Task 6 (Develop a Mitigation Strategy) 20. HMPG Meeting 5: February 1, 2022—Finalize FEMA Planning Worksheets for Task 6, Discuss Public Survey and Forum, Start FEMA Worksheets for Task 7, Discuss deadlines 21. County Local Planning Meeting 9: February 11, 2022—Review/Complete FEMA Task 7 (Keep the Plan Current) SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 44 22. Cal OES Sub-Application Development Series: February 2022—Discussion of HMGP sub-application instructions and requirements for various hazards 23. HMPG Meeting 6: March 7, 2022—Finalize FEMA Task 7 Worksheets, Discuss Cal OES/FEMA Funding and Training Opportunities, Discuss action items and deadlines 24. Whole Community Outreach Survey: April 1, 2022—Release was communicated with and shared by planning partners 25. HMPG Individual Meeting Series: March-April 2022—Check in meetings with all planning participants to ensure deadlines are met and final question were answered 26. Plan Peer Review: April 28-29, 2022—County Office of Emergency Services peers compared existing plan draft to FEMA grading requirements (2019 Local Plan Review Tool) and provided feedback 27. Public Forum: May 28, 2022—All planning participants and the public were invited to review key survey results and provided resources for further input Work drafts, products, and the final plan were shared electronically. Additional meetings not included on the above list were impromptu requests for one-on-one guidance and virtual/in- person meetings with planning partners. Not all partners were able to attend all meetings. Follow-up phone calls, question-and- answer sessions, and in-person meetings were conducted with those not able to attend to ensure they were kept current on the process, assignments, and deadlines. Follow-up meetings with planning partners continued until final draft submission to Cal OES and FEMA (June 2022). 2.2.4. HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GROUP MILESTONES The approach taken by the Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) relied on sound planning concepts and a methodical process to identify County vulnerabilities and to propose the mitigation actions necessary to avoid or reduce those vulnerabilities. Each step in the planning process was built upon the previous—providing a high level of assurance that the mitigation actions proposed by the participants and the priorities of implementation are valid. Specific milestones in the process included: Planning Group Meetings (September 2019 – June 2022): As listed in the previous section, a series of HMPG meetings were held in which the HMPG considered the probability of a hazard occurring in an area and its impact on public health and safety, property, the economy, and the environment, and the mitigation actions that would be necessary to minimize impacts from the identified hazards. These meetings were held every month or two (depending on the progress made), September 2019 through June 2022. The meetings evolved as the planning process progressed and were designed to aid SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 45 the jurisdictions in completing FEMA worksheets that helped define hazards within their jurisdictions, their existing capabilities and mitigation goals and action items for the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Hazards Workshops/Seminars (June 2021-July 2021): A series of workshops discussed the impact of all hazards impacting the operational area to educate local planners and community members. Topics discussed included, but were not limited to, climate change, sea level rise, drought, changes to precipitation patterns and extreme weather, wildfire, terrorism, and potential future impacts. The information presented in these workshops were incorporated into the risk assessment process as well in the development of mitigation goals, objectives, and actions. Risk Assessment (June 2021 – January 2022): The HMPG used the list of hazards from the 2018 Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan to determine if they were still applicable to the region and if there were any new threats identified that should be added to the plan. Specific geographic areas subject to the impacts of the identified hazards were mapped using a Geographic Information System (GIS). The HMPG had access to updated information and resources regarding hazard identification and risk estimation. This included hazard specific maps, such as floodplain delineation maps, earthquake shake potential maps, and wildfire threat maps; GIS-based analyses of hazard areas; the locations of infrastructure, critical facilities, and other properties located within each jurisdiction and participating special district; and an estimate of potential losses or exposure to losses from each hazard. The HMPG also conducted a methodical, qualitative examination of the vulnerability of important facilities, systems, and neighborhoods to the impacts of future disasters. GIS data and modeling results were used to identify specific vulnerabilities that could be addressed by specific mitigation actions. The HMPG also reviewed the history of disasters in the County and assessed the need for specific mitigation actions based on the type and location of damage caused by past events. The process used during the completion of the initial plan and first update was utilized for this update. Finally, the assessment of community vulnerabilities included a review of current codes, plans, policies, programs, and regulations used by local jurisdictions to determine whether existing provisions and requirements adequately address the hazards that pose the greatest risk to the community. This was a similar process to that used in the original plan and first update. Goals, Objectives, and Alternative Mitigation Actions (January 2022- February 2022) Based on this understanding of the hazards faced by the County, the goals, objectives, and actions identified in the 2018 plan were reviewed to see what had been completed and could be removed and which were not able to be completed due to funding or other challenges. HMPG members then added updated priorities in the form of listed goals, objectives, and actions, as required for the completion of the update. This was done by the members working with their local planning groups and in a series of one-on-one meetings with County Office of Emergency Services staff. Additionally, plan compatibility with existing plans and regulations was considered and accounted for. Mitigation Plan and Implementation Strategy (January 2022- February 2022): Each jurisdiction reviewed their priorities for action from among their goals, objectives, and actions, developing a specific implementation strategy including details about the CAL FIRE San Diego Communications Bureau Decorative Image SECTION TWO | Build the Planning Team 46 organizations responsible for carrying out the actions, their estimated cost, possible funding sources, and timelines for implementation. Mitigation Action Progress Report (February 2022- June 2022) If applicable, jurisdictions completed a progress report for their previous 2018 plan. All HMPG members were also asked to complete a FEMA Plan Evaluation (Section 7 of this plan) as a resource to help keep this plan current. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 47 SECTION THREE: Create an Outreach Strategy Decorative Image Photo by Kevin Pack CAL FIRE San Diego Communications Bureau San Diego County, California 2023 SECTION THREE | Create an Outreach Strategy 48 3. SECTION THREE: CREATE AN OUTREACH STRATEGY The County of San Diego’s Hazard Mitigation Outreach Strategy is based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Whole Community Approach and governed by existing department, local, state, and federal plans, regulations, and budgets. The Whole Community Approach supports inclusive management practices, and it’s three principles help guide the County of San Diego’s Hazard Mitigation Outreach Strategy. 3.1. WHOLE COMMUNITY APPROACH The County of San Diego/the Operational Area develop and update emergency plans in accordance with local, state, and federal policies and guidance. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides a strategic framework to guide all members of the emergency management community as they determine how to integrate the Whole Community Approach and related concepts into their daily practices. FEMA’s guidance and this plan are not intended to be all-encompassing or offer specific actions that require adoption of certain protocols. Instead, the Whole Community Approach is acknowledged as a general process by which the public, emergency management representatives, organizational and community leaders, tribal partners, and government officials can understand and assess the needs of their respective communities, then determine the best ways to organize and strengthen resources, capacities, and interests. The Whole Community Approach, overall, is intended to increase individual preparedness, prompt engagement with vital community partners, and enhance community resiliency and security. More information about this approach and other concepts can be located on FEMA’s website (www.FEMA.gov). Community resilience within emergency management consists of three key factors: 1. The ability of first responder agencies (e.g., fire, law, emergency medical services) to divert from their day-to-day operations to the emergency effectively and efficiently. 2. The strength and inclusivity of the emergency management system and organizations within the region to include the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), mass notification systems, emergency public information systems, etc. 3. The civil preparedness of the region’s people, businesses, and community organizations. Enhancing all three of these factors constantly focuses the Operational Area on improving the region’s resiliency. Emergency response effectiveness also largely depends on the preparedness and resiliency of the collective communities within a region. Different types of communities exist including, but not limited to, communities of place, interests, beliefs, and circumstances, which can exist geographically and virtually (e.g., online gatherings/forums, etc.). While multiple factors can contribute to community resilience and effective emergency management resources and outcomes, FEMA recommends three principles to establish a Whole Community Approach: 1. Understand and meet the actual needs of the whole community 2. Engage and empower all parts of the community 3. Strengthen what works well in communities SECTION THREE | Create an Outreach Strategy 49 A deep understanding of the unique and diverse needs of a population (including demographics, values, norms, community structures, networks, relationships, and experiences) is crucial for emergency managers to best ascertain the population’s real-life safety needs and motivation to participate in preparation and mitigation activities prior to an emergency event. A Whole Community Approach towards building community resilience requires finding ways to support and strengthen the relationships, institutions, structures, assets, and networks that already exist, work well in communities, and address issues that are important to community members. Engaging the whole community and empowering local action in this manner will best position all stakeholders to plan for/meet the actual needs of a community and strengthen local capacity/resilience to recover from threats and hazards.76F76F76F 77 This plan was developed in alignment with the Whole Community Approach through collaboration with and guidance from representatives of the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), Cal OES’ Office of Access and Functional Needs (OAFN), County departments/agencies/groups, special districts, OA City departments, law enforcement, fire services, emergency management, people with access and functional needs, tribal community liaisons, business and industry partners, and various other public and private stakeholders. 3.1.1. INCLUSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The County of San Diego and the County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) are committed to achieving and fostering a Whole Community emergency management system that is fully inclusive of all individuals. Individual differences include, but are not limited to, ability, access and functional needs, age, life experience, military/veteran status, race, ethnicity, socio-economic class, marital status, parental status, gender/gender expression, sexual orientation, national origin, and religion. Through the integration of community-based organizations, service providers, government programs, individuals with disabilities, and individuals with access and functional needs into the planning process, meaningful partnerships are developed and leveraged. These partnerships help enable the region to support community in the San Diego Operational Area, and all programs, services, and activities provided to people during emergency events, to the maximum extent feasible, will be inclusive of all individuals. The following items are examples of inclusive service delivery and support: • Accessible transportation • Assistance animals • Dietary restrictions and needs • Assistive equipment and services • Accessible public messaging • Evacuation assistance • Restoration of essential services • Language translation and interpretation services 77 https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/whole_community_dec2011__2.pdf SECTION THREE | Create an Outreach Strategy 50 • Service delivery site Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) compliance The County of San Diego partners with a broad network of trusted community organizations and agencies (e.g., churches, non-profit organizations, refugee resettlement organizations) called the “Partner Relay” to accomplish inclusive practices through sharing emergency information with communities that may have limited English proficiency. In addition to observing inclusive preparation, mitigation, and response practices, the County of San Diego also incorporates existing and new local, state, and federal laws that govern emergency planning and response efforts. Examples of the County of San Diego’s compliance with federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability within emergency management programs include this plan’s incorporation of: • Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 • Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975 • Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 • Rehabilitation Act of 1973 • Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 • Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 • Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 • Telecommunications Act of 1996 Additionally, the County of San Diego complies with California Government Code § 8593.3, which requires government agencies to integrate planning for the needs of individuals with access and functional needs into emergency operations plans. Code § 8593.3 compliance also includes planning for individuals who have: • Developmental or intellectual disabilities • Physical disabilities • Chronic conditions • Injuries • Limited English proficiency or people who do not speak English • Low-income, and individuals who are: • Older adults • Children • Pregnant • Living in institutionalized settings, and individuals who are experiencing: • Homelessness • Transportation disadvantages, including, but not limited to, people who are dependent on public transit. SECTION THREE | Create an Outreach Strategy 51 For further details on County OES’ Whole Community Approach to emergency management and the integration of inclusive emergency management practices, refer to the County of San Diego’s Emergency Operations Plan: Basic Plan.77F77F77F 78 3.2. COMMUNITY OUTREACH STRATEGY The County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) recognized the importance of public feedback throughout the plan update process to account for community hazard concerns and to gauge community preparedness and education needs. Therefore, County OES’ Community Outreach Strategy provided multiple ways and opportunities for the public to provide input: • Webpage and Email Address • Telephone availability • Survey • Public Forum 3.2.1. WEBPAGE AND EMAIL ADDRESS A Hazard Mitigation Plan webpage, as part of the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services’ (County OES’) website, was developed and published years ago to provide the public with information and methods to provide feedback—such as the dedicated hazard mitigation email address that is checked daily by County OES staff for any public questions and/or feedback. Other Items posted on the webpage include the current plan and jurisdiction annexes.78F78F78F 79 3.2.2. TELEPHONE, MAIL, & FAX AVAILABILITY The San Diego County Office of Emergency Services’ home website provides the public with contact information to ask questions and/or provide feedback via telephone, mail and/or fax.79F79F79F 80 3.2.3. SURVEY A detailed community engagement survey (for both this plan and the County’s Emergency Operations Plan) was developed by the County Office of Emergency Services’ (County OES’) Planning Participants, translated into six total languages, published on County OES’ website for public response, shared via all County OES social media accounts, then advertised via a County News Center article.80F80F80F 81 The survey was also shared with all regional Planning Participants and other partners (such as the Partner Relay, Unified Disaster Council (UDC) members, Emergency Managers, the County Committee for Persons with Disabilities, County Employee Resource Groups and 78 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_oparea.html 79 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_mitplan.html. 80 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/oes.html. 81 https://www.countynewscenter.com/help-the-county-update-emergency-plans/. SECTION THREE | Create an Outreach Strategy 52 County policy aides), with the request for these partners to share the survey with their community networks. The survey sought public input about top hazard concerns and gauged the public's hazard education and readiness so future hazard mitigation projects/action items (detailed in Section 6 of this plan) can incorporate this feedback and enhance community preparedness before a disaster occurs. Survey respondents were also asked to provide their email address if they were interested in attending County OES’ Community Engagement Public Forum, described in the next section. The community engagement survey was active from April 1, 2022 to May 9, 2022 and received 500 total responses. The survey results, and related public forum recording, were posted to County OES’ Hazard Mitigation Plan webpage for 30 days.81F81F81F 82 3.2.4. PUBLIC FORUM The County Office of Emergency Services’ (County OES’) contacted the survey recipients who requested a Public Forum invitation on May 16, 2022 to provide Public Forum details, instructions, and to offer language translation services upon request. County OES then hosted the recorded Community Engagement Public Forum on Monday, May 23, 2022, at 10 AM, via a virtual collaboration platform. The forum presenters discussed the community engagement survey results and shared methods to: receive personal disaster plans, hazard preparation and mitigation resources, ask more hazard mitigation questions and/or provide additional feedback. The public forum recording, and related survey results, were posted to County OES’ Hazard Mitigation Plan webpage for a minimum of 30 days. 82F82F82F 83 3.2.5. FEEDBACK INCORPORATION Public involvement was valuable in the development of this plan update. The areas of concern provided via all outreach methods were used by each jurisdiction while developing and/or updating mitigation goals, objectives, and actions. Additionally, public feedback was also used, in conjunction with hazard data, to determine the top hazards of concern for the region profiled in Section 5 of this plan. The public can continue public participation in the plan maintenance process by emailing the hazard mitigation email address, calling the County Office of Emergency Services’ (County OES) during business hours and/or providing feedback during future outreach opportunities that will be advertised on our website, social media platforms and shared with regional partners. City-, special district-, or other organization-specific feedback should be provided directly to those parties via their advertised methods. 82 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_mitplan.html 83 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_mitplan.html SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 53 SECTION FOUR: Review Community Capabilities Decorative Image Photo by Jeff Hall CAL FIRE San Diego Communications Bureau San Diego County, California 2023 SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 54 4. SECTION FOUR: REVIEW COMMUNITY CAPABILITIES Local mitigation capabilities are existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources that reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities and must be included in a hazard mitigation plan by the Planning Group. The Planning Group may also identify additional types of capabilities relevant to mitigation planning. 4.1. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The primary types of capabilities for reducing long-term vulnerability through mitigation planning are: • Planning and Regulatory • Administrative and Technical • Financial • Education and Outreach 4.1.1. PLANNING AND REGULATORY Planning and Regulatory Capabilities are the plans, policies, codes, and ordinances that prevent and reduce the impacts of hazards. Overall, this jurisdiction can expand upon these capabilities by creating and applying an updated five-year Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Cycle, Work Plan, and Charter to: • identify plans that need incorporation into the next update of this plan • identify plans that will need to be informed by this plan • outline the next five-year cycle of this plan’s update with the addition of planning partner expectations, assignments/deliverables, tentative deadlines, resources available, in- person workshops/training dates/agendas, vulnerability assessment needs, and planning meeting dates. The following table summarizes the jurisdiction’s planning and regulatory capabilities: SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 55 TABLE 5: PLANNING AND REGULATORY CAPABILITIES Plans Yes/No Year Does the plan address hazards? Does the plan identify projects to include in the mitigation strategy? Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? Comprehensive / Master Plan Yes, 2021 The County of San Diego General Plan, which includes the Safety Element and references back to the Hazard Mitigation Plan, outlines projects and strategies that could be implemented in the areas of conservation, housing, noise and land-use. Per the Plan: This document is the first comprehensive update of the San Diego County General Plan since 1978 and is the result of the collective efforts of elected and appointed officials, community groups, individuals, and agencies who spent countless hours developing a framework for the future growth and development of the unincorporated areas of the County. This document replaces the previous General Plan and is based on a set of guiding principles designed to protect the County’s unique and diverse natural resources and maintain the character of its rural and semi-rural communities. It reflects an environmentally sustainable approach to planning that balances the need for adequate infrastructure, housing, and economic vitality, while maintaining and preserving each unique community within the County, agricultural areas, and extensive open space. Safety Element: Establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks associated with seismic, geologic, flood, and wildfire hazards. Capital Improvements Plan Yes, 2021 The Capital Improvement Program consists of improvements to roads and bridges; facilities at the eight County-owned and operated airports and airstrips; flood control facilities in unincorporated developed areas; and wastewater facilities owned and operated by the County. These services keep our roads and related infrastructure up to date to promote safe, viable and livable communities and make it easier for community members to lead healthy lives. The Department of Public Works project management team is responsible for overall management and coordination of planning, budget, design, environmental clearance and permitting, right-of-way acquisition and utility coordination for County roads. Funds are approved by the Board of Supervisors though a yearly Detailed Work Program. In a typical fiscal year, approximately 30 projects are in construction with about 70 other projects in the development stages. The Capital Improvement Program anticipated budget for Fiscal Year 2020-21 is over $122 million. SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 56 Plans Yes/No Year Does the plan address hazards? Does the plan identify projects to include in the mitigation strategy? Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? Local Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Yes, 2018 The Operational Area EOP is developed to be inclusive of multiple hazards, with a regional focus and template versions of the plan that local municipalities can develop into their own EOP. The County EOP includes annexes in the following relevant categories: • Emergency Management • Fire and Law Mutual Aid • Multi-Causality Operations • Public Health Operations • Terrorism Continuity of Operations Plan Yes, Update d Annuall y The San Diego County Continuity of Operation plan (COOP) / Program is guided by the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) COOP Policy of 2013 and identifies and tests redundant and inoperable systems for maintaining critical functions during disasters. There is a separate and specific annex of each plan for Pandemic. On an annual basis, each agency is required to submit and updated COOP and Site Evacuation Plan (SEP) to the County COOP Coordinator (OES Position) and this is submitted to a repository where each plan can be accessed by leadership within the county. Each plan is required to be tested every two years. Transportation Plan Yes, 2018 • Bicycle Transportation Plan • Pedestrian Area Transportation Plan • Active Transportation Plan Stormwater Management Plan Yes, 2018 On May 8, 2013, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) adopted a new Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4/Stormwater) Permit (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit, No. R9-2013-0001) that covered the San Diego County Copermittees. Order No. R9-2015-0001 was adopted on February 11, 2015, amending the Regional MS4 Permit to extend coverage to the Orange County Copermittees. Order No. R9-2015-0100 was adopted on November 18, 2015, amending the Regional MS4 Permit to extend coverage to the Riverside County Copermittees and make minor revisions. This Permit mandates that the County of San Diego develop new and updated Runoff Management Plans and Programs, including Water Quality Improvement Plans and a Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program. These documents were submitted to the Regional Board on June 26, 2015. Permit requirements are generally implemented in the unincorporated County under authority of the Watershed SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 57 Plans Yes/No Year Does the plan address hazards? Does the plan identify projects to include in the mitigation strategy? Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO). The amended MS4 Permit, like all previous iterations, requires the County to establish and maintain adequate legal authority to implement all updated MS4 Permit provisions. The WPO has been amended to ensure that it is current with the minimum requirements of the recently amended MS4 Permit. The amendments include updating terminology and definitions related to land development priority development projects (PDPs), removal of outdated sections, minor updates to discharge prohibitions, and the incorporation of an optional program to allow development projects to satisfy some of its stormwater compliance obligations at off-site locations. On January 27, 2016, the County Board of Supervisor’s adopted the Watershed Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO). The WPO became effective February 26, 2016. Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), continued Yes, 2016- 2020 Thirty-three communities have CWPP approved and in place: • Alpine • Crest • Camp & Lake Morena • Deer Springs • Descanso • Dulzura / Barrett • El Capitian • Eucalyptus Hills • Fallbrook • Greater Sunshine Summit • Harrison Park • Julian • Kensington X • Los Tules at Warner Springs • Mt. Laguna • Outer Jamul • Palomar Mountain • Pine Valley • Potrero – Tecate • Ramona • Rancho Penasquitos • Rancho Santa Fe • Real East County • Resource Conservation District of Greater San Diego County of San Diego SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 58 Plans Yes/No Year Does the plan address hazards? Does the plan identify projects to include in the mitigation strategy? Can the plan be used to implement mitigation actions? • San Diego County Northeast • San Diego County Southwest • Scripps Ranch • Stoneridge at Warner Springs Estates • Talmadge • Valley Center • Vista Wynola Estates The International Fire Chiefs Association released their guide to help develop and implement a Community Wildfire Preparedness Plan in communities and across the country. It has a local community level approach to include code, development review, ordinances and local authority, and is used by leaders in the Fire Service, including subject matter experts, and local, state, and federal officials. Other special plans (e.g., brownfields redevelopment, disaster recovery, coastal zone management, climate change adaptation) Yes • Disaster Recovery Plan • Climate Adaptation Plan • Wildfire Resiliency Strategy Building Code, Permitting, and Inspections Yes/ N Are codes adequately enforced? Building Code Yes Yes Site plan review requirements Yes Projects on lots that touch County or FEMA floodplain or floodways are routed to County Flood Control for review to ensure compliance with the County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance which was last revised on 11/29/2019. Land Use Planning and Ordinances Yes/N Is the ordinance an effective measure for reducing hazard impacts? Is the ordinance adequately administered and enforced? Zoning ordinance Yes Yes SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 59 Subdivision ordinance Yes Yes Special purpose ordinances (floodplain management, storm water management, hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire ordinances, hazard setback requirements) Yes Projects on lots that touch County or FEMA floodplains or floodways are routed to County Flood Control for review to ensure compliance with the County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) which was last revised on 11/29/2019. FDPO is an effective measure for reducing flood hazard impacts; and it is adequately administered and enforced. Flood insurance rate maps Yes County’s FDPO uses County floodplain and floodway maps available through SanGIS and FEMA FIRMs available through FEMA Map Service Center to effectively reduce flood hazard impacts. It is adequately administered and enforced. 4.1.2. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL Administrative and Technical Capabilities include staff, their skills, and tools that can be used for mitigation planning and to implement specific mitigation actions. For smaller jurisdictions without local staff resources, if there are public resources at the next higher-level government that can provide technical assistance, this may be indicated within the comments Overall, this jurisdiction can expand upon these capabilities by seeking additional funding opportunities for applicable staff, research, projects, and applicable resources/expenses. This jurisdiction can also improve these capabilities by keeping an updated planning participant contact list to account for staff turnover and ensure the inclusion of staff belonging to diverse departments and with varied tools and skills to accomplish a comprehensive plan. The following table summarizes the jurisdiction’s administrative and technical capabilities: SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 60 TABLE 6: ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Administration Yes/No Describe capability Is coordination effective? Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes Planning & Development Services (PDS)/ Lead Planner; County Fire CRR Battalion Chief Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Yes PDS/Building Inspectors; Fire Prevention Specialist I & II Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or human-caused hazards Yes County Fire Pre-Fire Division Chief Mitigation Planning Committee Yes San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) Planning Team Maintenance programs to reduce risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing drainage systems) Yes County drainage crews inspect and maintain public drainage facilities annually and perform maintenance as necessary to ensure optimal conveyance. Defer to Department of Public Works (DPW) Transportation for Roads right-of-way maintenance. Mutual aid agreements Yes Mutual aid agreements with CPFD Region I and VI Mutual Aid Agreement are in place. This agreement extends the MHOAC program’s mutual aid response from Region VI to include all of Region I. If the County of San Diego faces an issue that our Operational Area cannot get the necessary resources within our county or within Region VI, then all the resources within Region I will be made available for our operational area in accordance with the mutual aid agreement. Staff Yes/No FT/PT1 Is staffing adequate to enforce regulations? Is staff trained on hazards and mitigation? Is coordination between agencies and staff effective? Floodplain Administrator Yes Staffing is adequate to enforce regulations. Staff are trained on hazards and mitigation. Staff are certified as Certified Floodplain Managers and regularly participate in continuing education provided by FEMA, ASFPM, FMA, etc. There is effective coordination between agencies and staff. Emergency Manager Emergency Manager Yes Yes The Office of Emergency Services employed 8 Emergency Services Coordinators / Senior Emergency Services Coordinators, as well as Temporary Admin Analyst Positions to Assist. County Fire coordinates with County Fire Incident Management Teams. Emergency Medical Services Coordinator and (2) Emergency Medical Services Specialists, Senior Emergency Services Coordinator, PH/BT Quality Assurance Specialists are employed out of Health and SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 61 Human Services. All the existing staff listed above are trained on local hazards and mitigation plans and have developed the relationships with outside agencies to have successful collaboration and support when needed. Staff with education or expertise to assess the community’s vulnerability to hazards Yes Public Health Services (PHS) has Health Planning and Program Specialists and Epidemiologists with technical assistance from the California Department of Public Health, Office of Health Equity, and other partners and subject matter experts to assess the community’s vulnerability to hazards; The State has created assessments and health profiles for the various counties on vulnerability to the public health impacts of climate change. Staff referenced here do not enforce regulations. Staff referenced here are trained on the public health impacts of climate change and some also receive various levels of training in NIMS/ICS. More training is planned to occur in the coming years. There is good coordination and communication between the individuals and organizations referenced here. County Fire oversees the County Science Advisory Board; County Fire Environmental Scientists. The Hazard Incident Response Team are experts in Hazardous Waste spills / releases. Staff at the Office of Emergency Services are experts in all hazards and oversee the production of Concept of Operations (response plans and procedures) for a multitude of natural and human-caused disasters. Community Planner Yes The following county departments recorded having Community planners on staff: • OES • PHS • DPW • PDS Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community Yes The following county departments recorded having Scientists on staff: • OES • PHS • DPW • PDS Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Yes The following county departments recorded having GIS Personnel on staff: • OES • PHS • DPW • PDS SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 62 Grant writers Yes The following county departments recorded having Grant Writers on Staff: • OES • PHS • DPW • PDS Technical Yes/ No Describe capability Has capability been used to assess/mitigate risk in the past? Warning systems/services (Reverse 911, outdoor warning signals) Yes The County and individual municipalities have multiple notification systems and protocols used during emergency events. AlertSanDiego is the opt- in notification system, WEA (Wireless Emergency Alert) is coordinated and used, as well as the SDEmergency App and website. • Flood Warning Flood Warning uses a network of automated rain, stream, reservoir and weather stations known as the ALERT Flood Warning System. Weather changes are reported in real-time to our Kearny Mesa office. ALERT systems are used around the world to provide real-time flood warning to local communities at risk from flooding threat. ALERT is an acronym that stands for Automatic Local Evaluation in Real-Time. • San Diego Flood Warning System The San Diego County Flood Warning System is made up of 120 rain gages, stream gages, weather stations, and lake level stations that report data in real time to the Flood Control Weather Center in Kearny Mesa. The system is internet-based and each of its sensors has defined alarms, that when activated, are used by the flood warning system to automatically assemble a warning message and send it out to the appropriate emergency managers by email or cell phone. The website has numerous links that allow the user to view and download the sensor data, view updating graphs and maps, and access other weather-related resources. • OES and PHS collaborate on Partner Relay to ensure messages are getting to community members with limited English proficiency. Additionally, Partner Relay hosts 3 workshops per year to warn community members and organizations serving populations without homes, refugees and other community-based organizations about emergency preparedness topics. Yes, this capability has been used to assess/mitigate SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 63 risk in the past (e.g., during the Lilac Fire) and in between emergencies with the workshops for CBOs. Hazard data and information Yes Hazard Data is used for both this plan, and the Counties Emergency Operations Plan. County OES also uses this data for our Concept of Operations and in assistance of hazard specific plans for other departments. HHSA and PHS have health statistics, and data about the social determinants of health (e.g., Live Well indicators). The Live Well Team and Community Health Statistics Unit maintain this data and information. Yes, this work has been used to assess and mitigate risk in the past both for the County and its partners by making this information widely and publicly available and promoting awareness of it (e.g., through workshops on the public health impacts of climate change, presentations on the Community Health Assessment data). Grant writing Yes Mitigation grants (HMA / HMGP) Grants are applied for by multiple departments within the county (Flood Authority / OES / PDS). All of which have grant writing experience. Hazus analysis Yes HAZUS Analysis is utilized for the Hazard Mitigation Plan. 4.1.3. FINANCIAL Overall, this jurisdiction can expand upon this capability by researching, tracking, and applying for grant/funding opportunities that can enhance this jurisdiction’s Hazard Mitigation Program and execution of Prioritized Actions outlined in Section 6 of this plan. This jurisdiction can also enhance this capability by dedicating staff and/or collaborating with existing finance staff to further develop this capability. This jurisdiction has access to or is eligible to use the following funding resources for hazard mitigation: County OES SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 64 TABLE 7: FUNDING RESOURCES Funding Resource Access/ Eligibility (Yes/No) Has the funding resource been used in past and for what type of activities? Could the resource be used to fund future mitigation actions? Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Yes Capital improvements project funding Yes Yes Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Potentially San Diego Flood Control District Act provides potential, but Prop 218 requires a vote by property owners. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service No Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes Special Drainage Area Developer Fees provided to Flood Control District SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 65 4.1.4. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Overall, this jurisdiction can expand upon these capabilities by researching, tracking, and applying for grants/addition funding opportunities for applicable staff, research, education and outreach programs/projects/supplies/technology, and applicable resources/expenses. This jurisdiction can also enhance this capability by furthering it’s creative use of outreach methods, such as leveraging the Partner Relay (comprised of community leaders), and expanding partnerships. The table below Identifies education and outreach programs and methods already in place that could be used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information: TABLE 8: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS Program/Organization Yes/No Describe program/organization and how relates to disaster resilience and mitigation. Could the program/organization help implement future mitigation activities? Local citizen groups or non- profit organizations focused on environmental protection, emergency preparedness, access and functional needs populations, etc. Yes Department of Environmental Health & Quality (DEHQ) does educational outreach to permitted business on regulations only. Public Health Services (PHS) works with the following departments or groups for disaster resilience and mitigation: County OES, Community Action Partnership (Resident Leadership Academy, CinA, WalkNRoll, Exchange) & Office of Refugee Coordination, HHSA Regions, Integrative Services, Live Well San Diego team/CHWs, Partner Relay efforts with various community-based organizations serving refugees, populations without homes, and community groups with limited English proficiency. OES has a working group on access and functional needs, the County also has an Employee Resource Group called Diverse Abilities which takes an active interest in access and functional needs (AFN) populations and emergency preparedness. PHS also collaborates with a number of partners and community-based organizations on various activities (e.g., Vista Community Clinic). PHS has the ability to collaborate with any of the groups listed above to help implement future mitigation activities. SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 66 Ongoing public education or information program (e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household preparedness, environmental education) Yes Department of Environmental Health & Quality (DEHQ) does educational outreach to public schools on environmental education. Public Health Services (PHS) works with the following departments or groups on public information/education programs: County OES, CAP (RLA, CinA, Exchange) & Office of Refugee Coordination, HHSA Regions, DPW (Recycling and stormwater), DEH, AWM as well. Live Well San Diego team/Community Health Workers (CHW), Partner Relay (messages during and in between emergencies plus 3 educational workshops per year on emergency preparedness topics). Resident Leadership Academy (RLA) Network workshops on public health impacts of climate change. El Cajon Collaborative, East County, and all HHSA Regions to receive workshop on public health impacts of climate change (2021). PHS has the ability to collaborate with any of the groups listed above to help implement future mitigation activities. Natural disaster or safety related school programs Yes Public Health Services (PHS) works with the following departments or groups on natural disaster programs: County OES, CAP (potentially O’Farrell, RLA, NCRC), Live Well San Diego team/CHWs. PHS has the ability to collaborate with any of the groups listed above to help implement future mitigation activities for natural disasters. StormReady certification Yes Department of Environmental Health & Quality (DEHQ) does educational outreach to public schools on environmental education. Firewise Communities certification Yes The National Weather Service Storm Ready Program was created to help communities develop disaster mitigation plans and prepare for extreme weather events. The National Weather Service has outlined five requirements to receive a storm ready certification (StormReady): Establish a 24-hour warning point and emergency operations center. Have more than one way to receive severe weather warnings and forecasts and to alert the public. Create a system that monitors weather conditions locally. SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 67 Firewise Communities certification Yes Promote the importance of public readiness through community seminars. Develop a formal hazardous weather plan, which includes training severe weather spotters and holding emergency exercises. San Diego County Flood Control District's (SDCFCD) applied for a Storm Ready certification in 2018 and received it shortly afterward. SDCFCD's ALERT flood warning system has over 450 sensors continuously monitoring and transmitting hydrologic and weather information to the base station at the Kearny Mesa Weather Center. If any of the parameters exceed predetermined thresholds, alarm notifications are sent to emergency officials and flood control staff. This allows field crews and emergency staff to know where to concentrate storm cleanup or storm mitigation efforts. During precipitation events, Flood Control staff monitor weather conditions and ensure flood warning system integrity 24/7. Could the program/organization help implement future mitigation activities? The program's framework ensures communities frequently create or modify disaster mitigation plans to prepare for the increasing vulnerability of natural hazards. Flood Control holds and participates in exercises with partners to improve existing technology, ensure we utilize best communication practices, and make certain mitigation plans are relevant for current and future risks and hazards. Public-private partnership initiatives addressing disaster- related issues Yes Public Health Services (PHS) works with the following departments or groups on public- private partnership initiatives: County OES, HHSA Regions, CAP & Office of Refugee Coordination, Live Well San Diego team/CHWs. Disaster Medical Surge Plan, San Diego Healthcare Disaster Coalition. PHS has the ability to collaborate with any of the groups listed above to help implement future mitigation activities to address disaster- related issues. SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 68 4.2. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) As a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) (discussed previously in Section 1 of this plan), a community develops capabilities for conducting flood mitigation activities. The hazard mitigation plan must describe each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP. Participating communities must describe their continued compliance with NFIP requirements. The mitigation plan must do more than state that the community will continue to comply with the NFIP. Each jurisdiction must describe their floodplain management program and address how they will continue to comply with the NFIP requirements. The local floodplain administrator is often the primary source for this information. Jurisdictions where FEMA has issued a floodplain map but are currently not participating in the NFIP may meet this requirement by describing the reasons why the community does not participate. Plan updates must meet the same requirements and document any change in floodplain management programs. The County of San Diego participates in the NFIP. The following table shows the NFIP participation status of the County of San Diego and its jurisdictions: SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 69 TABLE 9: NFIP STATUS OF PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS. Jurisdiction Participating Not Participating Not Eligible 1. Alpine Fire Protection District X 2. Carlsbad X 3. Chula Vista X 4. Coronado X 5. County of San Diego X 6. Del Mar X 7. El Cajon X 8. Encinitas X 9. Escondido X 10. Imperial Beach X 11. La Mesa X 12. Lemon Grove X 13. National City X 14. Oceanside X 15. Otay Water District X 16. Padre Dam Municipal Water District X 17. Poway X 18. Port of San Diego X 19. Rainbow Municipal Water District X 20. Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District X SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 70 Jurisdiction Participating Not Participating Not Eligible 21. San Diego (City) X 22. San Marcos X 23. San Diego County Water Authority X 24. San Miguel Fire Protection District X 25. Santee X 26. Solana Beach X 27. Sweetwater Authority X 28. Vista X 29. Vista Irrigation District X SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 71 The information listed below details this community’s participation in and continued compliance with the NFIP and identified areas for improvement that could be potential mitigation actions (listed in Section 6 of this plan): TABLE 10: LOCAL MITIGATION NFIP Topic Source of Information Comments Insurance Summary How many NFIP policies are in the community? What is the total premium and coverage? State NFIP Coordinator or FEMA NFIP Specialist 1,119 policies $994,070 total premium $318,933,500 total coverage How many claims have been paid in the community? What is the total amount of paid claims? How many of the claims were for substantial damage? FEMA NFIP or Insurance Specialist 578 claims paid $5,510,145 total amount of paid claims NFIP does not track NFIP does not track substantial damage claims. San Diego County does not have any current records of substantial damage inspections and/or claims. How many structures are exposed to flood risk within the community? Community Floodplain Administrator (FPA) There are approximately 2,268 insurable residential and non-residential structures within the mapped SFHA. Describe any areas of flood risk with limited NFIP policy coverage. Community FPA and FEMA Insurance Specialist Additional time and resources would be needed to confirm or identify areas within the County where limited NFIP policy coverage may exist. For example, developed areas older than 30 years, areas that may be primary rental properties, and areas within the community that may represent low socioeconomic status. Staff Resources Is the Community FPA or NFIP Coordinator certified? Community FPA No Is floodplain management an auxiliary function? Community FPA Yes SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 72 NFIP Topic Source of Information Comments Provide an explanation of NFIP administration services (e.g., permit review, GIS, education or outreach, inspections, engineering capability). Community FPA The FPA administers the enforcement of adopted codes and regulations including NFIP compliance, stormwater, and floodplain management. The FPA is responsible for the management of FEMA’s Community Rating System program and the administration of daily FPA duties: LOMC procedures, records of services provided to the public, outreach projects, SFHA permitting review, and review and maintenance of all documents associated with floodplain development. GIS mapping is a daily resource utilized by the FPA. What are the barriers to running an effective NFIP program in the community, if any? Community FPA Funding opportunities to study and implement flood risk reduction projects and/or mitigation projects such as buyout/acquisition and demolition. Compliance History Is the community in good standing with the NFIP? State NFIP Coordinator, FEMA NFIP Specialist, community records Yes, the community is in good standing with the NFIP. Regulation When did the community enter the NFIP? Community Status Book http://www.fema.gov/ national- flood-insurance- program/national-flood- insurance-program- community- status-book 6/15/1984 Are the FIRMs digital or paper? Community FPA Both. Current digital FIRMS are effective 3/22/2022. SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 73 NFIP Topic Source of Information Comments Do floodplain development regulations meet or exceed FEMA or State minimum requirements? If so, in what ways? Community FPA The State of California adopted and enforced statewide building codes in combination with the local floodplain regulations, exceed minimum NFIP requirements: • Minimum 1’ freeboard including mechanic and equipment enforced for residential and non- residential development • Positive drainage from the foundation wall is enforced by the adopted building codes • New buildings on fill within the SFHA are required to be properly designed and on compacted fill per the adopted building codes Provide an explanation of the permitting process. Community FPA, State, FEMA NFIP Flood Insurance Manual http://www.fema.gov/ flood- insurance-manual Community FPA, FEMA CRS Coordinator, ISO representative When a permit application is received, it is entered into Accela and identified to be within the floodplain by parcel data. During the review process, the FPA is involved in the plan review and permitting procedures. This includes plan review comments, discussions with the application and design professionals including the requirement of a finished construction elevation certificate prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued. The FPA works directly with Planning, Engineering, Public Works, and Building Inspections to ensure floodplain regulations are addressed during plan review and implemented/enforced up to the close of the building permit. SECTION FOUR | Review Community Capabilities 74 NFIP Topic Source of Information Comments Provide an explanation of the permitting process. Community FPA, State, FEMA NFIP Flood Insurance Manual http://www.fema.gov/ flood- insurance-manual Community FPA, FEMA CRS Coordinator, ISO representative All SFHA projects are reviewed and permitted under current regulations including State-enforced, local regulations, and NFIP compliance as addressed in the floodplain management regulations. Community Rating System (CRS) Does the community participate in CRS? Community FPA, State, FEMA NFIP Yes What is the community’s CRS Class Ranking? Flood Insurance Manual http://www.fema.gov/ flood- insurance-manual CRS Class 7, May 2023 publication CRS Class 6, October 2023 publication Does the plan include CRS planning requirements Community FPA, FEMA CRS Coordinator, ISO representative Yes SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 75 SECTION FIVE: Risk Assessment Decorative Image Photo by County OES, Rob Andolina San Diego County, California 2023 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 76 5. SECTION FIVE: CONDUCT A RISK ASSESSMENT The Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) conducts a risk assessment to determine the potential impacts of hazards to the people, economy, and built and natural environments of the community. The risk assessment provides the foundation for the rest of the mitigation planning process, which is focused on identifying and prioritizing actions to reduce risk to hazards. In addition to informing the mitigation strategy, the risk assessment also can be used to establish emergency preparedness and response priorities, for land use and comprehensive planning, and for decision making by elected officials, city and county departments, businesses, and organizations in the community. Risk Assessment requires the collection and analysis of hazard-related data to enable local jurisdictions to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce losses from potential hazards. When the plan revision process began in 2019, a complete review of the hazards identified in the original plan and first update was conducted to determine if they were still valid and should be kept as a target for mitigation measures or removed from the list. The HMPG also reassessed hazards that were not considered for mitigation actions in 2018 to determine if that decision was still applicable or if they should be moved to the active list. Finally, the HMPG examined potential or emerging hazards, including climate change, to see if any should be included on the active list. The data used was the most recent data available from SanGIS and the participating jurisdictions. This data changed the model results; in some cases, raising the risks and reducing it in others. The overall result was a more accurate picture of the risks facing the region. While many of the mitigation measures listed in the original plan and revision were accomplished, the risk of the hazard did not significantly diminish. This is easily seen in both the wildfire and earthquake hazards. While mitigation measures have been put in place (such as the update of the fire code and vegetation management measures), wildfire remains, and will continue to be, the greatest hazard risk to the San Diego region. The HMPG reviewed all events since 2018 (wildfires, etc.) and all were profiled accurately in the original plan. The review of other hazards showed the updated data was consistent with previous growth in the region. Any significant changes to the hazard profiles were the result of the incorporation of climate change into this plan. Risk Assessment is the process of identifying the potential impacts of hazards that threaten an area, including both natural and human-caused events. A natural event causes a hazard when it harms people or property. Such events would include floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunami, coastal storms, landslides, and wildfires that strike populated areas. Human-caused hazard events are caused by human activity and include technological hazards and terrorism. Technological hazards are generally accidental and/or have unintended consequences (for example, an accidental hazardous materials release). Terrorism is defined by the Code of Federal Regulations as “…unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Natural hazards that have harmed the County in the past are likely to happen in the future. Consequently, the process of risk assessment includes determining whether the hazard has occurred previously. Approaches to collecting historical hazard data include researching newspapers and other records, conducting a planning document and report literature review in all relevant hazard subject areas, gathering hazard-related GIS data, and engaging in conversation with relevant experts from the community. In addition, a variety of sources were used to determine the full range of all potential hazards within San Diego County. Even though a particular hazard may not have occurred in recent history in San Diego SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 77 County, it is important during the hazard identification stage to consider all hazards that may potentially affect the study area. Hazard profiling entails describing the physical characteristics of hazards such as their magnitude, duration, past occurrences, and probability. This stage of the hazard mitigation planning process involves creating base maps of the study area, then collecting and mapping hazard event profile information obtained from various federal, state, and local government agencies. Building upon the original hazard profiles, The County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) used the existing hazard data tables (created for the original Hazard Mitigation Plan and revision) and updated them using current data. The revised hazard data was mapped to determine the geographic extent of the hazards in each jurisdiction in the County. The level of risk associated with each hazard in each jurisdiction was also estimated and assigned a risk level of high, medium, or low depending on several factors unique to that hazard. The hazards assessed were both natural and human-caused. Probability of future events are described in the plan as: • Highly Likely – Occurs at intervals of 1 – 10 years • Likely - Occurs at intervals of 10 - 50 years • Somewhat Likely - Occurs at intervals greater than every 50 years Analyzing risk involves evaluating vulnerable assets, describing potential impacts, and estimating losses for each hazard. Vulnerability describes the degree to which an asset is susceptible to damage from a hazard. Vulnerability also depends on an asset’s construction, contents, and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct effects. Risk analysis predicts the extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a given intensity within an area. It identifies the effects of natural and human-caused hazard events by estimating the relative exposure of existing and future population, land development, and infrastructure to hazardous conditions. The analysis helps set mitigation priorities by allowing local jurisdictions to focus attention on areas most likely to be damaged or most likely to require early emergency response during a hazard event. Disaster records were reviewed for repetitive losses. No repetitive losses were found for coastal storms, erosion, tsunamis, dam failures, earthquakes, landslides, wildfire, or liquefaction. Repetitive loss due to flooding is covered in the respective hazard profile of this plan. Exposure analysis identifies the existing and future assets located in an identified hazard area. It can quantify the number, type and value of structures, critical facilities, and infrastructure located in those areas, as well as assets exposed to multiple hazards. It can also be used to quantify the number of future structures and infrastructure possible in hazard prone areas based on zoning and building codes. 5.1. HAZARD ASSESSMENT SUMMARY The Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) reviewed the hazards identified in the original Hazard Mitigation Plan and evaluated each to see if they still posed a risk to the region. In addition, the hazards listed in the FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook were also reviewed to determine if they should be added to the list of hazards to include in the plan revision.83F83F83F 84 All hazards identified by FEMA included: avalanche, coastal storm, coastal erosion, dam failure, drought/water supply, earthquake, expansive soils, extreme heat, flooding, hailstorm, house/building fire, 84 Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (fema.gov). SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 78 land subsidence, landslide, liquefaction, severe winter storm, tornado, tsunami, wildfire, windstorm, and volcano. Although not required by the FEMA Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, human-caused hazards, such as hazardous materials release, nuclear materials release, and terrorism, were also reviewed by the HMPG. Climate change was reviewed and discussed as an individual hazard. However, the HMPG determined the impact of climate change on the identified hazards should instead be included in hazard evaluations and their impacts. Hazard identification is the process of identifying all hazards that threaten an area, including both natural and human-caused events. In the hazard identification stage, The HMPG determined hazards that potentially threaten San Diego County. The hazard screening process involved narrowing the all-inclusive list of hazards to those most threatening to the San Diego region. The screening effort required extensive input from a variety of HMPG members, including representatives from City governments, County agencies, special districts, fire agencies and law enforcement agencies, the California Office of Emergency Services, local businesses, community groups, the 2020 Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan, and the public. The County Office of Emergency Services (County OES), with assistance of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) experts from the County of San Diego’s Planning and Development Services, used information from FEMA and other nationally and locally available databases to map the County’s hazards, infrastructure, critical facilities, and land uses. This mapping effort was utilized in the hazard screening process to determine which hazards would present the greatest risk to the County of San Diego and to each jurisdiction within the County. It was also determined that the coastal storm, erosion, and tsunami hazards should be profiled together because the same communities in the County have the potential to be affected by all three hazards. In the development of the initial plan, the HMPG indicated that, because the majority of the development in San Diego is relatively recent (within the last 60 years), an urban-type fire that destroys multiple city blocks is not likely to occur alone, without a wildfire in the urban/wild-land interface occurring first. Therefore, it was determined that structure fire and wildfire should be addressed as one hazard category in the plan. This current revised plan continues to discuss structure fire and wildfire together. Similarly, the original plan and first revision addressed earthquake and liquefaction as one category because liquefaction does not occur unless an adequate level of ground shaking from an earthquake occurs first. With the decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, it was also decided to incorporate nuclear materials release (resulting from an accident) under hazardous materials release. The table below is the HMPG’s summary of hazard description information and identification of hazards are most significant to the planning area: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 79 TABLE 11: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Hazard Location (Geographic Area Affected) Maximum Probable Extent (Magnitude/Strength) Probability of Future Events Overall Significance Ranking Avalanche Negligible Weak Unlikely Low Dam Failure Significant Severe Unlikely Medium Drought Significant Severe Highly Likely High Earthquake/ Liquefaction Significant Extreme Likely High Erosion Limited Moderate Likely High Expansive Soils Limited Weak Likely Medium Extreme Heat Extensive Severe Highly Likely High Flood Significant Severe Highly Likely High Hail Limited Weak Unlikely Low Hurricane Limited Weak Unlikely Low Rain-Induced Landslide Extensive Severe Unlikely Medium Lightning Significant Weak Unlikely Low Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms Negligible Weak Likely High Severe Wind Extensive Weak Highly Likely Medium Severe Winter Weather Significant Moderate Highly Likely Medium Subsidence Negligible Weak Unlikely Low Tornado Negligible Weak Unlikely Low Tsunami Negligible Weak Unlikely Medium Wildfire Extensive Extreme Highly Likely High Climate Change Extensive Extreme Highly Likely High Terrorism / Cyber Terrorism (Human- Caused) Extensive Extreme Likely High CBRNE Threats Limited Moderate Occasional Low Pandemic Disease Extensive Extreme Occasional High SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 80 Definitions for Classifications Location (Geographic Area Affected) • Negligible: Less than 10 percent of planning area or isolated single-point occurrences • Limited: 10 to 25 percent of the planning area or limited single-point occurrences • Significant: 25 to 75 percent of planning area or frequent single-point occurrences • Extensive: 75 to 100 percent of planning area or consistent single-point occurrences Maximum Probable Extent (Magnitude/Strength based on historic events or future probability) • Weak: Limited classification on scientific scale, slow speed of onset or short duration of event, resulting in little to no damage • Moderate: Moderate classification on scientific scale, moderate speed of onset or moderate duration of event, resulting in some damage and loss of services for days • Severe: Severe classification on scientific scale, fast speed of onset or long duration of event, resulting in devastating damage and loss of services for weeks or months • Extreme: Extreme classification on scientific scale, immediate onset, or extended duration of event, resulting in catastrophic damage and uninhabitable conditions Ft TABLE 12: HAZARD SEVERITY Hazard Scale / Index Weak Moderate Severe Extreme Drought84F84F84F 85 Palmer Drought Severity Index3 -1.99 to +1.99 -2.00 to -2.99 -3.00 to -3.99 -4.00 and below Earthquake85F85F85F 86 86F86F86F 87 Modified Mercalli Scale 4 I to IV V to VII VII IX to XII Richter Magnitude Scale 5 2, 3 4, 5 6 7, 8 Hurricane Wind87F87F87F 88 Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale 6 1 2 3 4, 5 Tornado 88F88F88F 89 Fujita Tornado Damage Scale7 F0 F1, F2 F3 F4, F5 Probability of Future Events • Unlikely: Less than 1 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years. • Occasional: 1 to 10 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. • Likely: 10 to 90 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years • Highly Likely: 90 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of less than 1 year. Overall Significance 85 Cumulative meteorological drought and wet conditions: http://ncdc.noaa.gov/ 86 Earthquake intensity and effect on population and structures: http://earthquake.usgs.gov 87 Earthquake magnitude as a logarithmic scale, measured by a seismograph: http://earthquake.usgs.gov 88 Hurricane rating based on sustained wind speed: http://nhc.noaa.gov 89 Tornado rating based on wind speed and associated damage: http://spc.noaa.gov SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 81 • Low: Two or more criteria fall in lower classifications, or the event has a minimal impact on the planning area. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a minimal or unknown record of occurrences or for hazards with minimal mitigation potential. • Medium: The criteria fall mostly in the middle ranges of classifications and the event’s impacts on the planning area are noticeable but not devastating. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a high extent rating but very low probability rating. • High: The criteria consistently fall in the high classifications and the event is likely/highly likely to occur with severe strength over a significant to extensive portion of the planning area. Based on this FEMA Standardized evaluation, in accordance with information covered within the HAZUS Data Evaluations, Vulnerability Assessments, Hazard Seminar Series, and input from Subject Matter Experts and the public, the County of San Diego has prioritized the following hazards into High, Medium, and Low rankings (in no order of prioritization within individual categories): High Medium Low • Drought • Dam Failure • Avalanche • Extreme Heat • Expansive Soils • Hail • Flood • Landslide • Hurricane • Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms • Severe Winter Weather • Subsidence • Tornado • Erosion • Tsunami • CBRNE Threats • Wildfire • Severe Wind • Lightning • Climate Change • Terrorism/Cyber- Terrorism • Pandemic Disease • Earthquake/Liquefaction A High ranking indicates the hazard has a “Highly Likely” probability of occurrence and/or a severe impact on the community. The Medium ranking indicated a “Likely” or “Occasional” potential for occurrence or impact. Hazards with a low probability of occurrence but with a potentially high impact were also ranked as Medium. The Low ranking indicates that the potential for the event to occur is "Unlikely” (remote and/or the impact of the event is minimal to the community). Many of these hazards were ranked differently by individual jurisdictions. For example, tsunamis received a relatively High ranking among coastal jurisdictions, while inland jurisdictions did not consider them for mitigation action. Additionally, all jurisdictions rated wildfire High. The hazards selected by each jurisdiction and related mitigation goals and actions are included in Section 5 and 6 of their annexes. The final list of twelve prioritized hazards for San Diego County were hazards with High or Medium Overall Significance. This list of prioritized hazards was determined by the HMPG using HAZUS Data Evaluations, Vulnerability Assessments, Hazard Seminar Series, and input from Subject Matter Experts and the public (appearing below in alphabetical order): • Climate Change o Probability of Future Events Highly Likely: 90 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of less than 1 year. o Overall Significance High: The criteria consistently fall in the high classifications and the event is likely/highly likely to occur with severe strength over a significant to extensive portion of the planning area. • Dam Failure o Probability of Future Events Unlikely: Less than 1 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years. Decorative Image SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 82 o Overall Significance Medium: The criteria fall mostly in the middle ranges of classifications and the event’s impacts on the planning area are noticeable but not devastating. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a high extent rating but very low probability rating. o Rationale for Inclusion: Determined to require inclusion by the HMPG using HAZUS Data Evaluations, Vulnerability Assessments, Hazard Seminar Series, and input from Subject Matter Experts and the public • Drought o Probability of Future Events Highly Likely: 90 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of less than 1 year. o Overall Significance High: The criteria consistently fall in the high classifications and the event is likely/highly likely to occur with severe strength over a significant to extensive portion of the planning area. • Earthquake/Liquefaction o Probability of Future Events Likely: 10 to 90 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years o Overall Significance High: The criteria consistently fall in the high classifications and the event is likely/highly likely to occur with severe strength over a significant to extensive portion of the planning area. • Extreme Heat o Probability of Future Events Highly Likely: 90 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of less than 1 year. o Overall Significance High: The criteria consistently fall in the high classifications and the event is likely/highly likely to occur with severe strength over a significant to extensive portion of the planning area. • Flood o Probability of Future Events Highly Likely: 90 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of less than 1 year. o Overall Significance High: The criteria consistently fall in the high classifications and the event is likely/highly likely to occur with severe strength over a significant to extensive portion of the planning area. • Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE Threats)) o Probability of Future Events Likely: 10 to 90 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years o Overall Significance High: The criteria consistently fall in the high classifications and the event is likely/highly likely to occur with severe strength over a significant to extensive portion of the planning area. • Rain-Induced Landslide o Probability of Future Events Unlikely: Less than 1 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years. o Overall Significance Medium: The criteria fall mostly in the middle ranges of classifications and the event’s impacts on the planning area are noticeable but not devastating. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a high extent rating but very low probability rating. o Rationale for Inclusion: Determined to require inclusion by the HMPG using HAZUS Data, Evaluations, Vulnerability Assessments, Hazard Seminar Series, and input from Subject Matter Experts and the public • Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion o Probability of Future Events Likely: 10 to 90 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 83 o Overall Significance High: The criteria fall mostly in the middle ranges of classifications and the event’s impacts on the planning area are noticeable but not devastating. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a high extent rating but very low probability rating. • Severe Winter Weather o Probability of Future Events Highly Likely: 90 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of less than 1 year. o Overall Significance Medium: The criteria fall mostly in the middle ranges of classifications and the event’s impacts on the planning area are noticeable but not devastating. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a high extent rating but very low probability rating. • Tsunami o Probability of Future Events Unlikely: Less than 1 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years. o Overall Significance Medium: The criteria fall mostly in the middle ranges of classifications and the event’s impacts on the planning area are noticeable but not devastating. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a high extent rating but very low probability rating. o Rationale for Inclusion: Determined to require inclusion by the HMPG using HAZUS Data Evaluations, Vulnerability Assessments, Hazard Seminar Series, and input from Subject Matter Experts and the public • Wildfire/Structure Fire o Probability of Future Events Highly Likely: 90 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of less than 1 year. o Overall Significance High: The criteria consistently fall in the high classifications and the event is likely/highly likely to occur with severe strength over a significant to extensive portion of the planning area. Climate Change will be addressed throughout this plan as both a hazard and a factor that could affect the location, extent, probability of occurrence, and magnitude of climate-related hazards listed above. Though Pandemic Disease received a “High” Overall Significance rating (The criteria consistently fall in the high classifications and the event is likely/highly likely to occur with severe strength over a significant to extensive portion of the planning area.), the HMPG determined this hazard’s “Occasional” Probability of Future Events rating (1 to 10 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years.), and input from HAZUS Data Evaluations, Vulnerability Assessments, Hazard Seminar Series, Subject Matter Experts and the public did not necessitate this hazard to be included in this plan’s final list of prioritized hazards. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 84 5.1.1. HAZARD OMISSION RATIONALE During the initial evaluation, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) determined certain hazards were not included in the original plan’s profiling step because they were not prevalent hazards within San Diego County, were found to pose only minor or very minor threats to San Diego County compared to the other hazards (status had not changed), and would, therefore, not be included in this revision. Only hazards that received a High or Medium ranking in Section 5.1 (other than CBRNE threats due to their potentially serious impacts) were considered in this mitigation planning process. Though Pandemic Disease received a “High” Overall Significance rating (The criteria consistently fall in the high classifications and the event is likely/highly likely to occur with severe strength over a significant to extensive portion of the planning area.), the HMPG determined this hazard’s “Occasional” Probability of Future Events rating (1 to 10 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years.), and input from HAZUS Data Evaluations, Vulnerability Assessments, Hazard Seminar Series, Subject Matter Experts and the public did not necessitate this hazard to be included in this plan’s final list of prioritized hazards. The table below gives a brief description of remaining, omitted hazards and the reason for their exclusion: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 85 TABLE 13: HAZARD OMISSION Hazard Description Reason for Exclusion Avalanche A mass of snow moving down a slope. There are two basic elements to a slide; a steep, snow-covered slope and a trigger Snowfall in County mountains not significant; poses very minor threat compared to other hazards Expansive Soils Expansive soils shrink when dry and swell when wet. This movement can exert enough pressure to crack sidewalks, driveways, basement floors, pipelines and even foundations Presents a minor threat to limited portions of the County Hail Can occur during thunderstorms that bring heavy rains, strong winds, hail, lightning, and tornadoes Occurs during severe thunderstorms; most likely to occur in the central and southern states; no historical record of this hazard in the region. Subsidence Occurs when large amounts of ground water have been withdrawn from certain types of rocks, such as fine-grained sediments. The rock compacts because the water is partly responsible for holding the ground up. When the water is withdrawn, the rocks fall in on themselves. Soils in the County are mostly granitic. Presents a minor threat to limited parts of the county. No historical record of this hazard in the region. Lightning Lightning is defined by the NWS as any and all of the various forms of visible electrical discharge caused by thunderstorms. The US National Centers for Environmental Information reports that the County averages only three days of lightning a year, making it a minor threat compared to other hazards. Tornado A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel- shaped cloud. It is spawned by a thunderstorm (or sometimes because of a hurricane) and produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The damage from a tornado is a result of the high wind velocity and wind-blown debris. Less than one tornado event occurs in the entire State of California in any given year; poses very minor threat compared to other hazards. No historical record of this hazard in the region. Hurricane Hurricanes, tropical storms, nor’easters and typhoons, also classified as cyclones, include any closed circulation developing around a low-pressure center in which the winds rotate counter- clockwise in the northern hemisphere (or clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere) and whose diameter averages 10 to 30 miles across. A tropical cyclone refers to any such Prevailing winds take hurricane tracks westward off of Northern Baja and the few that may drift further north dissipate in the colder offshore waters and become rainmakers rather than causing destructive winds. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 86 Hazard Description Reason for Exclusion circulation that develops over tropical waters. Volcano A volcano is a mountain that is built up by an accumulation of lava, ash flows, and airborne ash and dust. When pressure from gases and the molten rock within the volcano becomes strong enough to cause an explosion, eruptions occur No active volcanoes in San Diego County. No historical record of this hazard in the region. Severe Wind Severe wind is commonly associated with severe thunderstorm winds, severe winter storms (exceeding 58 mph) and tornadoes. Maximum sustained wind speed recorded in the region is less than 60 miles per hour and would not be expected to cause major damage or injury. 5.1.2. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION SOURCES Once the hazards of concern for San Diego County were determined, the available data was collected, using sources including the internet, direct communication with various agencies, discussions with in-house experts, and historical records. Specific sources included the United States Geological Survey (USGS), California Geological Survey (CGS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) HAZUS, FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), United States Forest Service (USFS), California Department of Forestry – Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDF-FRAP), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), San Diego Geographic Information Source (SanGIS), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), San Diego County Flood Control District, Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Drought Outlook websites, and input gathered from local jurisdictions districts and agencies. When necessary, agencies were contacted to ensure the most updated data was obtained and used. Historical landmark locations throughout the County were obtained from the National Register and from the San Diego Historical Resources Board. 5.2. ALL HAZARD PROFILES A hazard profile is a description of the physical characteristics of a hazard and a determination of various hazard descriptors, including magnitude, duration, frequency, probability, and extent. The hazard data that was collected in the hazard identification process were mapped to determine the geographic extent of the hazards in each jurisdiction in the County and the level of risk associated with each hazard. Because Nuclear Materials Release, Hazardous Materials Release, and Terrorism hazards are sensitive issues and release of information could pose further unnecessary threat, the HMPG decided that each of these hazards would be further profiled and assessed in a separate, “For Official Use Only” Appendix and would be exempt from public distribution and disclosure by Section 6254 (99) of the California Government Code (Planning Partners, see separate FOUO Attachment A). Most hazards were given a risk level of high, medium, or low depending on several factors unique to the hazard. The hazards identified and profiled for San Diego County, as well as the data used to profile each hazard are presented in this section. The hazards are presented in alphabetical order; and this does not signify level of importance to the HMPG. The final list of prioritized hazards to be profiled for San Diego County was determined as Climate Change, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human Caused Hazards (Terrorism SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 87 & Hazardous Material Incidents (CBRNE Threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/ Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, and Wildfire. A comprehensive list of hazards that are possible in San Diego County is detailed in the next subsection (in alphabetical order). Planning Partners should refer to the existing, For Official Use Only (FOUO) Threat and Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA) for hazard ranking information. TABLE 14: HAZARD PROFILES Hazard Data Collected for Hazard Identification Justification for Inclusion Climate Change • National Climate Assessment • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • California Environmental Protection Agency and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment • Sea levels measured at a station in La Jolla have risen at a rate of 6 inches over the last century • In north San Diego County, there have been a number of significant cliff failures in recent years Dam Failure • FEMA-HAZUS • Dam Inundation Data (SanGIS) • San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) (Olivenhain Dam) • FEMA FIRM maps • Topography (SANDAG) • FEMA Hazards website • Dam failure • 58 dams exist throughout San Diego County • Many dams over 30 years old • Increased downstream development Drought • California Department of Water Resources • San Diego County Water Authority • Statewide multiple year droughts have occurred numerous times since 1976 Earthquake • USGS • CGS • URS • CISN • SanGIS • SANDAG • FEMA-HAZUS 99 • FEMA Hazards website • Several active fault zones pass through San Diego County Liquefaction • Soil-Slip Susceptibility (USGS) • FEMA-HAZUS MH • FEMA Hazards website • Steep slopes or alluvial deposit soils in low-lying areas are susceptible to liquefaction during earthquakes or heavy rains. San Diego County terrain has both of these characteristics and lies within several active earthquake zones. Extreme Heat • Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States • There have been 52 heat events in San Diego County since 2013 Flood • FEMA FIRM Maps • Topography • Base flood elevations (FEMA) • Historical flood records • Much of San Diego County is located within the 100-year floodplain SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 88 Hazard Data Collected for Hazard Identification Justification for Inclusion • San Diego County Water Authority • San Diego County Dept. of Sanitation and Flood Control • FEMA Hazards website • Flash floods and other flood events occur regularly during rainstorms due to terrain and hydrology of San Diego County • There have been multiple Proclaimed States of Emergency between 1950-2019 for floods in San Diego County Human-Caused Hazards: (Hazardous Materials Release) • County of San Diego Dept. of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division • San Diego County has several facilities that handle or process hazardous materials • Heightened security concerns since September 2001 Human-Caused Hazards: (Nuclear Materials Release/CBRNE Threats) • San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) and Department of Defense • The potential exists for an accidental release of radioactive material stored at San Onofre or from nuclear ships in San Diego Bay • Heightened security concerns since September 2001 Human-Caused Hazards: (Terrorism/Cyber- Terrorism) • County of San Diego Environmental Health Department Hazardous Materials Division • The federal and state governments have advised every jurisdiction to consider the terrorism hazard • Heightened security concerns since September 2001 Rain-Induced Landslide • USGS • CGS • Tan Map Series • Steep slope data (SANDAG) • Soil Series Data (SANDAG) • FEMA-HAZUS • FEMA Hazards website • NEH • Steep slopes within earthquake zones characterize San Diego County, which creates landslide risk. • There have been two Proclaimed States of Emergency for landslides in San Diego County Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion • Historical Coastlines (NOAA) • Shoreline Erosion Assessment (SANDAG) • FEMA FIRM Maps • FEMA Hazards website • Coastal Zone Boundary (CALTRANS) • National Research Council’s Report on Sea Level Rise in California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present and Future • Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy for the San Diego Bay • Sea levels measured at a station in La Jolla have risen at a rate of 6 inches over the last century • Coastline stabilization measures have been implemented at various times in the past (erosion) • Extensive development along the coast Severe Winter Weather • NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information Storm Events Database • Severe winter storms have caused damage in the County and can lead to immobility and loss of utilities. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 89 Hazard Data Collected for Hazard Identification Justification for Inclusion Heavy rain can have significant impacts, including flash flooding and mudslides. Tsunami • Historical Coastlines (NOAA) • Shoreline Erosion Assessment (SANDAG) • Maximum Tsunami Run up Projections (USCA OES) • FEMA FIRM Maps • FEMA Hazards website • Coastal Zone Boundary (CALTRANS) • Tsunamis and their Occurrence along the San Diego County Coast (report, Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory) • Tsunami (article, Scientific American) • National Research Council’s Report on Sea Level Rise in California, Oregon and Washington: Past, Present and Future • Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy for the San Diego Bay • Sea levels measured at a station in La Jolla have risen at a rate of 6 inches over the last century • Coastline stabilization measures have been implemented at various times in the past (erosion) • Extensive development along the coast Wildfire • CDF-FRAP • USFS • CDFG • Topography • Local Fire Agencies • Historical fire records • FEMA Hazards website • San Diego County experiences wildfires on a regular basis • Twelve States of Emergency were declared for wildfires between 1950-2020 • Terrain and climate of San Diego • Santa Ana Winds SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 90 5.2.1. CLIMATE CHANGE Nature of Hazard Climate change is not a hazard in and of itself, but rather is a factor that could affect the location, extent, probability of occurrence, and magnitude of climate-related hazards. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increased global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.89F89F89F 90 The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activities, especially burning of fossil fuels, are responsible for most of the global warming observed.90F90F90F 91 The Scripps Institution of Oceanography planning partners define Climate Change as any systematic change in the long-term statistics of climate elements and weather events (such as temperature, pressure, or winds) sustained over several decades or longer.91F91F91F 92 Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.92F92F92F 93 Disaster History More historical information, provided by Scripps Institution of Oceanography (University of California, San Diego), is detailed in the respective Vulnerability Assessment section of this plan. Climate change impacts are already impacting the region especially as it relates to temperature and extreme heat. Recent weather and climate impacts provide a fingerprint of climate change impacts in San Diego County. These include terrestrial floods, coast sea level extremes, erosion and wave damage, heat waves, and wildfires, such as the 2003 and 2007 conflagrations. Compound extremes should be considered, such as the wildfire-followed-by flood and debris flow event that occurred in Montecito/Santa Barbara County in 2017. Hazard Impacts The most vulnerable populations to impacts from extreme events are those who inhabit locations with greatest or most unusual physical effects, those who lack resources, who are uninsured, who are socially isolated, or have already compromised health. Coastal regions are vulnerable to oceanic flooding and the increasing occurrence of heat waves, whose temperatures are likely lower than in inland regions but rarely occurred historically. However, the health impacts of less intense heat waves on those living in the coastal zone may be more severe than elsewhere in the county because the population is less acclimated to the heat. Neighborhoods with less access to air conditioning and natural shading from vegetation are more susceptible to extreme heat. 90 IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 91 Ibid 92 https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Climate_change 93 https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/ SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 91 Implementing appropriate warnings and communication or extremes such as heatwaves and/or smoke from wildfires, and developing responses to prepare for these extremes is critically important, especially in the most vulnerable communities. To move forward, the region can assess current measures, such as cooling centers to take refuge from extreme heat, urban greening, residential and commercial structure fire resistance and community fire mitigation and escape routes. Other ways to prevent and mitigate further impacts include: • Testing and monitoring adaptation strategies. Such efforts include the Cardiff Dunes to mitigate coastal flooding. • Identifying thresholds to determine when it may be necessary to relocate or redesign infrastructure. • Continual improvement of extreme forecasts to allow longer lead times to prepare for the extremes. The climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond.93F93F93F 94 The climate change factor is increasing risk for some natural hazards, and this assessment includes information about how risk will change into the future. By assessing ongoing changes in risk—in addition to the traditional practice of risk assessment based on observed hazard events—this plan’s hazard mitigation strategies can better reduce risk from hazards expected going forward. In general, to prepare and mitigate impacts of climate change, develop integrated multi-agency, multi-jurisdiction approach that uses best information, best practices, and considers the needs of under-resourced, disadvantaged communities and individuals. Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude According to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography planning partners, Climate Change effects such as heat waves, wildfire, and floods will occur unevenly across San Diego County. Climate change will occur throughout San Diego County, but the expression of climate change will differ across the complex landscape of the region depending on the type of event, e.g., heat, flooding, drought, or wildfire. Heat waves and wildfire will likely have greatest magnitude over inland regions, and runoff from heavy rainfall will be concentrated in stream channels. Greenhouse gas mitigation remains important as observations, modeling, and physical principles show conclusively that the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has driven the rapid warming observed globally over several decades (the last two decades in particular). Because: • greenhouse gasses such as CO2 have long, several decade lifetimes • the earth system is still not equilibrated (still warming) to the increased greenhouse gasses already resident in the atmosphere • global society’s fossil fuel (burns carbon, releases CO2) economy is difficult to replace so further accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is inevitable, the Earth’s atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice will warm further. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is thus a critical immediate and long-range mitigation action (e.g., Franco et al., 2018). The probability of Climate Change occurrence in the entire planning area is “Highly Likely”, meaning 90 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of less than 1 year. Climate change is virtually certain to continue without immediate and effective global action. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the past eight years have collectively been the warmest years since modern recordkeeping began in 1880. Without significant 94 Walsh, J., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. Anderson, S. Doney, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville, 2014: Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 19-67. doi:10.7930/J0KW5CXT. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 92 global action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the IPCC concludes in its Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report (2014) that average global temperatures are likely to exceed 1.5°C by the end of the 21st century, with consequences for people, assets, economies and ecosystems (including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges).94F94F94F 95 5.2.2. DAM FAILURE Nature of Hazard Dam failures can result in severe flood events. When a dam fails, a large quantity of water is suddenly released with a great potential to cause human casualties, economic loss, lifeline disruption, and environmental damage. A dam failure is usually the result of age, poor design, or structural damage caused by a major event such as an earthquake or flood. Disaster History Two major dam failures, during a single event, have been recorded in San Diego County. The Hatfield Flood of 1916 caused the failure of both the Sweetwater Main and Lower Otay Dams; resulting in 22 deaths. Most of those deaths were attributed to the failure of Lower Otay Dam (County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control, 2002). At the time of this plan’s publication, there were not any reported dam failures in the planning area within the past five years. Hazard Impacts Water released by a failed dam generates tremendous energy and can cause a flood that is catastrophic to life and property. A catastrophic dam failure could challenge local response capabilities and require evacuations to save lives. Impacts to life safety will depend on the warning time and the resources available to notify and evacuate the public. Major loss of life could result as well as potentially catastrophic effects to roads, bridges, and homes. Electric generating facilities and transmission lines could also be damaged and affect life support systems in communities outside the immediate hazard area. Associated water supply, water quality and health concerns could also be an issue. Factors that influence the potential severity of a full or partial dam failure are the amount of water impounded; the density, type, and value of development and infrastructure located downstream; and the speed of failure. A major dam failure could have a devastating impact on the San Diego County Planning Area. Dam failure flooding presents a threat to life and property, including buildings, their contents, and their use. Large flood events can affect crops and livestock as well as lifeline critical utilities (e.g., water, sewerage, and power), transportation, jobs, tourism, the environment, and the local and regional economies. Flooding, including that from dam failure, causes many impacts to agricultural production, including water contamination, damage to crops, loss of livestock, increased susceptibility of livestock to disease, flooded farm machinery, and environmental damage to and from agricultural chemicals. Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude The figure below displays the locations and extent of dam failure hazard areas for the County of San Diego. Dam failures are rated as one of the major “low-probability, high-loss” events: 95 https://resources.ca.gov/Initiatives/Building-Climate-Resilience/2021-State-Adaptation-Strategy-Update SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 93 FIGURE 1: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY DAM INUNDATION AREAS FIGURE 1: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY DAM INUNDATION AREAS SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 94 Dam inundation map data was used to profile dam failure risk levels. These maps were created by agencies that own and operate dams. The County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) obtained this data from SanGIS, a local GIS data repository. The dam inundation map layers show areas that would be flooded in the event of a dam failure. If an area lies within a dam inundation zone, it was considered at high risk. A dam is characterized as high hazard if it stores more than 1,000 acre-feet of water, is higher than 150 feet tall, has potential for downstream property damage, and potential for downstream evacuation. Ratings are set by FEMA and confirmed with site visits by engineers. A simple way to define high risk of dam failure is if failure of the dam is likely to result in loss of human life. Most dams in the County are greater than 50 years old and are characterized by increased hazard potential due to downstream development and increased risk due to structural deterioration in inadequate spillway capacity (Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan, 2014). The County remains at risk to dam failures from numerous dams under a variety of ownership and control and of varying ages and conditions. Given the number, age and types of dams in San Diego County and the history of past uncontrolled releases of water from dams, the potential exists for future dam issues in the planning area. Though the probability of future occurrence of dam failure at mapped dam locations above is “Likely” to “Unlikely” (Less than 1 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years), the HAZUS Data Evaluations, Vulnerability Assessments, Hazard Seminar Series, and input from Subject Matter Experts and the public determined this hazard’s Overall Significance rating is “Medium”, meaning the criteria falls mostly in the middle ranges of classifications and the event’s impacts on the planning area are noticeable but not devastating. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a high extent rating but very low probability rating. Climate Change Considerations The most extreme events are going to become more extreme regarding climate change effects. These events are primarily atmospheric rivers and will become more so in the future based on global climate models (Gershunov et al., 2019). The increase in extreme precipitation will increase the risk of dam failure. The highest priority mitigation actions to reduce Climate Change impacts on this hazard should include conducting dam safety and emergency spill operations. 5.2.3. DROUGHT Nature of the Hazard Drought is a slow-onset hazard that can last for months or years. As a hazard, it has the potential to impact many aspects of life, including drinking water and food. Because of the long duration of droughts, the impacts last for years and can ripple through a community over time. Severe droughts are projected for the coming decades and may increase incidences of other events, like wildfires. Drought will affect the viability of communities and the economy across the nation.95F95F95F 96 Warming temperatures statewide could result in reduced water supply for the San Diego region. The State Water Project and Colorado River provide 75% to 95% of the water supply for the San Diego region, depending on the year.96F96F96F 97 Both of these water supplies originate in mountain snowpack. Over the past 50 years across most of the Southwest, there has been less late-winter precipitation falling as snow, earlier 96 https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/drought-planning-fact-sheet_10-4-16.pdf 97 Ibid. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 95 snowmelt, and earlier arrival of most of the year’s streamflow.97F97F97F 98 Projections of further warming will result in reduced snowpack, which could translate into reduced water supply for the San Diego region’s cities, agriculture, and ecosystems.98F98F98F 99 In fact, studies indicate that San Diego’s sources of water could shrink by 20 percent or more by 2050.99F99F99F 100 An additional threat to water supply is the vulnerability of the levees protecting the California Delta, which feeds the State Water Project.100F100F100F 101 According to the California Adaptation Planning Guide, jurisdictions in the San Diego region must carefully consider the vulnerability of their water supply.101F101F101F 102 Local water managers also report that higher temperatures could lead to increased demand for water for irrigation. Water shortages could become more frequent and more severe in the future, straining the local economy. The potential for drought in San Diego is highly likely. Disaster History The depression era drought of 1929-1934 was the worst drought in California’s history. Its impact was felt statewide. At that time, San Diego was self-sufficient, relying on local water supplies. The region would not begin to import water until 1947. The drought of 1987-1992 was extremely severe and resulted in the Metropolitan Water District ordered a 50% reduction in water use. The San Diego County Water Authority considered banning outdoor water use. The rains of “Miracle March” in 1991 replenished rivers, reservoirs, and the Sierra snowpack. A drought occurred in 2007 and lasted until 2011. Then, another drought began in 2012 just ended in 2017, following a series of winter storms that brought heavy rainfall to the state. The proclamation was extended again on July 8, 2021, amid deepening drought and record-breaking temperatures. The Governor requested Californians to voluntarily reduce water use by 15% to protect water reserves if drought conditions continue. On April 21, 2021, California Governor Newsom, proclaimed a drought emergency, which enables state response to water supply shortfalls where conditions are extremely dry. This drought emergency proclamation was expanded to include new counties on May 10, 2021. By October 19, 2021, the Governor expanded the drought emergency proclamation to include San Diego County and seven other counties, which were the last of the 58 California counties to be included in the drought emergency proclamation. On March 28, 2022, the Governor prompted local water suppliers, at the local level, to move to Level 2 of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans, which “requires locally appropriate actions that will conserve water across all sectors, and he directed the State Water Resources Control Board to consider a ban decorative watering at businesses and institutions.102F102F102F 103 Although key improvements have been made since 2016, California is still experiencing drought conditions. Hazard Impacts As extreme drought periods become more frequent, the increase in slow, or chronic drought periods can cause long term and indirect health effects on people. Potential health effects include “compromised quantity and quality of drinking water, increased recreational risks, effects on air quality, diminished living conditions related to energy, air quality, and sanitation and hygiene, mental health effects related to economic and job losses, compromised food and nutrition and increased incidence of illness and disease” (Centers for Disease Control, 2022). 98 Garfin, G., G. Franco, H. Blanco, A. Comrie, P. Gonzalez, T. Piechota, R. Smyth, and R. Waskom, 2014: Ch. 20: Southwest. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 462-486. doi:10.7930/J08G8HMN. 99 California Adaptation Planning Guide, Understanding Regional Characteristics (2012) 100 San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation. 101 California Adaptation Planning Guide, Understanding Regional Characteristics (2012) 102 Ibid. 103 https://drought.ca.gov/state-drought-response/ SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 96 103F103F103F Severe droughts are projected for the coming decades and may increase incidences of other events like wildfires, which are threats to people, structures, and other community assets. Areas in unincorporated San Diego County that are dependent on groundwater resources for potable and non-potable water supplies often receive water from small water systems or domestic wells. While these areas are located outside of San Diego County Water Authority’s service area and do not have access to imported water, there is still the potential risk of drought and water shortage resulting in reduced capacity and/or dry wells. To facilitate drought and water shortage preparedness for state small water systems and domestic wells, County Planning & Development Services in collaboration with County Department of Environmental Health and Quality provides an opportunity for communicating and maintains a list of resources to assist residents and communities facing a risk of water shortage. Drought resources can be found at: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/SGMA.html. Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude In an arid region such as San Diego County, the probability of recurring droughts with severity is “Highly Likely”. Historical drought data for the County Planning Area and San Diego County indicate there have been five significant multi-year droughts over the last 93 years. This equates to a multi-year drought every 18.6 years on average, or a 5.4% chance of a drought in any given year. Based on this data, droughts will likely affect the Planning Area. Given the historical occurrence of severe drought impacts throughout San Diego County and across the State, drought is expected to continue to pose a high degree of risk to the entire Planning Area, potentially impacting crops, livestock, water resources, the natural environment at large, buildings and infrastructure (from cascading or compound hazards), and local economies. A U.S. Drought Monitor, using the Palmer Drought Severity Index, can be found below and at http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 97 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 98 Climate Change Considerations Although there is a lot of variability, projections indicate that there will be longer and more frequent drought that will be punctuated by extreme precipitation. The evaporative demand (atmospheric thirst) is an important component in driving the extent of future droughts (McEvoy et al, 2020). Drought can increase wildfire risk and lead to fine fuel regrowth after a fire. This type of vegetation is more susceptible to fires, creating a feedback cycle. Extreme drought has the potential to intensify and change community composition and structure of ecosystems. Drought has severe consequences because it operates at spatial scales larger than other disturbances such as fire (Jennings et al., 2018). The highest priority mitigation actions to reduce Climate Change impacts on this hazard should include water supply reliability that originates from a diversity of water supplies and conservation planning that addresses the impacts of drought on ecosystems. 5.2.4. EARTHQUAKE Nature of the Hazard An earthquake is a sudden motion or trembling that is caused by a release of strain accumulated within or along the edge of the Earth's tectonic plates. The effects of an earthquake can be felt far beyond the site of its occurrence. They usually occur without warning and, after just a few seconds, can cause massive damage and extensive casualties. Common effects of earthquakes are ground motion and shaking, surface fault ruptures, and ground failure. Ground motion is the vibration or shaking of the ground during an earthquake. When a fault ruptures, seismic waves radiate, causing the ground to vibrate. The severity of the vibration increases with the amount of energy released and decreases with distance from the causative fault or epicenter. Soft soils can further amplify ground motions. The severity of these effects is dependent on the amount of energy released from the fault or epicenter. One way to express an earthquake's severity is to compare its acceleration to the normal acceleration due to gravity. The acceleration due to gravity is often called "g". A 100% g earthquake is very severe. More damage tends to occur from earthquakes when ground acceleration is rapid. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is a measure of the strength of ground movement. PGA measures the rate in change of motion relative to the established rate of acceleration due to gravity (980 cm/sec/sec). PGA is used to project the risk of damage from future earthquakes by showing earthquake ground motions that have a specified probability (10%, 5%, or 2%) of being exceeded in 50 years. These ground motion values are used for reference in construction design for earthquake resistance. The ground motion values can also be used to assess relative hazard between sites, when making economic and safety decisions. Another tool used to describe earthquake intensity is the Richter scale. The Richter scale was devised as a means of rating earthquake strength and is an indirect measure of seismic energy released. The scale is logarithmic with each one-point increase corresponding to a 10-fold increase in the amplitude of the seismic shock waves generated by the earthquake. In terms of actual energy released, however, each one-point increase on the Richter scale corresponds to about a 32-fold increase in energy released. Therefore, a magnitude (M) 7 earthquake is 100 times (10 X 10) more powerful than a M5 earthquake and releases 1,024 times (32 X 32) the energy. An earthquake generates different types of seismic shock waves that travel outward from the focus or point of rupture on a fault. Seismic waves that travel through the earth's crust are called body waves and are divided into primary (P) and secondary (S) waves. Because P waves move faster (1.7 times) than S waves they arrive at the seismograph first. By measuring the time delay SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 99 between arrival of the P and S waves and knowing the distance to the epicenter, seismologists can compute the Richter scale magnitude for the earthquake. The Modified Mercalli Scale (MMI) is another means for rating earthquakes, but one that attempts to quantify intensity of ground shaking. Intensity under this scale is a function of distance from the epicenter (the closer to the epicenter the greater the intensity), ground acceleration, duration of ground shaking, and degree of structural damage. This rates the level of severity of an earthquake by the amount of damage and perceived shaking, as displayed in the table below: TABLE 15: MODIFIED MERCALLI SCALE MMI Value Description of Shaking Severity Summary Damage Description Used on 1995 Maps Full Description I. Not felt II. Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors, or favorably placed. III. Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of light trucks. Duration estimated. May not be recognized as an earthquake. IV. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of heavy trucks; or sensation of a jolt like a heavy ball striking the walls. Standing motorcars rock. Windows, dishes, doors rattle. In the upper range of IV, wooden walls and frame creak. V. Light Pictures Move Felt outdoors; direction estimated. Sleepers wakened. Liquids disturbed, some spilled. Small unstable objects displaced or upset. Doors swing, close, open. Shutters, pictures move. Pendulum clock stop, start, change rate. VI. Moderate Objects Fall Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken. Knickknacks, books, etc., off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster and masonry D cracked. VII. Strong Nonstructural Damage Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motorcars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roofline. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices. Some cracks in masonry C. Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel banks. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 100 MMI Value Description of Shaking Severity Summary Damage Description Used on 1995 Maps Full Description VIII. Very Strong Moderate Damage Steering of motorcars affected. Damage to masonry C, partial collapse. Some damage to masonry B; none to masonry A. Fall of stucco and some masonry walls. Twisting, fall of chimneys, factory stacks, monuments, towers, and elevated tanks. Frame houses moved on foundations if not bolted down; loose panel walls thrown out. Cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes. IX. Very Violent Extreme Damage Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. X. Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of services. XI. Damage nearly total. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into air. Several major active faults exist in San Diego County, including the Rose Canyon, La Nacion, Elsinore, San Jacinto, Coronado Bank and San Clemente Fault Zones. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is part of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, which originates to the north in Los Angeles, and the Vallecitos and San Miguel Fault Systems to the south in Baja California. The Rose Canyon Fault extends inland from La Jolla Cove, south through Rose Canyon, along the east side of Mission Bay, and out into San Diego Bay. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered the greatest potential threat to San Diego as a region, due to its proximity to areas of high population. The La Nacion Fault Zone is located near National City and Chula Vista. The Elsinore Fault Zone is a branch of the San Andreas Fault System. It originates near downtown Los Angeles and enters San Diego County through the communities of Rainbow and Pala; it then travels in a southeasterly direction through Lake Henshaw, Santa Ysabel, Julian; then down into Anza-Borrego Desert State Park at Agua Caliente Springs, ending at Ocotillo, approximately 40 miles east of downtown. The San Jacinto Fault is also a branch of the San Andreas Fault System. This fault branches off from the major fault as it passes through the San Bernardino Mountains. Traveling southeasterly, the fault passes through Clark Valley, Borrego Springs, Ocotillo Wells, and then east toward El Centro in Imperial County. This fault is the most active large fault within County of San Diego. The Coronado Bank fault is located about 10 miles offshore. The San Clemente Fault lies about 40 miles off La Jolla and is the largest offshore fault at 110 miles or more in length (Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan, 2014). SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 101 Disaster History Historic documents record a very strong earthquake struck San Diego on May 27, 1862; damaging buildings in Old Town and opening cracks in the earth near the San Diego River mouth. This destructive earthquake was centered on either the Rose Canyon or Coronado Bank faults and descriptions of damage suggest that it had a magnitude of about 6.0 (M6). The strongest recently recorded earthquake in San Diego County was a M5.3 earthquake that occurred on July 13,1986 on the Coronado Bank Fault, 25 miles west of Solana Beach. In recent years there have been several moderate earthquakes recorded within the Rose Canyon Fault Zone as it passes beneath the City of San Diego. Three temblors shook the city on 17 June 1985 (M3.9, 4.0, 3.9) and a stronger quake occurred on 28 October 1986 (M4.7) (Demere, SDNHM website 2003). The most recent significant earthquake activity occurred on June 15, 2004 with a M5.3 on the San Diego Trough Fault Zone approximately 50 miles SW of San Diego. It was reported as an IV on the MMI (Southern California Seismic Network). At the time of this plan’s publication, there were not any significant earthquakes in the planning area within the past five years. Hazard Impacts The effects of an earthquake can be felt far beyond the site of its occurrence. They usually occur without warning and, after just a few seconds, can cause massive damage and extensive casualties. After a major seismic event it is possible that San Diego County could experience damage to transportation infrastructure, that would disrupt the flow of goods and services. A majority of the community members within the County are potentially exposed to the direct and indirect impacts of a major earthquake. Indirect impacts can include but are not limited to, business interruptions, road closures, loss of utilities, and transportation disruptions. Direct impacts can include, but are not limited to, minor or major structure damage, downed trees, and injury or loss of life. Environmental problems can result as a secondary hazard after a major earthquake. Earthquake induced landslides could cause damage to the surrounding habitat, and water quality can be affected if moving earth comes in contact with a water source. Facilities holding hazardous materials are of particular concern. During a major earthquake, structures storing these materials could rupture and leak into the surrounding area or an adjacent waterway, having a disastrous effect on the environment. Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude The figures below display the location and extent of the profiled earthquake hazard areas for San Diego County: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 102 FIGURE 2: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAN JACINTO FAULT EARTHQUAKE SCENARIO SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 103 FIGURE 3: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ELSINORE FAULT EARTHQUAKE SCENARIO SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 104 Figure 2: Map Of San Diego County Rose Canyon Fault Earthquake Scenario FIGURE 4: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ROSE CANYON FAULT EARTHQUAKE SCENARIO SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 105 This is based on a United States Geological Survey (USGS) earthquake model that shows probabilistic peak ground acceleration for every location in San Diego County. Since 1984, earthquake activity in San Diego County has increased twofold over the preceding 50 years (Demere, SDNHM website 2003). All buildings that have been built in recent decades must adhere to building codes that require them to be able to withstand earthquake magnitudes that create a PGA of 0.4 or greater. Ongoing field and laboratory studies suggest the following maximum likely magnitudes for local faults: San Jacinto (M6.4 to 7.3), Elsinore (M6.5 to 7.3), Rose Canyon (M6.2 to 7.0), La Nacion (M6.2 to 6.6), Coronado Bank (M6.0 to 7.7), and San Clemente (M6.6 to 7.7) (Demere, SDNHM website 2003). Data used to profile earthquake hazard included probabilistic PGA data from USGS and a Scenario Earthquake Shake map for Rose Canyon from the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN). From these data, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) determined that risk level for earthquake is determined to be high if an area lies within a 0.3 or greater PGA designation. Earthquakes were modeled using HAZUS-MH, which uses base information to derive probabilistic peak ground accelerations much like the PGA map from USGS that was used for the profiling process. It is estimated that major earthquakes (ranging from a magnitude of 7 to 7.9) occur in California one out of every 10 years. However, strong earthquakes (from magnitudes 6 to 6.9) strike the State about once every two to three years. A strong earthquake can cause major damage depending on the epicenter’s location with regards to populated areas, and can lead to billions of dollars in disasters, deaths, injuries, and disruptions in services and communities’ way of life. The United States Geological Survey estimates a 75% probability of one or more magnitude 7.0 earthquakes striking Southern California over a 30-year period. The probability of an earthquake in the San Diego region is considered somewhat “Likely”, meaning 10 to 90 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years. Climate Change Considerations Not applicable. 5.2.5. EXTREME HEAT Nature of the Hazard In most of the United States, including the entire planning area, extreme heat is a long period (2 to 3 days) of high heat and humidity with temperatures above 90 degrees.104F104F104F 105 Although extreme heat does not cause structural damage like floods, fires, and earthquakes, heat waves claim many lives due to heat exhaustion and heat stroke. According to a California Energy Commission Study, from 1994 to 2009, heat waves have claimed more lives in California than all declared disaster events combined.105F105F105F 106 Despite this history, not a single heat emergency was formally proclaimed at the state level or as a federal disaster between 1960 and 2008. The author of an account of a heat wave which killed 739 people in Chicago in July 1995 suggests that the hidden nature of social vulnerability combined with the inconspicuous nature of heat events (unlike floods, fires, and earthquakes) prevent them from being declared as legitimate disasters.106F106F106F 107 However, the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan considers extreme heat a legitimate disaster type.107F107F107F 108 105 https://community.fema.gov/ProtectiveActions/s/article/Extreme-Heat 106 Messner, Steven, Sandra C. Miranda, Karen Green, Charles Phillips, Joseph Dudley, Dan Cayan, Emily Young. Climate Change Related Impacts in the San Diego Region by 2050. PIER Research Report, CEC‐ 500‐2009‐027‐D, Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. 2009. 107 Klinenberg, Eric. Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, The University of Chicago, 2002 108 Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (2013) California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 106 Disaster History Following the events of 2006, when there was a prolonged period of extreme heat across the state of California, San Diego County developed an Excessive Heat Preparedness and Response Plan.108F108F108F 109 According to weather.gov’s “A History of Significant Weather Events in Southern California Organized by Weather Type”, there have been nine Extreme Heat events between October 2017 and September 2022.110 During the first week of September 2020 “a major heat wave struck the region that in some ways and for some areas was unprecedented... Climate stations in El Cajon, Alpine and Escondido achieved their all-time highest temperatures on record for any day on 9.6”.111 According to NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Storm Events Database, between October 2017 and December 2022, Excessive Heat events occurred over a total of 36 days and resulted in 52 injuries and 2 deaths.112 According to the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, Public Health Services, “2021 Excessive Heat Response Plan Summary”, over the past nine years, the combined number of heat advisories and excessive heat warnings has generally increased, from 2013 through 2021. The highest numbers of Heat Alerts were issued in 2020 (20 [events]) and 2021 (16 [events]).113 Hazard Impacts Extreme heat is exacerbated by the “urban heat island effect”, whereby impervious surfaces, such as concrete and asphalt, absorb heat and result in greater warming in urban areas compared to rural areas. Urban heat islands exacerbate the public health impacts that heat waves have upon the more vulnerable populations. San Diego County has among the highest percentages of impervious surfaces in the states, 109 Messner, Steven, Sandra C. Miranda, Karen Green, Charles Phillips, Joseph Dudley, Dan Cayan, Emily Young. Climate Change Related Impacts in the San Diego Region by 2050. PIER Research Report, CEC‐500‐2009‐027‐D, Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. 2009. 110 https://www.weather.gov/media/sgx/documents/weatherhistory.pdf 111 https://www.weather.gov/media/sgx/documents/weatherhistory.pdf 112 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/listevents.jsp?eventType=%28Z%29+Excessive+Heat&beginDate_mm=10&beginDate_dd=01&beginDate_yyy y=2017&endDate_mm=11&endDate_dd=30&endDate_yyyy=2022&county=SAN%2BDIEGO%3A73&hailfilter=0.00&tornfilter=0&windfilter=000&sort=D T&submitbutton=Search&statefips=6%2CCALIFORNIA 113 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/ExtremeHeat/2021%20Annual%20Excessive%20Heat%20Report%20- %20FINAL.pdf SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 107 increasing the potential impacts of heat islands. In fact, Southern California’s urban centers are warming more rapidly than other parts of the state. Extreme heat events put vulnerable populations (such as older adults, children, people who are chronically ill, and people who work outside) at risk of heat-related illnesses and even death. Extreme heat events highlight the importance of thoughtful social vulnerability analysis. For example, socially isolated older adults are especially vulnerable. People who live in urban areas with high impervious surface coverage and no access to air conditioning are also especially vulnerable. Extreme heat also has secondary impacts, such as power outages and poor air quality. Heat events, and the increased use of air conditioning, can lead to power outages, which makes the events even more dangerous. Hotter temperatures may also lead to poorer air quality because ozone formation, a component of smog, increases with higher temperatures. The National Weather Service uses the heat index to illustrate what temperature feels like to the human body when relative humidity is combined with the air temperature, which is important for the human body’s comfort level: There is direct relationship between the air temperature and relative humidity and the heat index, meaning as the air temperature and relative humidity increase (decrease), the heat index increases (decreases). to determine the heat index using the chart above, you need to know the air temperature and the relative humidity. For example, if the air temperature is 100°F and the relative humidity is 55%, the heat index will be 124°F. When the relative humidity is low, the apparent temperature can actually be lower than the air temperature. It is important to note the heat index values in the chart above are for shady locations. If a person is exposed to direct sunlight, the heat index value can be increased by up to 15°F. As shown in the table below, heat indices meeting or exceeding 103°F can lead to dangerous heat disorders with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity in the heat:114 114 https://www.weather.gov/ama/heatindex SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 108 Classification Heat Index Effect on the body Caution 80°F - 90°F Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity Extreme Caution 90°F - 103°F Heat stroke, heat cramps, or heat exhaustion possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity Danger 103°F - 124°F Heat cramps or heat exhaustion likely, and heat stroke possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity Extreme Danger 125°F or higher Heat stroke highly likely Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude The entire planning area is facing an increase in the frequency, duration, and strength of heat waves in the coming decades. While greater warming is expected in inland areas, community members of coastal areas are vulnerable when the temperature spikes, because they are less accustomed to the heat, and they are less likely to have air conditioning. Research also indicates that heat waves are likely to become more humid in the future and with nighttime temperatures staying high, further stressing public health.109F109F109F 115 Extreme warm temperatures in the San Diego region mostly occur in July and August, but as climate warming takes hold, the occurrences of these events will likely begin in June and could continue to take place into September.110F110F110F 116 Over the past 15 years, the region has seen increasing temperatures, evidenced by an increased number of excessive Heat Alerts, which are initiated based on heat advisory and excessive heat warnings. Heat Alerts generally occur from May to September. From 2013 to 2021, 98 Heat Alerts were issued in the County of San Diego. This means that there is a 3% chance on any given day of an excessive Heat Alert occurring over the course of a year, which ranks future event of this hazard as “Highly Likely” to occur. The highest numbers of Heat Alerts were issued in 2020 (20) and 2021 (16). In 2021, the County of San Diego had 8 heat events, ranging from 2 to 8 days long, lasting a total of 36 days. National data on extreme heat can be found through Climate Data Online (CDO) at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/. Climate Change Considerations An increase in the intensity, frequency and duration of extreme heat events is expected in the context of climate change. Furthermore, observations have shown, and projections indicate, that the flavor of extreme 115 Gershunov, A., and K. Guirguis (2012), California heat waves in the present and future, Geophysical Research Letters., 39, L18710 116 Messner, Steven, Sandra C. Miranda, Karen Green, Charles Phillips, Joseph Dudley, Dan Cayan, Emily Young. Climate Change Related Impacts in the San Diego Region by 2050. PIER Research Report, CEC‐500‐2009‐027‐D, Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. 2009. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 109 heat events have and will continue to change with more and more humid heat events (that drive nighttime heat events) (Gershunov et al., 2009, Gershunov et al., 2012). The highest priority mitigation actions to reduce Climate Change impacts on this hazard should include preparation, with strong attention to weather forecasts and ready social services, infrastructure (e.g. Cooling Centers), and programs to support installation of air conditioning units in communities lacking access. 5.2.6. FLOOD Nature of the Hazard A flood occurs when excess water from snowmelt, rainfall, or storm surge accumulates and overflows onto a river’s bank or to adjacent floodplains. Floodplains are lowlands adjacent to rivers, lakes, and oceans that are subject to recurring floods. Most injuries and deaths from flood occur when people are swept away by flood currents, and property damage typically occurs as a result of inundation by sediment-filled water. Several factors determine the severity of floods, including rainfall intensity and duration. A large amount of rainfall over a short time span can result in flash flood conditions. A sudden thunderstorm or heavy rain, dam failure, or sudden spills can cause flash flooding. The National Weather Service’s definition of a flash flood is a flood occurring in a watershed where the time of travel of the peak of flow from one end of the watershed to the other is less than six hours. There are no watersheds in San Diego County that have a longer response time than six hours. In this county, flash floods range from the stereotypical wall of water to a gradually rising stream. The central and eastern portions of San Diego County are most susceptible to flash floods where mountain canyons, dry creek beds, and high deserts are the prevailing terrain. Disaster History From 1770 until 1952, 29 floods were recorded in San Diego County. Between 1950 and 1997, flooding prompted 10 Proclaimed States of Emergency in the County of San Diego. Several very large floods have caused significant damage in the County of San Diego in the past. The Hatfield Flood of 1916 destroyed the Sweetwater and Lower Otay Dams and caused 22 deaths and $4.5 million in damages. The flood of 1927 caused $117,000 in damages and washed out the Old Town railroad bridge (Bainbridge, 1997). The floods of 1937 and 1938 caused approximately $600,000 in damages. (County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control, 1996). In the 1980 floods, the San Diego River at Mission Valley peaked at 27,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and caused $120 million in damage (Bainbridge, 1997). The table below displays a history of flooding in San Diego County, as well as loss associated with each flood event: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 110 TABLE 16: HISTORY RECORDS OF LARGE FLOODS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY Date Loss Estimation Source of Estimate Comments 1862 Not available County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control 6 weeks of rain 1891 Not available County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control 33 inches in 60 hours 1916 $4.5 million County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control Destroyed 2 dams, 22 deaths 1927 $117,000 County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control Washed out railroad bridge Old Town 1937 & 1938 $600,000 County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control N/A 1965 Not available San Diego Union 6 killed 1969 Not available San Diego Union All of State declared disaster area 1979 $2,766,268 County OES Cities of La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, San Marcos, San Diego and unincorporated areas 1980 $120 million County of San Diego Sanitation and Flood Control; Earth Times San Diego river topped out in Mission Valley 1987 $640,500 State OES N/A 1995 $Tens of Millions County OES San Diego County Declared Disaster Area 2003 Not Available County OES Storm floods areas impacted by the 2003 firestorm. Sept 2004 Not Available San Diego Union-Tribune Series of storms caused localized flooding Oct 2004 Not Available San Diego Union-Tribune Flash-flood in Borrego Springs Jan-Mar 2005 Not Available Cal EMA (formerly State OES) San Diego County Declared Disaster Area Jan 2017 $14.5 million (estimated) County OES San Diego County Declared Disaster Area SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 111 Date Loss Estimation Source of Estimate Comments Dec 2018 $75,000 (estimated) NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Storm Events Database Heavy rain resulted in flooding near the Shoppes at Carlsbad. Five businesses reported flooding damage. A roof collapsed at a childcare center in the shopping center. The Alpha Project Bridge Shelter in East Village San Diego closed for a week due to flooding from the heavy rain. Feb 2019 $340,000 (estimated) NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Storm Events Database Flooding occurred in Ramona with up to 2 feet of standing water. Severe damage to portions of highway 78 and 79 along the shoulder of the road. Extensive flooding on San Diego River in Mission Valley including Fashion Valley mall. San Diego River reached 12.1 feet which is above flood stage. A total of 5 to 10 inches of rain occurred on the Palomar mountain coastal slopes in 12 hours. This lead to flash flooding in Pala with road damage and swift water rescues. Intestate 8 was closed for 12 hours due to snow covered and icy roads. Numerous accidents including at Willows road at 2,600 feet. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 112 Date Loss Estimation Source of Estimate Comments Nov – Dec 2019 $125,000 (Estimated) NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Storm Events Database 12 San Diego State University dorm rooms flooded. Numerous cars piled up in an RV park in La Mesa due to flash flooding. April 2020 $2,420,000 (Estimated) NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Storm Events Database Interstate 8 landslide and debris on highway caused closure. City of Oceanside had significant damage to the wastewater treatment plant. Estimated up to 2 million gallons spilled as the plant was inundated by the flash flooding of Buena Vista Creek. Twenty persons evacuated from a nursing home. As of 12/31/2022 there have been no additional significant flooding events in the planning area. Hazard Impacts The principal factors affecting flood damage are flood depth and velocity. The deeper and faster flood flows become, the more damage they can cause. Shallow flooding with high velocities can cause as much damage as deep flooding with slow velocity. This is especially true when a channel migrates over a broad floodplain, redirecting high velocity flows and transporting debris and sediment. Although jurisdictions can implement mitigation and take preventative actions to significantly reduce the severity and threat of flood events, some type of risk will always exist (i.e., risk of a hazard event occurring despite mitigation measures applied to reduce/prevent it). Threats associated with flood risk include failure of a reservoir, a dam breach, or other infrastructure failure, or a severe flood event that exceeds flood design standards or drainage capacity. Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude In regions, such as San Diego, without extended periods of below-freezing temperatures, floods usually occur during the season of highest precipitations or during heavy rainfalls after long dry spells. The areas surrounding the river valleys in all of San Diego County are susceptible to flooding because of the wide, flat floodplains surrounding the riverbeds, and the numerous structures that are built in the floodplains. One unusual characteristic of San Diego’s hydrology is that it has a high level of variability in its runoff. The western watershed of the County of San Diego extends about 80 miles north from the Mexican border and approximately 45 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. From west to east, there are about 10 miles of rolling, broken coastal plain, 10 to 15 miles of foothill ranges with elevations of 600 to 1,700 feet; and approximately 20 miles of mountain country where elevations range from 3,000 to 6,000 feet. This western watershed constitutes about 75% of the County, with the remaining 25% mainly desert country. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 113 There are over 3,600 miles of rivers and streams which threaten community members and over 200,000 acres of flood-prone property. Seven principal streams originate or traverse through the unincorporated area. From north to south, they are the Santa Margarita, San Luis Rey, San Dieguito, San Diego, Sweetwater, Otay, and Tijuana Rivers (Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan, 2006). FEMA FIRM data was used to determine hazard risk for floods in the County of San Diego. FEMA defines flood risk primarily by a 100-year flood zone, which is applied to those areas with a 1% chance, on average, of flooding in any given year. Any area that lies within the FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain is designated as high risk. Any area found in the 500-year floodplain is designated at low risk. Base flood elevations (BFE) were also used in the HAZUS-MH modeling process. A BFE is the elevation of the water surface resulting from a flood that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year (i.e. the height of the base flood). The figure below displays the location and extent of flood hazard areas for the County of San Diego: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 114 Figure 5: Map Of San Diego County 100-Year And 500-Year Floodplains SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 115 As shown, high hazard (100-year floodway) zones in San Diego County are generally concentrated within the coastal areas, including bays, coastal inlets, and estuaries. Major watershed areas connecting the local mountain range to the coastal region, where flash floods are more common, show several 100-year flood hazard areas. A repetitive loss property is defined by FEMA as an NFIP-insured property that has experienced any of the following since 1978, regardless of any changes in ownership: • Four or more paid losses more than $1,000 • Two paid losses more than $1,000 within any rolling 10-year period • Three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property. The government has instituted programs encouraging communities to identify and mitigate the causes of repetitive losses. Studies have found that many of these properties are outside any mapped 1 percent annual chance floodplain. The key identifiers for repetitive loss properties are the existence of NFIP insurance policies and claims paid by the policies. FEMA further designates as severe repetitive loss any NFIP-insured single-family or multi-family residential building for which either of the following is true: • The building has incurred flood-related damage for which four or more separate claims payments have been made, with the amount of each claim (including building and contents payments) exceeding $5,000, and with the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000 • At least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been made under NFIP coverage, with the cumulative amount of claims exceeding the market value of the building. To quality as a severe repetitive loss property, at least two of the claims must be within 10 years of each other, and claims made within 10 days of each other are counted as one claim. In determining SRL status, FEMA considers the loss history since 1978, or from the building’s construction if it was built after 1978, regardless of any changes in the ownership of the building. FEMA-sponsored programs, such as the Community Rating System (CRS), require participating communities to identify repetitive loss areas. A repetitive loss area is the portion of a floodplain holding structures that FEMA has identified as meeting the definition of repetitive loss. Identifying repetitive loss areas helps to identify structures that area at risk but are not on FEMA’s list of repetitive loss structures because no flood insurance policy was in force at the time of loss. Based on the 2022 FEMA Repetitive Loss Summary Report, there have been numerous repetitive and severe repetitive losses in San Diego County. These losses are provided in the table below: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 116 TABLE 17: REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES DUE TO FLOODS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY Jurisdiction Repetitive Loss Properties Structure Type Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Structure Type Total Number Mitigated Carlsbad 1 Nonresidential 0 --- 0 Del Mar 15 Residential 0 --- 0 Escondido 4 Residential 1 Residential 0 Lemon Grove 0 --- 0 --- 0 Poway 9 Residential 2 Residential 1 Santee 1 Nonresidential 0 --- 0 County of San Diego 20 Nonresidential (4) 3 Residential (2) 7 Residential (15) Commercial (1) Commercial (1) Chula Vista 1 Residential 0 --- 0 El Cajon 4 Residential 1 Residential 0 Imperial Beach 4 Residential 0 --- 0 National City 3 Nonresidential (2) 0 --- 0 Commercial (1) San Diego 47 Nonresidential (11) 4 Nonresidential (1) 0 Residential (27) Residential (1) Commercial (9) Commercial (2) Solana Beach 7 Residential 3 Residential 0 Coronado 1 Residential 0 --- 0 Encinitas 2 Residential 0 --- 0 La Mesa 2 Residential 0 --- 0 Oceanside 13 Nonresidential (5) 0 --- 6 Residential (6) Commercial (2) San Marcos 1 Residential 0 --- 0 Vista 3 Nonresidential (1) 1 Residential 0 Residential (2) Total 138 --- 15 --- 14 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 117 Due to the history of past flooding events and the natural drainage pattern of the Planning Area, flooding in the County of San Diego is “Highly Likely” to continue to occur. According to the NCEI Storm Events Database, there have been 144 flood events recorded for the County of San Diego between 1997 and 2021. This means there is a 2% chance on any given day of a flood event occurring over the course of a year. The County of San Diego has experienced at least one flooding event every year since 2010. Over the past decade, major floods have occurred in Mission Valley, El Cajon, Ramona, and Borrego Springs. In addition to these major flood events, flooding has been known to occur in localized areas of the County during average seasonal rainstorms. Climate Change Considerations The most extreme events are going to become more extreme regarding climate change effects. These events are primarily atmospheric rivers and will become more so in the future based on global climate models (Gershunov et al., 2019). In addition, the increase in sea level increases the potential for severe flooding caused by the occurrence of coastal and inland flooding. Coastal flooding can cause pollution of coastal waters (Aguilera et al., 2019). The highest priority mitigation actions to reduce Climate Change impacts on this hazard should include preparation, with strong attention to weather forecasts, assessing infrastructure flooding vulnerability, and developing plans to mitigate flood severity and frequency. 5.2.7. HUMAN-CAUSED HAZARDS (TERRORISM & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS (CBRNE THREATS)) Nature of the Hazard Human-caused hazards are distinct from natural hazards because they result directly from the actions of people. Two types of human-caused hazards can be identified as technological hazards and terrorism. Technological hazards refer to incidents that can arise from human activities such as the manufacture, storage, transport, and use of hazardous materials, which include toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, and infectious substances. Technological hazards are assumed to be accidental and their consequences unintended. Terrorism, on the other hand, encompasses intentional, criminal, and malicious acts involving weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) or conventional weapons. WMDs can involve the deployment of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) weapons. Conventional weapons and techniques include the use of arson, incendiary explosives, armed attacks, intentional hazardous materials release, and cyber-terrorism (attack via computer). Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE Threats) Technological hazards involving hazardous material releases can occur at facilities (fixed site) or along transportation routes (off-site). They can occur because of human carelessness, technological failure, intentional acts, and natural hazards. When caused by natural hazards, these incidents are known as secondary hazards, whereas intentional acts are terrorism. Hazardous materials releases, depending on the substance involved and type of release, can directly cause injuries and death and contaminate air, water, and soils. While the probability of a major release at any facility or at any point along a known transportation corridor is relatively low, the consequences of releases of these materials can be very serious. Some hazardous materials present a radiation risk. Radiation is any form of energy propagated as rays, waves or energetic particles that travel through the air or a material medium. Radioactive materials are composed of atoms that are unstable. An unstable atom gives off its excess energy until it becomes stable. The energy emitted is radiation. The process by which an atom changes from an unstable state to a more stable state by emitting radiation is called radioactive decay or radioactivity. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 118 Radiological materials have many uses in San Diego County including: • by doctors to detect and treat serious diseases, • by educational institutions and companies for research, • by the military to power large ships and submarines. With the decommissioning of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), radiological materials are no longer used to generate commercial electric power within San Diego County. However, the stored spent fuel that remains on site does pose a hazard. Radioactive materials, if handled improperly, or radiation accidentally released into the environment, can be dangerous because of the harmful effects of certain types of radiation on the body. The longer a person is exposed to radiation and the closer the person is to the radiation, the greater the risk. Although radiation cannot be detected by the senses (sight, smell, etc.), it is easily detected by scientists with sophisticated instruments that can detect even the smallest levels of radiation. Under extreme circumstances an accident or intentional explosion involving radiological materials can cause very serious problems. Consequences may include death, severe health risks to the public, damage to the environment, and extraordinary loss of, or damage to, property. Terrorism Following serious international and domestic terrorist incidents during the 1990’s and early 2000’s, people across the United States have paid increased attention to the potential for deliberate, harmful terrorist actions by individuals or groups with political, social, cultural, and religious motives. There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism, and it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. However, terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “…the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 CFR, Section 0.85). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) further characterizes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. However, the origin of the terrorist or person causing the hazard is far less relevant to mitigation planning than the hazard itself and its consequences. Terrorists utilize a wide variety of agents and delivery systems. Disaster History Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE Threats) Hazardous materials can include toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, infectious substances, and hazardous wastes. The State of California defines a hazardous material as a substance that is toxic, ignitable, or flammable, or reactive and/or corrosive. An extremely hazardous material is defined as a substance that shows high acute or chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, bio-accumulative properties, persistence in the environment, or is water reactive (California Code of Regulations, Title 22). “Hazardous waste,” a subset of hazardous materials, is material that is to be abandoned, discarded, or recycled, and includes chemical, radioactive, and biohazardous waste (including medical waste). An accidental hazardous material release can occur wherever hazardous materials are manufactured, stored, transported, or used. Such releases can affect nearby populations and contaminate critical or sensitive environmental areas. Numerous facilities in San Diego County generate hazardous wastes, in addition to storing and using large numbers of hazardous materials. There are thousands of sites with permits to store and maintain chemical, biological and radiological agents, and explosives in the County. Although the scale is usually small, emergencies involving the release of these substances can occur daily at both these fixed sites and on the County’s streets and roadways. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 119 Facilities that use, manufacture, or store hazardous materials in California must comply with several state and federal regulations. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Title III), which was enacted in 1986 as a legislative response to airborne releases of methylisocyanate at Union Carbide plants in Bhopal, India and in Institute, West Virginia. SARA Title III, also known as the Emergency Planning and Community-Right-To -Know Act (EPCRA), directs businesses that handle, store, or manufacture hazardous materials in specified amounts to develop emergency response plans and report releases of toxic chemicals. Additionally, Section 312 of Title III requires businesses to submit an annual inventory report of hazardous materials to a state-administering agency. The California legislature passed Assembly Bill 2185 in 1987, incorporating the provisions of SARA Title III into a state program. The community right-to-know requirements keep communities abreast of the presence and release of hazardous wastes at individual facilities. A table within Attachment A shows a breakdown by jurisdiction of facilities in the County with permits to store and maintain chemical, biological and radiological agents, and explosives. Facilities with EPA ID Numbers are facilities that generate hazardous waste. Hazardous materials spills and releases in San Diego County have occurred as a result of clandestine drug manufacturing; spills from commercial, military and recreational vessels on the region’s waterways; traffic accidents; sewer breaks and overflows; and various accidents/incidents related to the manufacture, use, and storage of hazardous materials by County industrial, commercial and government facilities. Although the emergency response history for San Diego County detailed in Attachment A chronicles various hazardous materials releases, the incidents do not necessarily indicate the degree of exposure to the public. There has not been significant exposure to the San Diego County public due to human-caused releases of chemical or biological agents, although there have been several smaller-scale incidents. Chemical spills and releases from transportation and industrial accidents have resulted in short-term chemical exposure to individuals in the vicinity of the release. San Diego beaches are routinely closed because of sewage spills and storm run-off. Bacterial levels can increase significantly in ocean and bay waters, especially near storm drain, river, and lagoon outlets, during and after rainstorms. Elevated bacterial levels may continue for a period of up to 3 days depending upon the intensity of rainfall and volume of runoff. Waters contaminated by urban runoff may contain human pathogens (bacteria, viruses, or protozoa) that can cause illnesses. San Diego experienced its first significant E. coli bacteria outbreak in 10 years after patrons ate tainted food at local area restaurants in 2003. In 1992 and 1993 a similar outbreak occurred in San Diego County, which resulted in the death of a child after he ate tainted food from a Carlsbad fast-food restaurant. Additionally, in the early 1980s a hepatitis outbreak associated with poor food handling techniques resulting in the closure of a major restaurant in Mission Valley and the implementation of a food-handler certification program by the San Diego County Health Department. The only known release of radiological agents in the County was the result of an accident at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). In 1981, an accidental "ignition" of hydrogen gases in a holding tank of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) caused an explosion - which bent the bolts of an inspection hatch on the tank, allowing radioactive gases in the tank to escape into a radioactive waste room. From there, the radioactive material was released into the atmosphere. The plant was shut down for several weeks following the event (W.I.S.E. Vol.3 No.4 p.18). This incident occurred during the plant’s operation of its Unit 1 generator, which has since been decommissioned. No serious injuries occurred. On February 3, 2001, another accident occurred at SONGS when a circuit breaker fault caused a fire that resulted in a loss of offsite power. Published reports suggest that rolling blackouts during the same week in California were partially due to the shutdown of the SONGS reactors in response to the 3-hour fire. Although no radiation was released and no nuclear safety issues were involved, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission sent a Special Inspection Team to the plant site to investigate the accident. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 120 Terrorism While San Diego County has not experienced any high-profile attacks by groups or individuals associated with international terrorist organizations, the region has been the site of several incidents with domestic origins. Most notable is the August 1, 2003 arson attack on a mixed-use housing and office development under construction in the University City neighborhood. The blaze, which officials estimate caused around $50 million in damage, was allegedly set by the Earth Liberation Front, a radical environmentalist group. San Diego has been linked to the 9/11 attacks in New York City and on the Pentagon; two of the confirmed hijackers of the commercial aircraft used in the attacks took flight school lessons while living in San Diego. San Diego County has received numerous bomb threats to schools, government buildings, religious sites, and commercial facilities over the years. While most bomb threats are hoaxes, authorities have been required to mobilize resources and activate emergency procedures on a regular basis in response. Other Human-Caused Disasters On September 25th, 1978, San Diego was the scene of one of the worst air disasters in the United States. A mid-air collision between a Cessna 172 and a Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) Boeing 727 caused both planes to crash into the North Park neighborhood below. A total of 144 lives were lost including 7 people on the ground. More than 20 residences were damaged or destroyed. In 1984, a shooter opened fire in a San Ysidro McDonald’s restaurant, killing 21 people. This event was not considered an act of terrorism as no political or social objectives were associated with this event. In 2019, a shooter opened fire at the Chabad of Poway Synagogue, which killed one person and injured three other people. The same shooter was also linked to a 2019 fire set to the Dar-ul-Arqam Mosque (also known as the Islamic Center of Escondido) in Escondido.111F111F111F 117 The shooter pleaded guilty on July 20, 2021, to murder and multiple charges of attempted murder, with added hate crime classifications in connection with the Chabad of Poway Synagogue shooting and pleaded guilty to a charge of arson in connection with Dar- ul-Arqam Mosque in Escondido. 112F112F112F 118 Hazard Impacts This hazard’s impacts vary according to type, magnitude, location, availability of resources and many other factors that are situationally dependent. Overall, hazard impacts may include, but are not limited to injury, death, environmental/resource impacts, and structure/asset losses. Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude Information related to the probability and magnitude of human-caused hazards is considered sensitive homeland security related information. As a result, this information is provided in a separate confidential document (Planning Partners, see Attachment A). The probability of occurrence for an active threat can be difficult to quantify, largely due to different definitions of what constitutes an active threat. However, the fact that the planning area has experienced such incidents suggests the effective probability of any human-caused hazard is “Likely”, meaning 10 to 90 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years. Climate Change Considerations Not applicable. 117 https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/crime/accused-chabad-of-poway-synagogue-shooter-pleads-guilty/509-4c8b3421-71e5-45e4-b1da-eac4dfe24f55. 118 https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/poway-synagogue-shooter-to-be-sentenced-in-state-court/2731560/. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 121 5.2.8. LIQUEFACTION Nature of the Hazard This hazard is profiled independently in this section but is otherwise grouped with “Earthquake” hazard throughout this plan, particularly the prioritized hazard list and the Vulnerability Assessment sections of this plan. Therefore, there is no Hazard Assessment ranking for this hazard in Section 5.1’s table. Liquefaction is the phenomenon that occurs when ground shaking causes loose soils to lose strength and act like viscous fluid. Liquefaction causes two types of ground failure: lateral spread and loss of bearing strength. Lateral spreads develop on gentle slopes and entails the sidelong movement of large masses of soil as an underlying layer liquefies. Loss of bearing strength results when the soil supporting structures liquefies and causes structures to collapse. Disaster History Liquefaction is not known to have occurred historically in San Diego County, although liquefaction has occurred in the Imperial Valley in response to large earthquakes (Magnitude 6 or greater) originating in that area. Although San Diego is one of several major California cities in seismically active regions, ground failures or damage to structures have not occurred because of liquefaction. Historically, seismic shaking levels have not been sufficient to trigger liquefaction. Paleoseismic indicators of liquefaction have been recognized locally, and several pre-instrumental (prior to common use of seismographs) earthquakes could have been severe enough to cause at least some liquefaction. Hazard Impacts A study published in the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Limitations of Surface Liquefaction Manifestation Severity Index Models Used in Conjunction with Simplified Stress-Based Triggering Models, March 2022, Upadhyaya et al. outlines the factors that are used to determine liquefaction impact severity. Based on the model data the severity of surface manifestation of liquefaction is commonly used to represent liquefaction damage potential and the inclusion of an improved manifestation severity index (MSI) can better account for surficial liquefaction damage potential. This severity index assigns liquefaction zones a Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) which is determined by various soil depths, the number of soil layers and their consistency, and surface weight contributions. San Diego County has not experienced liquefaction in the past. Given the location of the Rose Canyon and Elsinore zoned earthquake faults in the San Diego County with potential magnitudes of up to 6.9 and the various liquefaction zones outlined in Figure 6, there is the potential for extensive impacts. These impacts include building and road foundations that may sink into what was previously solid ground. Additionally, there is a threat to life and property, including buildings, their contents, electric generating facilities and transmission lines that could also be damaged and affect life support systems in communities outside the immediate hazard area. Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude Recognizing active faults in the region, and the presence of geologically young, unconsolidated sediments and hydraulic fills, the potential for liquefaction to occur has been long recognized in the San Diego area. The regions of San Diego Bay and vicinity are thought to be especially vulnerable. The potential exists in areas of loose soils and/or shallow groundwater in earthquake fault zones throughout the County. The figure below displays the locations and extent of areas with a risk of liquefaction: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 122 FIGURE 6: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIQUEFACTION RISK AREAS SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 123 Data used to profile liquefaction hazard included probabilistic PGA data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and a Scenario Earthquake Shake map for Rose Canyon from the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN), along with existing liquefaction hazard areas from local maps. Liquefaction hazards were modeled as collateral damages of earthquakes using HAZUS-MH, which uses base information and NEHRP soils data to derive probabilistic peak ground accelerations much like the PGA map from USGS. Soils were considered because liquefaction risk may be amplified depending on the type of soil found in a given area. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) rates soils from hard to soft, and give the soils ratings from Type A through Type E, with the hardest soils being Type A, and the softest soils rated at Type E. Liquefaction risk was considered high if there were soft soils (Types D or E) present within an active fault zone. Liquefaction risk was considered low if the PGA risk value was less than 0.3, and hard soils were present (Types A-C). For example, an area may lie in a PGA zone of 0.2, which would be a low liquefaction risk in hard soils identified by the NEHRP. However, if that same PGA value is found within a soft soil such as Type D or E, a PGA of 0.2, when multiplied by 1.4 or 1.7 (amplification values for type D and E soil, shown below), would become a PGA value of at least 0.28 to 0.3. This would increase the liquefaction risk to high. TABLE 18: PGA LIQUIFACTION RISK PGA Soil Type A B C D E 0.1 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.60 2.50 0.2 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.70 0.3 0.80 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.20 0.4 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.10 0.90 0.5 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 Areas where soil types D or E are located are illustrated in the figure below. This hazard is profiled independently in this section but is otherwise grouped with “Earthquake” hazard throughout this plan, particularly the prioritized hazard list and the Vulnerability Assessment sections of this plan. Therefore, there is no Hazard Assessment ranking for this hazard in Section 5.1’s table. However, using the same scientific scale as the other hazards, probability of liquefaction in San Diego County is considered somewhat “Likely”, meaning 10 to 90 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years. Climate Change Considerations Not applicable. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 124 5.2.9. RAIN-INDUCED LANDSLIDE Nature of the Hazard Landslides occur when masses of rock, earth, or debris move down a slope, including rock falls, deep failure of slopes, and shallow debris flows. Landslides are influenced by human activity (mining and construction of buildings, railroads, and highways) and natural factors (geology, precipitation, and topography). Frequently they accompany other natural hazards such as floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. Although landslides sometimes occur during earthquake activity, earthquakes are rarely their primary cause. The most common cause of a landslide is an increase in the down slope gravitational stress applied to slope materials (oversteepening). This may be produced either by natural processes or by man’s activities. Undercutting of a valley wall by stream erosion or of a sea cliff by wave erosion are ways in which slopes may be naturally oversteepened. Other ways include excessive rainfall or irrigation on a cliff or slope. Another type of soil failure is slope wash, the erosion of slopes by surface-water runoff. The intensity of slope wash is dependent on the discharge and velocity of surface runoff and on the resistance of surface materials to erosion. Surface runoff and velocity is greatly increased in urban and suburban areas due to the presence of roads, parking lots, and buildings, which have zero filtration capacities and provide generally smooth surfaces that do not slow down runoff. Mudflows are another type of soil failure and are defined as flows or rivers of liquid mud down a hillside. They occur when water accumulates under the ground, usually following long and heavy rainfalls. If there is no brush, tree, or ground cover to hold the soil, mud will form and flow down-slope. Disaster History Landslides and landslide-prone sedimentary formations are present throughout the coastal plain of western San Diego County. Landslides also occur in the granitic mountains of East San Diego County, although they are less prevalent. Ancient landslides are those with subdued topographic expressions that suggest movements at least several hundred and possibly several thousands of years before present. Many of these landslides are thought to have occurred under much wetter climatic conditions than at present. Recent landslides are those with fresh or sharp geomorphic expressions suggestive of active (ongoing) movement or movement within the past several decades. Reactivations of existing landslides can be triggered by disturbances such as heavy rainfall, seismic shaking and/or grading. Many recent landslides are thought to be reactivations of ancient landslides. Past Significant Landslide Occurrences: • Mt. Soledad in La Jolla (12/15/1961) 113F113F113F 119 • Oceanside (1/19/2005)114F114F114F 120 • east side of Point Loma (4/15/2009)115F115F115F 121 • western Camp Pendleton (2/28/2017).116F116F116F 122 Some of the most recent, significant coastal bluff landslides have occurred: • in Torrey Pines (8/31/2019) • in Del Mar (11/19/2019) • along north La Jolla, Black’s Beach (5/2/2020) 119 https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/150-years/sd-me-150-years-december-15-htmlstory.html 120 https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-landslide-undercuts-eight-homes-in-oceanside-2005jan19-story.html 121 https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-bn15slide13057-2009apr15-story.html 122 https://patch.com/california/oceanside-camppendleton/road-closed-due-landslide-camp-pendleton SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 125 • in Encinitas (8/2/2019, 4/10/2020).117F117F117F 123 Landslides tend to be more widespread in these areas where the underlying sedimentary formations contain weak claystone beds that are more susceptible to sliding. Remedial grading and other mitigation measures have stabilized many but not all landslides in urban areas and other developments within San Diego County. Published geologic maps and other sources of information pertaining to landslide occurrence may not differentiate between known or suspected landslides. Moreover, published landslide maps (such as those used to compile the landslide areas for this effort) are not always updated or revised to reflect landslides that have been stabilized, or in some cases completely removed. The landslide maps for this study have been compiled for planning and emergency responses preparedness, and the compilation sources may not reflect current or existing conditions. Hazard Impacts Impacts from landslides in the San Diego County can vary greatly. In unpopulated areas, landslides have little effect except to the extent they fill in waterways and create flooding issues, water conveyance, and introduce contaminants. However, if landslides occur in populated areas, damages can be sustained to buildings, critical facilities, infrastructure, and injuries, and in extreme cases deaths, can occur. Landslides can affect ingress and egress routes. Many locations in the County have limited ingress and egress routes. Cutting off one of these routes can cause multiple issues such as limiting emergency response to hazards. Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude Data used to determine landslide risk were steep slope (greater than 25%), soil series data (SANDAG, based on USGS 1970s series), and soil-slip susceptibility from USGS. Because landslide data in GIS format was not available for the entire county, a model was run using USGS soils and steep slope data to determine landslide risk areas for the entire County. Tan Landslide Susceptibility Maps that depict steep slope areas, landslide formations, and landslide susceptible areas based on a combination of slope, soils and geologic instability were also used in the analysis. As shown in the figure below, the location and extent of landslide hazard areas are generally concentrated along canyons near the coastal areas with steep slopes: 123 https://cadoc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=bc48ad40e3504134a1fc8f3909659041 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 126 FIGURE 7: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY RAIN-INDUCED LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITIES SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 127 The western portion of the county shows the soil-slip susceptibility data, while the eastern portion of the county shows the results of the model used to determine landslide risk for areas that were not included in the soil-slip susceptibility model. Housing development on marginal lands and in unstable but highly desirable coastal areas has increased the threat from landslides throughout San Diego County. Based on historical occurrences, the probability of a rain-induced landslide is considered “Unlikely”. However, HAZUS Data Evaluations, Vulnerability Assessments, Hazard Seminar Series, and input from Subject Matter Experts and the public determined the Overall Significance rating of this hazard to be “Medium”, meaning the criteria falls mostly in the middle ranges of classifications and the event’s impacts on the planning area are noticeable but not devastating. This rating is sometimes used for hazards with a high extent rating but very low probability rating. In San Diego County, rain-induced landslides typically occur during and after severe storms, so the potential for landslides largely coincides with the potential for sequential severe storms that saturate steep, vulnerable soils. The FEMA National Risk Index estimates that the annualized frequency of landslide events in San Diego County is 0.1 distinct events per year. In general San Diego County can expect to experience significant rain-induced landslide events during strong El Niño years or large atmospheric rivers. In areas recently burned by wildfires, landslides may occur more frequently and are possible during annual rain events. Climate Change Considerations Post-fire debris flows require high intensity precipitation. Global Climate models do not project hourly rates of precipitation. One study that dynamically downscaled climate projection suggested that hourly precipitation rates in the mountainous area increased in Central and Northern California (Huang et al, 2020), but it did show results over San Diego. The highest priority mitigation actions to reduce Climate Change impacts on this hazard should include evaluation of vulnerable landscapes, monitoring and educating partners and the public, paying attention to weather forecasts of heavy and prolonged rainfall, especially in conditions when landscape is already soaked, consulting with experts in landslides/debris flows. 5.2.10. SEA LEVEL RISE/COASTAL STORMS/EROSION Nature of the Hazard These three hazards were mapped and profiled as a group because many of the factors and risks involved are similar and limited to the coastal areas. Rising and falling water levels, breaking waves, and shifting sands are common to life along the coast. These normal coastal features become hazardous when they strengthen in intensity — usually during a storm event — and pose an immediate threat to the lives and livelihoods of coastal populations.118F118F118F 124 These coastal storms can cause increases in tidal elevations (called storm surge), wind speed, and erosion. The most dangerous and damaging feature of a coastal storm is storm surge. Storm surges are large waves of ocean water that sweep across coastlines where a storm makes landfall. Storm surges can inundate coastal areas, wash out dunes, and cause backwater flooding. If a storm surge occurs at the same time as high tide, the water height will be even greater. 124 https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_coastal-glossary.pdf SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 128 Sea Level Rise is an increase in sea level caused by a change in the volume of the world’s oceans and changes in local ground elevations. Sea level rise leads to increased frequency and depth of flooding in coastal areas.119F119F119F 125 With up to two feet of sea level rise projected by 2050, low-lying areas could become inundated more frequently and with increasingly higher water levels. In addition, storm related flooding may reach further inland and occur more often120F120F120F 126. Beaches and cliffs could also see increased erosion as they are exposed to more hours of high sea levels and wave action.121F121F121F 127 The NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer allows for planers to predict the impact of sea level rise over the next several decades. It can be found at https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/. According to the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy for the San Diego Bay, the sectors that are most vulnerable to sea level rise are storm water, wastewater, shoreline parks, transportation facilities, commercial buildings, and ecosystems. Low-lying communities, such as Imperial Beach, Coronado, Mission Beach, and parts of La Jolla Shores, Del Mar, and Oceanside may be particularly vulnerable to sea level rise.122F122F122F 128 In addition, some of San Diego’s military installations and the region controlled by the Port of San Diego may also be affected.123F123F123F 129 However, sea level rise is considered (on a scale of low, medium, high, very high) a low hazard for the region. Coastal erosion is the wearing of coastal land. It is commonly used to describe the horizontal retreat of the shoreline along the ocean and is considered a function of larger processes of shoreline change, which include erosion and accretion. Erosion results when more sediment is lost along a particular shoreline than is deposited by the water body and is measured as a rate with respect to either a linear retreat or volumetric loss. Erosion rates are not uniform and vary over time at any single location. Various locations along the Coast of San Diego County are highly susceptible to erosion. Erosion prevention and repair measures such as installation of seawalls and reinforcement of cliffs have been required in different locations along the San Diego coast in the past. The risk/probability of coastal erosion in San Diego County is considered “Likely”. Disaster History Since 2000, sea level has been increasing as the wind systems relaxed once again (Bromirski et al., 2011, 2012; Hamlington et al., 2016). For the San Diego region, sea-level rise models project similar ranges in elevated sea-levels until 2050 (approximately 0.6 to 1.3 feet). In the second half of the century, sea-level rise is expected to accelerate significantly, but there is greater uncertainty as to how extreme this rise will be at the end of the century (0.9 to 4 feet) with the possibility that it is much higher (Griggs et al., 2017). This is related to unknown global greenhouse gas emission reductions and uncertainties about how rapid ocean warming will impact ice sheet melting (Griggs et al., 2017; Kalansky et al., 2018). In January and February 1983, the strongest-ever El Nino-driven coastal storms caused over 116 million dollars in beach and coastal damage. Thirty-three homes were destroyed, and 3,900 homes and businesses were damaged. Other coastal storms that caused notable damage were during the El Nino winters of 1977- 1978 and 1997-1998 and 2003-2004. Other Proclamations occurred in December 2010. July 2015, and February 2017. The City of San Diego proclaimed for winter storms in 2013. Coastal erosion is an ongoing process that is difficult to measure but can be seen currently in various areas along the coastline of San Diego County. Unstable cliffs at Beacon’s Beach in Encinitas caused a landslide that killed a woman sitting on the beach in January 2000. In 1942, the Self-Realization Fellowship building fell into the ocean because of erosion and slope failure caused by groundwater oversaturated the cliffs it was built on. 125 https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_coastal-glossary.pdf 126 San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation 127 Ibid. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 129 Two rounds of large long period northwest swell arrived at the beaches between the 16th and 20th of January 2018. This brought high surf to west and northwest facing beaches with peak sets occurring in southern San Diego County. Significant beach erosion was reported along with isolated coastal flooding. A year later in January of 2019, high tides and surf brought large waves and coastal flooding to Southern California. Areas of the San Diego County coastline observed sets as high as 15 feet and significant coastal flooding due to the King Tides. There were many water rescues due to the high surf and rip currents, and extensive damage to the Ocean Beach Pier in San Diego County. Southern California watched as Baja California prepared for the Category 2 force winds and storm surge of Hurricane Kay in September 2022. The storm weakened and made landfall in San Diego as a Tropical Storm producing 5.6 inches of rain in the San Diego Mountains and wind gusts registering up to 109 mph. Although no major damage was seen locally other than fallen trees, the tropical storm caused severe debris flows in San Bernardino County causing a Proclaimed Local Emergency and the loss of life. The storm also caused over $13 million in railroad damages along the coast in Orange County. Hazard Impacts Tens of millions of people in the U.S. and hundreds of millions globally live in areas that are at risk of coastal flooding. Sea level rise does not act alone — rising sea levels, along with sinking lands, will combine with other coastal flood factors like storm surge, wave effects, river flows, and heavy rains to significantly increase the exposure to coastal communities, ecosystems, and economies. Sea level rise potentially threatens infrastructure necessary for local jobs, regional industries, and public safety, such as roads, subways, drinking water supplies, power plants, oil and gas wells, and sewage treatment systems. Long-term sea level rise will affect the extent, frequency, and duration of coastal flooding events. High-tide flooding events that occur only a few times a year now may occur once a month, or once a week in the coming decades. These same water level changes may also increase coastal erosion and groundwater levels. Elevated groundwater levels can lead to increased rainfall runoff and compromised underground infrastructure, such as public utilities, septic systems, and structural foundations. Higher water levels also mean deadly and destructive storm surges, wave impacts, and rainwater are unable to drain away from homes and businesses. Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude The figures in the next, “Tsunami” section display the locations and extent of tsunami, coastal storm, erosion, and sea level rise hazard areas for the County of San Diego. These hazards were mapped together due to Vulnerability Assessment results and subject matter expert feedback. As shown in those figures, the highest risk zones in San Diego County are located within the coastal zone of San Diego County. Coastal storm hazards are most likely during El Nino events. Maximum wind speeds along the coast are not expected to exceed 60 miles per hour, resulting in only minor wind-speed related damage. Coastal erosion risk is highest where geologically unstable cliffs become over- saturated by irrigation or rainwater. The greatest type of tsunami risk is material damage to small watercraft, harbors, and some waterfront structures (Joy 1968), with flooding along the coast, as shown in the run-up projections on the figure below. The risk of damage from sea level rise is considered somewhat “Likely” with the risk of damage from coastal erosion considered to be “Likely” and tsunami “Highly Likely”. Data used to profile this group of hazards included the digitized flood zones from the FEMA FIRM Flood maps, NOAA historical shoreline data, and Caltrans’ coastal zone boundary for the coastal storm/erosion hazard. Maximum tsunami run up projections modeled by the University of Southern California and distributed by the California Office of Emergency Services were used for identifying tsunami hazard. The tsunami model was the result of a combination of inundation modeling and onsite surveys and shows maximum projected inundation levels from tsunamis along the entire coast of San Diego County. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 130 NOAA historical tsunami effects data were also used, which showed locations where tsunami effects have been felt, and when available, details describing size and location of earthquakes that caused the tsunamis. The Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region Volumes I and II (SANDAG, 1992) were reviewed for the shoreline erosion category. This publication shows erosion risk levels of high, moderate, and low for the entire coastline of San Diego County. For modeling purposes, the VE Zone of the FEMA FIRM map series was used as the high hazard value for coastal storms and coastal erosion. The VE Zone is defined by FEMA as the coastal area subject to a velocity hazard (wave action). Coastal storm and erosion risk were determined to be high if areas were found within the VE zone of the FEMA FIRM maps. Tsunami hazard risk levels were determined to be high if an area was within the maximum projected tsunami run-up and inundation area. According to NOAA’s 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report, sea-level is predicted to rise 4-8 inches by 2030 on the West coast, which includes the San Diego County. While sea-level rise has a high certainty rating and is already occurring, its onset is not expected to occur until closer to the end of the century in terms of changes in areas already vulnerable to flooding or causing permanent inundation in tidally influenced areas of San Diego County. The probability of these hazards occurring is “Likely”, meaning 10 to 90 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years. Climate Change Considerations The coast is an important part of San Diego’s landscape, culture, and economy. It is also one of the more vulnerable landscapes in San Diego as many of its beaches, cliffs, and estuaries are already experiencing erosion and flooding, and these hazards are expected to accelerate in frequency and intensity with climate change. Over the last century sea level has risen about 0.6 ft over much of the Central and Southern California coast. Global sea level provides an important indicator of the state of the warming climate, but regional sea- level rise varies across coastal communities because processes that cause sea-level rise interact differently and vary across coastal regions (Hamlington et al., 2020). Between 1980 and 2000, sea level along San Diego was relatively stable, even decreasing slightly as stronger wind stress gradients over the eastern Pacific suppressed the global rise along North America. Since 2000, sea level has been increasing as the wind systems relaxed once again (Bromirski et al., 2011, 2012; Hamlington et al., 2016). For the San Diego region, sea-level rise models project similar ranges in elevated sea-levels until 2050 (approximately 0.6 to 1.3 feet). In the second half of the century, sea-level rise is expected to accelerate significantly, but there is greater uncertainty as to how extreme this rise will be at the end of the century (0.9 to 4 feet) with the possibility that it is much higher (Griggs et al., 2017). This is related to unknown global greenhouse gas emission reductions and uncertainties about how rapid ocean warming will impact ice sheet melting (Griggs et al., 2017; Kalansky et al., 2018). Given the increased rate of sea level rise, in the near term the greatest impacts from sea level rise are mostly likely to occur during events that combine high tides, El Nino and both locally and distantly generated wind-driven waves. For example, the generally elevated sea levels along the California coast during the super El Nino of 1982-83 were heightened by large winter storms and high waves during high tide periods, causing enormous coastal damage along the San Diego County shoreline (Flick, 1998). Cliff erosion is a natural coastal process for much of northern San Diego County. In San Diego, between 1998 and 2009 the mean cliff top retreat was 0.46 ft/yr (Young, 2018). San Onofre State Beach is a cliff erosion hot spot in San Diego County due to extensive deep-seated landslide (Adam P Young, 2015). Other areas in north San Diego County, such as Encinitas and Del Mar, have also experienced a number of significant cliff failures in recent years. Researchers are advancing understanding of how wave-cliff impacts and rainfall contribute to both upper and lower coastal cliff erosion providing insight into how increasing sea levels, and storm driven waves and rainfall may further accelerate this erosion (Young et al., 2021) SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 131 5.2.11. TSUNAMI Nature of the Hazard A tsunami is a series of long waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of a large volume of water. Underwater earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, meteoric impacts, or onshore slope failures can cause this displacement. Tsunami waves can travel at speeds averaging 450 to 600 miles per hour. As a tsunami nears the coastline, its speed diminishes, its wavelength decreases, and its height increases greatly. After a major earthquake or other tsunami-inducing activity occurs, a tsunami could reach the shore within a few minutes. One coastal community may experience no damaging waves while another may experience very destructive waves. Some low-lying areas could experience severe inland inundation of water and deposition of debris more than 3,000 feet inland. Historically the impact of Tsunamis on the San Diego coastline has been low, but inundation maps developed by the California Office of Emergency Services and the California Geologic Survey show the potential for moderate damage along low-lying areas. The California Geologic Survey has developed Tsunami Inundation maps that can be found at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps. Disaster History Wave heights and run-up elevations from tsunami along the San Diego Coast have historically fallen within the normal range of the tides (Joy 1968). The largest tsunami effect recorded in San Diego since 1950 was May 22, 1960, which had a maximum wave height 2.1 feet (NOAA, 1993). In this event, 80 meters of dock were destroyed, and a barge sunk in Quivera Basin. Other tsunamis felt in San Diego County occurred on November 5, 1952, with a wave height of 2.3 feet and caused by an earthquake in Kamchatka; March 9, 1957, with a wave height of 1.5 feet; May 22, 1960, at 2.1 feet; March 27, 1964 with a wave height of 3.7 feet, February 2010 with a wave height of 0.6 meters; June, 2011 with wave height of 2 feet; and January 15, 2022 with a wave height of 1-3 feet.125F125F125F 130 It should be noted that damage does not necessarily occur in direct relationship to wave height, illustrated by the fact that the damages caused by the 2.1-foot wave height in 1960 were worse than damages caused by several other tsunamis with higher wave heights. The California Tsunami Program, led by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the California Geological Survey (CGS), is responsible for updating the State’s Tsunami Hazard Area Maps for emergency response planning and public safety. Communities use the State tsunami maps to develop and update their evacuation maps and plans. The State is constantly evaluating tsunami events, sources, and analysis techniques to ensure that coastal communities are safe from tsunami hazards. The State has updated previous 2009 Tsunami Inundation Maps by working with local emergency management officials and Cal OES. Each County provides important considerations to CGS’ decision on the inland boundaries of the Tsunami Hazard Area. The State tsunami website (www.tsunami.ca.gov), includes new Tsunami Hazard Area maps/data available to view and download using easy-to-use, interactive web applications. Find a location by typing in an address or use a current location to pinpoint the location on the Tsunami Hazard Map. This is useful to find out if you are in a Tsunami Hazard Area wherever you live, work, or visit. As local tsunami evacuation brochures are developed, they will also be added to the online map interface.126F126F126F 131 Hazard Impacts Tsunamis are a threat to life and property along the coast. From 1950 to 2007, 478 tsunamis were recorded globally. Fifty-one of these events caused fatalities, to a total of over 308,000 coastal residents. The 130 https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazel/view/hazards/tsunami/runup-more-info/36305. 131 California Tsunami Program, “Tsunami Hazard Area Maps Talking Points.” 2022. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 132 overwhelming majority of these events occurred in the Pacific basin. Recent tsunamis have struck Nicaragua, Indonesia, and Japan, killing several thousand people. Property damage due to these waves was nearly $1 billion. Historically, tsunamis originating in the northern Pacific and along the west coast of South America have caused more damage on the west coast of the United States than tsunamis originating in Japan and the Southwest Pacific. It is consensus that San Diego County could see moderate impacts from a tsunami originating in the Pacific Ocean, specifically a far source originating in the Aleutian Islands. However, a near source tsunami event originating from an offshore displacement of geological material, earthquake or underwater landslide can occur any time. The resulting floodwater waves can carry damaging debris and inundate homes, businesses, and government buildings in the coastal cities such as the cities of San Diego, National City, Carlsbad, and the various beach communities. Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude The figures below display the locations and extent of tsunami, coastal storm, erosion and sea level rise hazard areas for the County of San Diego. As shown in these figures, the highest risk zones in San Diego County are located within the coastal zone of San Diego County. Coastal storm hazards are most likely during El Nino events: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 133 FIGURE 8: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY COASTAL STORM/EROSION/TSUNAMI HAZARD AREAS (1 OF 5) SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 134 Figure 9: Map of San Diego County Sea Level Rise Hazard Areas (1 Of 5) SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 135 FIGURE 10: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY COASTAL STORM/EROSION/TSUNAMI HAZARD AREAS (2 OF 5) SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 136 Figure 11: Map of San Diego County Sea Level Rise Hazard Areas (2 of 5) SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 137 FIGURE 12: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY COASTAL STORM/EROSION/TSUNAMI HAZARD AREAS (3 OF 5) SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 138 Figure 13: Map of San Diego County Sea Level Rise Hazard Areas (3 of 5) SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 139 FIGURE 14: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY COASTAL STORM/EROSION/TSUNAMI HAZARD AREAS (4 OF 5) SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 140 FIGURE 15: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY SEA LEVEL RISE HAZARD AREAS (4 OF 5) SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 141 FIGURE 3: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY COASTAL STORM/EROSION/TSUNAMI HAZARD AREAS (5 OF 5) SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 142 FIGURE 17: MAP OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY SEA LEVEL RISE HAZARD AREAS (5 OF 5) SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 143 Data used to profile this group of hazards included the digitized flood zones from the FEMA FIRM Flood maps, NOAA historical shoreline data, and Caltrans’ coastal zone boundary for the coastal storm/erosion hazard. Maximum tsunami run up projections modeled by the University of Southern California and distributed by the California Office of Emergency Services were used for identifying tsunami hazard. The tsunami model was the result of a combination of inundation modeling and onsite surveys and shows maximum projected inundation levels from tsunamis along the entire coast of San Diego County. NOAA historical tsunami effects data were also used, which showed locations where tsunami effects have been felt, and when available, details describing size and location of earthquakes that caused the tsunamis. The Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region Volumes I and II (SANDAG, 1992) were reviewed for the shoreline erosion category. This publication shows erosion risk levels of high, moderate, and low for the entire coastline of San Diego County. For modeling purposes, the VE Zone of the FEMA FIRM map series was used as the high hazard value for coastal storms and coastal erosion. The VE Zone is defined by FEMA as the coastal area subject to a velocity hazard (wave action). Coastal storm and erosion risk were determined to be high if areas were found within the VE zone of the FEMA FIRM maps. Tsunami hazard risk levels were determined to be high if an area was within the maximum projected tsunami run-up and inundation area. According to University of Southern California engineers, the “likelihood of a large tsunami to strike California would be hard to predict… small tsunamis will swell into California [which includes San Diego County] every few years.”127F127F127F 132 128F128F 133 In addition, Cal OES and CGS are preparing a new type of tsunami hazard map, the probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis map, which will show potential tsunami events that have a 1000-year average return occurrence. The probability of this hazard occurrence is “Unlikely”, meaning less than 1 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years. However, HAZUS Data Evaluations, Vulnerability Assessments, Hazard Seminar Series, and input from Subject Matter Experts and the public determined this hazard’s Overall Significance rating is “Medium”, meaning the criteria falls mostly in the middle ranges of classifications and the event’s impacts on the planning area are noticeable but not devastating. 5.2.12. WILDFIRE/STRUCTURE FIRE Nature of Hazard A structure fire hazard is one where there is a risk of a fire starting in an urban setting and spreading uncontrollably from one building to another across several city blocks, or within high-rise buildings. A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels and exposing or possibly consuming structures. They often begin unnoticed and spread quickly. Naturally occurring and non-native species of grasses, brush, and trees fuel wildfires. A wildfire is in a wildland area in which development is essentially nonexistent—except for roads, railroads, power lines and similar facilities. An Urban-Wildland/Urban Interface fire is a wildfire in a geographical area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with wildland or vegetative fuels. Significant development in San Diego County is located along canyon ridges at the wildland/urban interface. Areas that have experienced prolonged droughts or are excessively dry are at risk of wildfires. People start more than 80 percent of wildfires, usually as debris burns, arson, or carelessness. Lightning strikes are the next leading cause of wildfires. Wildfire behavior is based on three primary factors: fuel, topography, and weather. The type, and amount of fuel, as well as its burning qualities and level of moisture affect wildfire potential and behavior. 132 https://news.usc.edu/6031/A-Tsunami-50-Feet-High-Could-Hit-Southern-California/ 133 https://news.usc.edu/6031/A-Tsunami-50-Feet-High-Could-Hit-Southern-California/ SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 144 The continuity of fuels, expressed in both horizontal and vertical components is also a determinant of wildfire potential and behavior. Topography is important because it affects the movement of air (and thus the fire) over the ground surface. The slope and shape of terrain can change the speed at which the fire travels, and the ability of firefighters to reach and extinguish the fire. Weather affects the probability of wildfire and has a significant effect on its behavior. Temperature, humidity, and wind (both short and long term) affect the severity and duration of wildfires. San Diego County’s topography consists of a semi-arid coastal plain and rolling highlands which, when fueled by shrub overgrowth, occasional Santa Ana winds and high temperatures, creates an ever-present threat of wildland fire. Extreme weather conditions such as high temperature, low humidity, and/or winds of extraordinary force may cause an ordinary fire to expand into one of massive proportions. Large fires would have several indirect effects beyond those that a smaller, more localized fire would create. These may include air quality and health issues, road closures, business closures, and others that increase the potential losses that can occur from this hazard. Modeling for a larger type of fire would be difficult, but the consequences of the three largest San Diego fires this century (October, 2003, October 2007 and May 2014) should be used as a guide for fire planning and mitigation. Disaster History San Diego County’s third worst wildfire in history, known as the Laguna Fire, destroyed thousands of acres in the backcountry in September of 1970. The fire resulted in the loss or destruction of 383 homes and 1,200 other structures. In October 2003, the second-worse wild-land fire in the history of San Diego County destroyed 332,766 acres of land, 3,239 structures and 17 deaths at a cost of approximately $450M. San Diego County’s worst wildfire occurred in October 2007. At the height of the firestorm there were seven fires burning within the County. The fires destroyed 369,000 acres (13% of the County), 2,670 structures, 239 vehicles, and two commercial properties. There were 10 civilian deaths, 23 civilian injuries and 10 firefighter injuries. The cost of fire exceeded $1.5 billion. Wildland fires prompted seven (7) Proclaimed States of Emergency, and Urban/Intermix Fires prompted four (4) Proclaimed States of Emergency in the County of San Diego between 1950-2020. The table below lists the most recent major wildfires in San Diego County. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 145 TABLE 19: MAJOR WILDFIRES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY LARGER THAN 5,000 ACRES OR RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE LOSS Fire Date Acres Burned Structures Destroyed Structures Damaged Deaths Conejos Fire July 1950 62,000 Not Available Not Available 0 Laguna Fire October 1970 190,000 382 Not Available 5 Harmony Fire (Carlsbad, Elfin Forest, San Marcos) October 1996 8,600 122 142 1 Viejas Fire January 2001 10,353 23 6 0 Gavilan Fire (Fallbrook) February 2002 6,000 43 13 0 Pines Fire (Julian, Ranchita) July 2002 61,690 45 121 0 Cedar Fire October 2003 280,278 5,171 63 14 Paradise Fire October 2003 57,000 415 15 2 Otay Fire October 2003 46,291 6 0 0 Roblar (Pendleton) October 2003 8,592 0 0 0 Mataguay Fire* July 2004 8,867 2 0 0 Horse Fire* July 2006 16,681 Not Available Not Available 0 Witch Creek Fire* October 2007 197,990 1,125 77 2 Harris Fire* October 2007 90,440 255 12 5 Poomacha Fire* October 2007 49,410 139 Not Available 0 Ammo Fire* October 2007 21,004 Not Available Not Available 0 Rice Fire* October 2007 9,472 208 Not Available 0 May 2014 San Diego County Wildfires May 2014 26,000 65 19 0 Border Fire June 2016 7,609 18 4 2 Lilac Fire December 2017 4,100 157 64 0 West Fire July 2018 504 48 Not Available 0 Valley Fire September 2020 16,390 66 Not Available 0 Southern Fire May 2021 5,366 5 Not Available 0 Border 32 Fire September 2022 4,456 14 Not Available 0 * Information gathered from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection website SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 146 As of 12/31/2022 there have been no additional significant wildfire events in the planning area. Hazard Impacts Hazard impacts can include but are not limited to increased flooding risk over burn scar areas, environmental impacts/damage, air quality impacts, loss of resources such as utilities, asset/structure damage and/or total loss, injury, and death. Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude The wildfire maps use the CAL Fire Resource Assessment Program data for Fire Hazard Severity Zones. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 147 FIGURE 18: CAL FIRE FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES (HIGH AND VERY HIGH) SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 148 Under current climate conditions, the wildfire threat to property, lives, and ecosystems in the San Diego region is very high. With hotter temperatures and possibly fewer rainy days in the coming decades, vegetation could become drier. As a result, it is likely that San Diego region will see an increase in the frequency and intensity of fires, making the region more vulnerable to devastating fires like the ones seen in 2003 and 2007.128F129F129F 134 The fire season could also become longer and less predictable, making firefighting efforts more costly.129F130F130F 135 Building density is also a factor in potential building loss during a wildfire. A recent study in the Ecological Society of America’s publication Ecological Applications130F131F131F 136 indicates that the area of the building clusters, the number of buildings in the cluster and building dispersion all contribute to the potential for building loss. While all three factors had a positive influence on the number of structures lost, larger building structures were most strongly associated with building loss. The most likely reason being that more buildings are exposed. Two other top factors were the number of buildings in the cluster and the distance to the nearest building. In the Mediterranean California model the closer the buildings were to each other the less likely they were to be affected. An increase in wildfire also impacts public health. Fire-related injuries and death are likely to increase as wildfires occur more frequently.131F132F132F 137 Wildfires can also be a significant contributor to air pollution. Wildfire smoke contains numerous toxic and hazardous pollutants that are dangerous to breath and can worsen lung disease and other respiratory conditions.132F133F133F 138 From May to October of each year, San Diego County faces a severe wildfire threat. Fires will continue to occur on an almost annual basis in the San Diego County Area. The threat of wildfire and potential losses consistently increase as human development and population increase in the wildland urban interface area in the County. According to the Cal Fire Redbook, there have been 1,113 wildfires recorded for San Diego County between 2015 and 2021. Based on climate and weather in San Diego County and the fuels, topography, past fire history, and the Cal Fire Redbook which indicates an average of 159 wildfires per year, the probability of future wildfire events are considered “Highly Likely”. 5.2.13. SEVERE WINTER WEATHER Nature of Hazard According to the National Weather Service (NWS), a winter storm is a life-threatening combination of heavy snow, blowing snow and/or dangerous wind chills. However, most severe winter storms in the County of San Diego consist of heavy rain events, sometimes accompanied by thunderstorms, high winds, dense fog, hail, and freeze events. Heavy rain refers to events where the amount of rain exceeds normal levels. The amount of precipitation needed to qualify as heavy rain varies with location and season. The County of San Diego’s weather is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and routine climate patterns such as El Niño. El Niño is the warm phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation cycle, a pattern found in the tropical Pacific when there are fluctuations in temperatures between the ocean and atmosphere. During El Niño, the surface winds across the entire tropical Pacific are weaker than normal and the ocean surface is at above- average temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. El Niño typically develops over North America during the winter season causing the severe winter storms experienced by the County. This 134 San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation. 135 Ibid. 136 Alexander, Patricia M., et. al. (2016). Factors related to Building Loss Due to Wildfires in the Conterminous United States. Ecological Applications, 0(0), 1-16. 137 Ibid. 138 Ibid. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 149 climate pattern occurs every few years and brings with it above-average rain and snow across the southern region of United States, especially in California. A relatively common weather pattern that brings southwest winds and heavy rain to California is often referred to as an atmospheric river. Atmospheric rivers are long, narrow regions in the atmosphere that transport most of the water vapor carried away from the tropics. These columns of vapor move with the weather, carrying large amounts of water vapor and strong winds. When the atmospheric rivers make landfall, they often release this water vapor in the form of rain or snow, causing flooding and mudslides Extreme cold often accompanies a winter storm or is left in its wake. A freeze refers to a particularly cold spell of weather where the temperature drops below 32 degrees, most typically in the early morning hours. Rainfall during these periods may result in snowfall in the higher elevations of the County. Prolonged exposure to cold can be life-threatening, particularly to infants and the elderly. Freezing temperatures can cause significant damage to the agricultural industry. Disaster History A review of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Storm Events Database show one extreme cold/wind chill event, two winter storm events, and three winter weather events were reported for San Diego County from October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2022. The following narrative from the NCEI and other sources summarizes each event: January 20, 2018 - A weak trough and associate cold front brought light showers and breezy winds. A light coating of snow caused issues in the mountains. A quick burst of snow produced snow covered roads in Cuyamaca, at Mt. Laguna and along Sunrise Hwy and State Route 79. February 5, 2019 - A cold front moved through Southern California and brought widespread rain, a few inches of snow, and frost to the region. Total rainfall amounts ranged from 1 to 2 inches, locally 4 inches in the San Diego County Mountains. Hourly rainfall thresholds for the Holy burn scar were exceeded in a couple of canyons, with the highest threshold of 0.71 per hour in Horsethief Canyon. Widespread frost occurred on February 7th, and reached the coastal areas of San Diego and Orange Counties. Icy roads on I-8 resulted in traffic accidents and two fatalities. February 22, 2019 - A cold upper-level low moved into Southern California on February 21st and brought heavy snow, rain and hail. Julian received 8-12 inches of snow. Snow levels went down went down to 2,000 ft in the San Diego County Mountains. Reports of small hail in the coastal and valley areas. Intestate 8 was closed for 12 hours due to snow covered and icy roads. March 10, 2019 - A weak atmospheric river moved over Southern California between March 6-11, bringing light to moderate rain, significant lightning and snow between 5,000 and 7,000 ft. Significant lightning from warm frontal lift and instability occurred throughout most of the region, with 500 cloud flashes and 330 cloud-to-ground strikes. Palomar Mountain received 3 inches of snow. November 7, 2020 - An upper-level trough brought notable lower elevation rain and mountain snow across Southern California from November 7th - 9th. The cold nature of the system also brought chilly temperatures to the region, especially in areas of the High Desert. Portions of the mountains in San Diego County received significant snowfall. Mount Laguna measured a total of 7 inches, while Palomar Mountain measured 4 inches of snow. February 23, 2022 - A potent trough of low pressure from the Pacific brought cold weather across the region. The region also saw some lower elevation snowfall with higher elevations receiving over one foot of snow. Record cold temperatures and highway closures were the main impacts as this system swept through the region from February 21st to 23rd. Many areas saw temperatures lowering into the 20s and 30s. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 150 Julian dropped to 18 degrees on the 24th and Lake Cuyamaca broke a daily record low of 12 degrees on the 25th. The Storm Events Database collects information on each event from a variety of sources, including but not limited to, county, state, and federal emergency management officials, newspaper clipping services, and the insurance industry. A review of the Storm Events Database for events in San Diego County also showed 212 records related to heavy snow, heavy rain, frost/freeze, and high wind. The following table summarizes the events recorded in the NCEI database. TABLE 20: NCEI SEVERE WINTER WEATHER EVENTS REPORTED FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY, OCTOBER 1, 2017 – DECEMBER 31, 2022 Event Type Location # of Events Property Damage ($) Deaths Heavy Snow San Diego County Mountains 13 $100,000 0 San Diego County Valleys 1 0 0 Heavy Rain San Diego County 68 0 0 Frost/Freeze San Diego County Valleys 5 0 0 San Diego County Deserts 1 0 0 San Diego County Coastal Areas 1 0 0 High Wind San Diego County Mountains 97 $31,000 0 San Diego County Valleys 19 $30,000 0 San Diego County Deserts 5 0 0 San Diego County Coastal Areas 2 0 0 Total 212 $161,000 0 Source: NCEI, Storm Events Database SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 151 Hazard Impacts The most common problems associated with severe winter storms are immobility and loss of utilities. Fatalities are uncommon but can occur. Roads may become impassable due to flooding, downed trees, or a landslide. Power lines may be downed due to high winds, and services such as water or phone may not be able to operate without power. Heavy rain can have significant impacts, including flash flooding and landslides. Stormwater runoff from heavy rains can also impair water quality by washing pollutants into water bodies. During winter storms, transboundary flows of raw sewage and urban runoff increase at the Tijuana River along the U.S-Mexico border, which results in beach advisories and closures along San Diego’s coastal beaches due to unsafe bacteria levels that may cause illnesses. Late or early freeze events can have a devastating effect on agriculture of the region. Crops can be damaged by below-freezing temperatures. Prolonged exposure to cold can cause frostbite or hypothermia and can be life-threatening. Infants and the elderly are most susceptible. Of significant concern is the impact to populations with special needs and those requiring the use of medical equipment. The residents of nursing homes and elder care facilities are especially vulnerable to extreme temperature events. In addition to vulnerable populations, pets and livestock are at risk to freeze and cold. Pipes may freeze and burst in homes or buildings that are poorly insulated or without heat. Location & Extent/Probability of Occurrence & Magnitude A marked feature of San Diego’s climate is the wide variation in temperature within short distances. In nearby valleys, nights are noticeably cooler in the winter, and freezing occurs much more frequently compared to urban areas of the County. Although records show unusually small daily temperature ranges, only about 15 degrees between the highest and lowest readings, a few miles inland these ranges increase to 30 degrees or more. The seasonal rainfall is about 10 inches in coastal areas but increases with elevation and distance from the coast. In the mountains to the north and east, the average rainfall is between 20 and 40 inches, depending on slope and elevation. Most of the precipitation falls in winter, except in the mountains where there is an occasional thunderstorm. Eighty-five percent of the rainfall occurs from November through March, but wide variations take place in monthly and seasonal totals. Due to the County of San Diego’s history of severe winter weather events, severe winter weather in the County of San Diego is “Highly Likely” to continue to occur, meaning 90 to 100 percent probability of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 1 to 10 years. According to the NCEI Weather Database, there have been 14 heavy snow events, 68 heavy rain events, 7 frost freeze events, and 123 high wind events, which total up to 212 severe winter weather events in the County of San Diego’s Valleys, Deserts, and Coastal Areas between October 1, 2017 and December 31, 2022. This means there is a 11% chance on any given day of a severe winter weather event occurring over the course of a year. Climate Change Considerations Severe winter weather events are going to become more extreme regarding climate change effects. These events are primarily atmospheric rivers and will become more so in the future based on global climate models (Gershunov et al., 2019). The highest priority mitigation actions to reduce climate change impacts on this hazard should include preparation, with strong attention to weather forecasts and available social services, infrastructure (e.g., Warming Centers), and programs to support installation of backup power supplies to address power failure during times of extreme cold and freeze. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 152 5.2.14. ALL-HAZARD EVACUATIONS Evacuation is a process by which people must move from a place where there is immediate or anticipated danger, to a place of safety, and offered appropriate and accessible temporary shelter facilities. A decision to evacuate areas will be made through Unified Command. Law enforcement agencies are the primary lead for evacuation activities, with other agencies playing supporting roles. The overarching goal of evacuation planning in San Diego County is to maximize the preservation of life while reducing the number of people that must evacuate and the distance they must travel to seek refuge. The County of San Diego Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan’s (OA EOP’s) Annex Q (Evacuation Annex) is written in coordination with this plan, and describes how emergency personnel will cooperate, decide, and implement responses to a disaster that requires an evacuation of people and their pets. The OA EOP Evacuation Annex aims to lessen the impact a large-scale evacuation can have on the host communities by providing estimates for the number of people who may require sheltering or transportation assistance and the estimated number of pets that may need to be evacuated.133F134F134F 139 Legal Considerations It is important to note evacuation strategies, routes, and locations may vary due to the type, severity, movement, and other unique features of a hazard. For example, the maps below can be used to evacuate during a Tsunami hazard: 139 San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 153 FIGURE 19: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, TSUNAMI EVACUATION MAP 1 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 154 FIGURE 20: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, TSUNAMI EVACUATION MAP 2 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 155 The EOP Evacuation Annex provides hazard specific considerations, general evacuation transportation routes and capacities, evacuation resources available locally and through mutual aid, and disability and access and functional needs considerations. 134F135F135F 140 Evacuation orders should be issued when there is a clear and immediate threat to the health and safety of the population, and it is determined that evacuation is the best option for protection. The State of California, San Diego County, and the jurisdictions within, through the Unified Disaster Council, have agreed to use the language below, as described in FireScope, to communicate evacuations: Evacuation Warning: The alerting of people in an affected area(s) of potential threat to life and property. An Evacuation Warning considers the probability that an area will be affected within a given time frame and prepares people for a potential evacuation order. Evacuation Warnings are particularly necessary when dealing with a variety of issues such as special needs populations and large animals. Evacuation Order: Requires the immediate movement of people out of an affected area due to an imminent threat to life. Shelter-In-Place: Advises people to stay secure at their current location. This tactic shall only be used if an evacuation will cause a higher potential for loss of life. Consideration should be given to assigning incident personnel to monitor the safety of those remaining in place. The concept of shelter-in-place is an available option in those instances where physical evacuation is impractical. This procedure may be effective for residential dwellings in the immediately impacted areas, or for large facilities that house a high percentage of non-ambulatory persons (e.g., hospitals and convalescent homes). Sheltering-in-place attempts to provide a safe haven within the impacted area. In 2005, the Chief Legal Counsel for the San Diego Sheriff’s Department maintained an opinion based on case law that Penal Code Section 409.5 does not authorize forcible or mandatory evacuations. The Chief Legal Counsel stated, “without a specific legislative amendment to Penal Code Section 409.5, it would be improper to infer statutory authority to forcibly evacuate people who do not wish to be evacuated, unless their presence in the closed area, resulted from an entry made after the area was closed pursuant to 409.5(a) or 409.5(b).” See Attachment 4 for Penal Code 409.5. Emergency responders shall make every effort to inform people that failure to evacuate may result in serious physical injury or death and that future opportunities to evacuate may not exist. Law enforcement will document the location of individuals that refuse to evacuate. Once, Unified Command orders an evacuation, it is critical that public information dissemination, sheltering resources, and security and protection of private property are provided to a level where the public feels evacuation is more desirable than staying behind. This plan specifically provides a condensed version of potential evacuation routes and temporary evacuation locations to be used under a range of emergency scenarios. However, during a true hazard, please be advised Unified Command and law enforcement instructions are subject to change depending on hazard types and conditions. 140 San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 156 Evacuation Routes: Evacuations that must be conducted during the standard working commuting hours will severely impact evacuation routes. If possible, alternate routes should be used or contraflow methods should be explored. The following maps show the major highways within the San Diego OA and the most congested segments of those highways during the morning and evening commutes. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 157 FIGURE 21: SAN DIEGO COUNTY 2021 TOP 10 MORNING CONGESTED SEGMENTS SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 158 FIGURE 22: SAN DIEGO COUNTY 2021 TOP 10 AFTERNOON CONGESTED SEGMENTS SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 159 Temporary Evacuation Points & Sheltering When law enforcement implements an evacuation order, they will coordinate with the Unified Command to decide on a location to use as a Temporary Evacuation Point (TEP). A TEP is a site with limited resources and staffing, as its primary purpose is to provide evacuees with a safe and protected place to congregate temporarily until people can return home or relocate to another facility. TEP location choices are situationally dependent, but can be places like a school, community center, or church. The Operational Area Emergency Operations Center (OA EOC), along with the OA EOC Care & Shelter Branch, will coordinate the locations to be used as emergency shelters if necessary. The OA EOC staff may assist, as requested, in the coordination of an evacuation in an incorporated city. The San Diego Sheriff’s Department Dispatch Center, in conjunction with the OA EOC and Joint Information Center (JIC), will utilize the AlertSanDiego system, social media, radio, television, IPAWS, etc. to direct evacuees to the established TEP or shelter. Local jurisdictions all have access to the same alert and warning tools as the OA and should follow their internal protocols for sharing information with the public. TEPs will serve as temporary safe zones for evacuees, but they generally do not provide any services, such as food, water, restrooms, etc. Emergency shelters are opened when at least one overnight stay is necessary. Basic services are provided at emergency shelters, which includes meals, accessible shower facilities, dormitory management, health, and behavioral health services. Some temporary evacuation points may be suitable to be converted into an emergency shelter location, if necessary and available. When overnight sheltering is required, Annex G: Care and Shelter Operations of the County of San Diego Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (OA EOP) will be activated. 135F136F136F 141 5.3. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Vulnerability describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset is, and depends on an asset’s construction, contents, and the economic value of its functions. This vulnerability analysis predicts the extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a given intensity in each area on the existing and future built environment. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. Indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct effects. For example, damage to a major utility line could result in significant inconveniences and business disruption that would far exceed the cost of repairing the utility line. The vulnerability assessment for this plan was conducted by the County of San Diego Land Use and Environment Group’s Geographic Information Systems staff (listed in Section 2). All planning participants were requested by County OES to provide feedback on assessment data and attest to respective jurisdictional accuracy on November 10, 2021 via electronic communication. 5.3.1. ASSET INVENTORY Hazards that occur in San Diego County can impact critical facilities located in the County. A critical facility is defined as a facility in either the public or private sector that provides essential products and services to the public, is otherwise necessary to preserve the welfare and quality of life in the County, or fulfills important public safety, emergency response, and/or disaster recovery functions. 141 Ibid SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 160 The figure in the next subsection shows the critical facilities identified for the County. The critical facilities identified in San Diego County include: • hospitals and other health care facilities • emergency operations facilities • fire stations • police stations • schools • hazardous material sites • transportation systems that include airport facilities, bridges, bus and rail facilities • marinas and port facilities • highways • utility systems that include electric power facilities, natural gas facilities, crude and refined oil facilities, potable and wastewater facilities, and communications facilities and utilities • dams • government office/civic centers, jails, prisons, military facilities, religious facilities, and post offices. GIS, HAZUS-MH, and other modeling tools were used to map the critical facilities in the county and to determine which would most likely be affected by each of the profiled hazards. San Diego County covers 4,261 square miles with several different climate patterns and types of terrain, which allows for several hazards to affect several different parts of the county and several jurisdictions at once or separately.136F137F137F 142 The hazards addressed are described in the previous section. 5.3.2. ESTIMATING POTENTIAL EXPOSURE & LOSSES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS GIS modeling was used to estimate exposure to population, critical facilities, infrastructure, and residential/commercial properties, from: • Coastal storms/erosion • Tsunami • Wildfire/Structure fire • Dam failure • Landslide • Human-caused hazards The specific methods and results of all analyses are presented below. The results are shown as potential exposure in thousands of dollars, and as the worst-case scenario. For infrastructure, which has been identified as highways, railways and energy pipelines, the length of exposure/impact is given in kilometers. Exposure characterizes the value of structures within the hazard zone, and is shown as estimated exposure based on the overlay of the hazard on the critical facilities, infrastructure, and other structures, which are given an assumed cost of replacement for each type of structure exposed. These replacement costs are estimated using a building square footage inventory purchased from Dun and Bradstreet. The square footage information was classified based on Standard Industrial Code (SIC) and provided at a 2002 census-tract resolution. 142 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/auditor/pdf/adoptedplan_21-23.pdf SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 161 The loss or exposure value is then determined with the assumption that the given structure is totally destroyed (worst case scenario), which is not always the case in hazard events. This assumption was valuable in the planning process, so that the total potential damage value was identified when determining capabilities and mitigation measures for each jurisdiction. The table below provides abbreviations and average replacement costs used for critical facilities and infrastructure listed in all subsequent exposure/loss tables. The table provides the total inventory and exposure estimates for the critical facilities and infrastructure by jurisdiction and shows the estimated exposure inventory for infrastructure by jurisdiction. The table also provides an inventory of the maximum population and building exposure by jurisdiction. Loss was also estimated for earthquake and flood hazards in the County, in addition to exposure. Loss is that portion of the exposure that is expected to be lost to a hazard and is estimated by referencing frequency and severity of previous hazards. Hazard risk assessment methodologies embedded in HAZUS, FEMA’s loss estimation software, were applied to earthquake and flood hazards in San Diego County. HAZUS (a loss estimation software) integrates with GIS to provide estimates for the potential impact of earthquake and flood hazards by using a common, systematic framework for evaluation. This software contains economic and structural data on infrastructure and critical facilities, including replacement value costs with square footage and valuation parameters to use in loss estimation assumptions. This approach provides estimates for the potential impact by using a common, systematic framework for evaluation. The HAZUS risk assessment methodology is parametric, in that distinct hazard and inventory parameters (e.g. ground shaking and building types) were modeled to determine the impact (damages and losses) on the built environment. The HAZUS-MH models were used to estimate losses from earthquake and flood hazards to critical facilities, infrastructure, and residential/commercial properties, as well as economic losses on several return period events and annualized levels. Loss estimates used available data, and the methodologies applied resulted in an approximation of risk. The economic loss results are presented as the Annualized Loss (AL) for the earthquake hazard. AL addresses the two key components of risk: the probability of the hazard occurring in the study area and the consequences of the hazard, largely a function of building construction type and quality, and of the intensity of the hazard event. By annualizing estimated exposure values, the AL takes into account historic patterns of frequent smaller events with infrequent but larger events to provide a balanced presentation of the risk. These estimates should be used to understand relative risk from hazards and potential losses. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology, arising in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from approximations and simplifications that are necessary for a comprehensive analysis (such as incomplete inventories, demographics, or economic parameters). SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 162 TABLE 21: ABBREVIATIONS AND COSTS USED FOR CRITICAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE Abr. Name Building Type (where applicable) Average Replacement Cost AIR Airport facilities - large s1l $14,416,100 BRDG Highway Bridges n/a $6,670,000 BUS Bus facilities c1l $1,830,000 COM Communication facilities c1l $4,000,000 ELEC Electric Power facility c1l $875,000,000 EMER Emergency Centers, Fire Stations and Police Stations c1l $3,048,000 GOVT Government Office/Civic Center c1l $3,048,000 HOSP Medical Care facilities s1m $16,629,250 INFR Kilometers of Infrastructure. Includes: Oil/Gas Pipelines (OG) n/a $683,000 Railroad Tracks (RR) n/a $1,500,000 Highway (HWY) n/a $6,668,000 PORT Port facilities c1l 20,000,000 POT Potable and Wastewater facilities c1l $193,611,700 RAIL Rail facilities c1l $3,000,000 SCH Schools rm1l $74,400 / Student SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 163 Jurisdiction Data (x1000) AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Alpine FPD Number 0 37 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 5 48 Exposure 0 246,790 0 0 47,000 6,096 9,144 0 0 0 133,644 442,674 Carlsbad Number 1 46 0 0 7 10 11 0 0 5 21 101 Exposure 4,377,391 26,162,610 0 0 100,173,00 0 1,520,952 33,528 0 0 1,884,447 1,274,946 135,426,874 Chula Vista Number 0 66 4 0 8 16 18 2 0 1 70 185 Exposure 0 25,905,350 7,320 0 98,705,000 1,530,096 54,864 33,259 0 30,000 156,709,430 282,975,319 Coronado Number 0 2 0 1 3 3 5 1 0 0 4 19 Exposure 0 13,340 0 4,000 141,000 1,304,544 15,240 16,629 0 0 225,996 1,720,749 Del Mar Number 0 6 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 13 Exposure 0 25,484,190 0 0 0 234,696 12,192 0 0 0 0 25,731,078 El Cajon Number 1 59 3 0 8 12 17 0 0 0 34 134 Exposure 4,368,696 393,530 5,490 0 97,378,000 1,539,240 51,816 0 0 0 153,980,088 257,716,860 Encinitas Number 0 17 0 0 1 7 10 1 0 1 12 49 Exposure 0 111,490 0 0 47,000 21,336 30,480 16,629 0 163,612 579,494 27,204,413 Escondido Number 0 78 0 1 11 12 17 1 0 2 35 157 Exposure 0 24,980,140 0 4,000 96,004,000 1,539,240 51,816 16,629 0 2,151,670 2,129,942 126,877,437 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 12 Exposure 0 0 0 0 0 1,252,728 15,240 0 0 0 289,784 1,557,752 La Mesa Number 0 44 2 0 2 5 6 1 0 0 14 74 Exposure 0 23,734,770 3,660 0 90,302,000 1,548,384 18,288 16,629 0 0 668,146 116,291,877 Lemon Grove Number 0 15 0 0 1 3 5 0 0 0 5 29 Exposure 0 23,460,350 0 0 47,000 1,548,384 15,240 0 0 0 208,236 25,279,210 National City Number 0 65 0 0 6 5 7 1 0 0 15 99 Exposure 0 23,407,010 0 0 282,000 1,548,384 21,336 16,629 0 0 919,450 26,194,809 Oceanside Number 1 46 1 2 4 16 19 1 0 2 37 129 Exposure 3,501,640 23,054,470 1,830 8,000 89,897,000 1,554,480 57,912 16,629 0 327,223 149,017,722 267,436,906 Otay Water District Number 0 85 1 15 16 20 15 1 0 2 65 220 Exposure 0 566,950 1,830 60,000 4,892,000 60,960 45,720 16,629 0 193,612 10,820,428 16,658,129 Poway Number 0 51 0 0 4 4 4 1 0 8 10 82 Exposure 0 340,170 0 0 188,000 1,219,200 12,192 16,629 0 1,290,000 666,962 3,733,153 TABLE 22: INVENTORY OF CRITICAL FACILITIES AND EXPOSURE VALUE BY JURISDICTION SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 164 Jurisdiction Data (x1000) AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 1 145 0 0 3 11 11 0 0 1 28 200 Exposure 263,077 967,150 0 0 141,000 33,528 33,528 0 0 163,612 8,060,450 9,662,345 Port of San Diego Number 1 3 0 0 3 7 4 0 1 0 0 19 Exposure 300,604 19,060 0 0 969,000 21,336 12,192 0 719,793 0 0 2,041,985 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 43 0 1 3 4 2 0 0 2 4 59 Exposure 0 286,810 0 4,000 1,797,000 12,192 6,096 0 0 60,000 150,590 2,316,688 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 0 26 0 0 5 4 5 0 0 8 6 54 Exposure 0 173,420 0 0 1,063,000 12,192 15,240 0 0 1,008,059 310,874 2,582,785 San Diego (City) Number 3 625 12 34 82 108 150 9 2 9 309 1,343 Exposure 4,330,939 20,479,000 21,960 716,000 83,721,000 1,767,840 457,200 149,663 726,492 5,579,457 150,957,410 268,906,961 San Diego County Water Authority Number 6 1,592 24 70 182 285 346 18 2 52 722 3,299 Exposure 1,540,729 10,541,690 43,920 280,000 44,986,000 868,680 1,054,608 299,327 726,493 4,900,293 92,015,670 157,257,409 San Marcos Number 0 24 1 2 2 10 8 0 0 0 30 77 Exposure 0 6,945,810 1,830 360,000 36,879,000 1,969,008 24,384 0 0 0 103,068,310 149,248,342 San Miguel FPD Number 0 100 0 0 4 10 10 0 0 3 30 157 Exposure 0 667,000 0 0 188,000 30,480 30,480 0 0 193,612 4,125,426 5,234,998 Santee Number 0 50 0 1 1 3 7 0 0 1 11 74 Exposure 0 333,500 0 4,000 47,000 914,400 21,336 0 0 163,612 682,576 2,166,424 Solana Beach Number 0 4 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 13 Exposure 0 26,680 0 0 0 3,048 12,192 0 0 0 113,146 155,066 Sweetwater Authority Number 0 124 3 0 13 14 24 2 0 2 49 231 Exposure 0 816,630 5,490 0 2,267,000 42,672 73,152 33,259 0 60,000 2,687,162 5,985,365 Unincorporated Number 1 567 0 37 73 85 78 1 0 32 115 989 Exposure 4,232,543 5,091,690 0 644,000 35,841,000 938,784 237,744 16,629 0 11,853,925 97,291,574 156,147,889 Vista Number 0 15 1 0 2 13 9 0 0 0 22 62 Exposure 0 1,285,990 1,830 0 94,000 2,054,352 27,432 0 0 0 1,124,726 4,588,330 Vista Irrigation District Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 Exposure 0 25,730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91,464 117,194 Total Number 16 3,993 53 176 451 684 819 40 5 137 1,705 8,079 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 22,915,61 9 245,521,32 0 95,1605 2,084,000 786,096,00 0 25,097,232 2,450,592 665,169 2,172,7 78 30,023,134 938,303,646 2,081,659,021 TABLE 22: INVENTORY OF CRITICAL FACILITIES AND EXPOSURE VALUE BY JURISDICTION SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 165 TABLE 23: INVENTORY OF EXPOSURE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Alpine FPD Total KMs 17 4 0 21 Exposure (x$1,000) 113,472 2,733 0 116,205 Carlsbad Total KMs 174 86 29 289 Exposure (x$1,000) 1,163,163 58,835 43,115 1,265,113 Chula Vista Number 317 51 33 401 Exposure (x$1,000) 2,110,623 35,026 49,150,878 51,296,527 Coronado Number 21 16 0 37 Exposure (x$1,000) 137,016 10,978 0 147,994 Del Mar Number 5 9 7 21 Exposure (x$1,000) 30,511 6,004 10,641 47,156 El Cajon Number 159 17 31 207 Exposure (x$1,000) 1,057,030 11,600 46,337 1,114,967 Encinitas Number 86 43 19 148 Exposure (x$1,000) 571,714 29,244 28,656 629,614 Escondido Number 180 28 11 219 Exposure (x$1,000) 1,198,940 19,042 16,686 1,234,668 Imperial Beach Number 5 4 0 9 Exposure (x$1,000) 32,259 2,743 0 35,002 La Mesa Number 123 15 32 170 Exposure (x$1,000) 817,200 10,472 48,176 875,848 Lemon Grove Number 46 6 14 66 Exposure (x$1,000) 303,500 3,813 20,338 327,651 National City Number 125 12 52 189 Exposure (x$1,000) 833,696 8,201 77,996 919,893 Oceanside Number 182 48 43 273 Exposure (x$1,000) 1,210,567 32,856 65,118 1,308,541 Otay Water District Number 180 75 0 255 Exposure (x$1,000) 1,197,512 50,910 0 1,248,422 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 166 Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Padre Dam Municipal Water Distrct Number 89 36 2 127 Exposure (x1000) 595,562 24,590 2,980 623,132 Port of San Diego Number 17 10 23 50 Exposure (x1000) 112,487 6,870 34,301 153,658 Poway Number 58 9 0 67 Exposure (x$1,000) 385,406 6,350 0 391,756 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 98 0 0 98 Exposure (x1000) 653,187 0 0 653,187 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 10 0 0 10 Exposure (x1000) 67,412 0 0 67,412 San Diego (City) Number 1,388 352 336 2,076 Exposure (x$1,000) 9,256,954 240,237 504,158 10,001,349 San Diego County Water Authority Number 1,980 1,013 262 3,255 Exposure (x1000) 13,205,512 691,636 392,470 14,289,618 San Marcos Number 127 15 32 174 Exposure (x$1,000) 845,959 10,039 47,874 903,872 San Miguel FPD Number 64 40 0 104 Exposure (x$1,000) 425,562 27,448 0 453,010 Santee Number 101 14 2 117 Exposure (x$1,000) 671,014 9,565 2,948 683,527 Solana Beach Number 26 14 7 47 Exposure (x$1,000) 175,461 9,854 9,903 195,218 Sweetwater Authority Number 139 14 22 175 Exposure (x$1,000) 924,810 9,817 33,488 968,115 Unincorporated Number 1,895 269 197 2,361 Exposure (x$1,000) 12,634,636 183,503 295,114 13,113,253 Vista Number 91 23 18 132 Exposure (x$1,000) 603,560 15,475 26,710 645,745 Vista Irrigation District Number 9 3 1 13 Exposure (x$1,000) 60,170 1,744 1,207 63,121 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 167 Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Total Number 7712 2,226 1,173 11,111 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 51,394,895 1,519,585 50,859,094 103,773,574 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 168 TABLE 24: INVENTORY OF THE MAXIMUM POPULATION AND BUILDING EXPOSURE BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine FPD 14,696 5,901 2,292,539 494 149,361 Carlsbad 114,253 46,289 17,983,277 3,486 1,053,992 Chula Vista 268,920 82,581 32,082,719 4,967 1,501,772 Coronado 23,639 8,832 3,431,232 857 259,114 Del Mar 4,331 2,561 994,949 546 165,083 El Cajon 103,186 35,721 13,877,609 3,122 943,937 Encinitas 62,780 26,199 10,178,312 3,254 983,847 Escondido 151,300 49,864 19,372,164 2,903 877,722 Imperial Beach 27,315 9,677 3,759,515 421 127,289 La Mesa 59,556 25,248 9,808,848 2,048 619,213 Lemon Grove 26,802 9,454 3,672,879 606 183,224 National City 61,121 16,881 6,558,269 1,413 427,221 Oceanside 175,622 66,456 25,818,156 3,068 927,610 Otay Water District 226,413 67,755 26,322,818 2,841 858,976 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 103,846 38,130 14,813,505 2,830 855,651 Port of San Diego 22,191 8,297 3,223,385 485 146,640 Poway 49,701 16,881 6,558,269 1,590 480,737 Rainbow Municipal Water District 19,267 9,166 3,560,991 459 138,779 Rancho Santa Fe FPD 35,914 11,716 4,551,666 685 207,110 San Diego (city) 1,386,932 504,438 195,974,163 40,485 12,240,640 San Diego County Water Authority 3,201,964 1,123,341 436,417,979 84,686 25,604,812 San Marcos 95,355 29,930 11,627,805 1,869 565,092 San Miguel FPD 138,766 42,518 16,518,243 2,238 676,659 Santee 57,797 20,954 8,140,629 1,404 424,499 Solana Beach 13,356 6,196 2,407,146 1,229 371,588 Sweetwater Authority 194,873 58,293 22,646,831 5,263 1,591,268 Unincorporated 504,330 164,538 63,923,013 11,027 3,334,013 Vista 100,686 33,343 12,953,756 2,802 847,185 Vista Irrigation District 71,634 6,038 2,345,763 469 141,802 Total 7,316,546 2,527,198 981,816,430 187,547 56,704,835 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 169 5.3.3. COASTAL STORM/EROSION FEMA FIRM flood hazard data compiled and digitized was used to profile the coastal storm/erosion hazard. Specifically, the FEMA FIRM VE zone was used in the hazard modeling process in HAZUS-MH. As discussed earlier, the VE Zone is defined by FEMA as the coastal area subject to a velocity hazard (wave action). The identified vulnerable assets were superimposed on the identified hazard areas, resulting in three risk/exposure estimates: 1. The aggregated exposure and building count (both dollar exposure and population) at the census block level for residential and commercial occupancies 2. Lifeline infrastructure 3. The critical infrastructure at risk (schools, hospitals, airports, bridges, and other facilities of critical nature). These results were then aggregated and presented by hazard risk level per jurisdiction. The table below provides a breakdown of potential coastal storm/coastal erosion exposure by jurisdiction. No losses to critical facilities and infrastructure are expected from these hazards. Approximately 59,196 people may be at risk from coastal storm/coastal erosion hazards in San Diego County: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 170 TABLE 25: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FROM COASTAL STORM/EROSION HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Carlsbad 341 16 6,218 0 0 Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado 3,506 0 0 2 605 Del Mar 70 5 1,943 0 0 El Cajon 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas 958 *108 *35,367 *4 *1,310 Escondido 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach 1,570 50 19,430 1 302 La Mesa 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0 0 National City 10,038 0 0 0 0 Oceanside 662 5 1,943 2 605 Port of San Diego 7,667 0 0 1 302 Poway 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City) 9,322 4 1,554 3 907 San Diego County Water Authority 23,659 30 11,658 5 1,512 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 Santee 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach 1,260 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 143 0 0 0 0 Vista 0 0 0 0 0 Total 59,196 110 42,746 14 4,233 *Coastal Storm Data consistent with the Encinitas – Solana Beach Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 171 TABLE 26: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM COASTAL STORM/EROSION HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Alpine Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alpine Union School District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6,670 Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Otay Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $719,793 0 0 $719,793 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fed Fire Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 172 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Protection District San Diego (City) Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $719,793 0 0 $719,793 San Diego County Water Authority Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Miguel Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Unincorporated Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Valley Center Municipal Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number Total Exposure (x$1,000) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 $6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,439,586 0 0 $1,446,256 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 173 TABLE 27: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM COASTAL STORM/EROSION HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Carlsbad  Total KMs  1 1 0 2 Exposure (x$1,000)  4,860 22 0 4,882 Chula Vista  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Coronado  Total KMs  2 3 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000)  11,014 1,948 0 12,962 Del Mar  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 El Cajon  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Encinitas  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Escondido  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 La Mesa  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 National City  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Oceanside  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego  Total KMs   1 0 1 2 Exposure (x1000)  9,263 0 89 9,352 Poway  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 San Diego (City)  Total KMs  0 0 1 1 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 89 89 San Diego County Water Authority  Total KMs  1 1 1 3 Exposure (x1000)  4,860 22 89 4,971 San Marcos  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Santee  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Solana Beach  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Unincorporated  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Vista  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Total Number  5 5 3 13 Total Exposure (x $1,000)  29,997 1,992 267 32,256 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 174 5.3.4. SEA LEVEL RISE TABLE 28: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FROM SEA LEVEL RISE (COASTAL FLOODING) HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad 622 21 $8,161 4 $1,209 Chula Vista 116 0 0 0 0 Coronado 1,750 112 $43,523 6 $1,814 Del Mar 790 52 $20,207 9 $2,721 El Cajon 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas 316 1 $389 3 $907 Escondido 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach 2,629 51 $19,819 11 $3,326 La Mesa 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0 0 National City 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside 261 358 $139,119 51 $15,420 Otay Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego 2,207 0 0 8 $2,419 Poway 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City) 5,490 108 $41,969 85 $25,700 San Diego County Water Authority 9,452 540 $209,844 153 $46,260 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 San Miguel Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 Santee 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach 470 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 0 0 0 1 302 Vista 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District 0 0 0 0 0 Total 24,103 1,243 $483,030 331 $100,078 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 175 TABLE 29: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM SEA LEVEL RISE (COASTAL FLOODING) HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Alpine Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad Number 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $63,850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $63,850 Chula Vista Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6,670 Coronado Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $25,730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $25,730 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6,670 Escondido Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $43,840 0 0 $47,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $90,840 Oceanside Number 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $11,440 0 0 0 $3,048 0 0 0 0 0 $14,488 Otay Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $719,793 0 0 $719,793 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fed Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City) Number 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $37,170 0 0 0 0 0 0 $719,793 0 0 $756,963 San Diego County Water Authority Number 0 35 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 37 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $218,250 0 0 $47,000 $3,048 0 0 0 0 0 $268,298 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 176 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Miguel Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority Number 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $50,510 0 0 $47,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $97,510 Unincorporated Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $22,880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $22,880 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number Total Exposure (x$1,000) 0 78 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 85 0 $487,010 0 0 $141,000 $6,096 0 0 $1,439,586 0 0 $2,073,692 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 177 TABLE 30: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM SEA LEVEL RISE (COASTAL FLOODING) HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Alpine Fire Protection District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad Total KMs 14 3 1 18 Exposure (x$1,000) $94,146 $2,136 $832 $97,114 Chula Vista Total KMs 2 1 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000) $12,246 $314 0 $12,560 Coronado Total KMs 16 2 0 18 Exposure (x$1,000) $107,332 $1,637 0 $108,969 Del Mar Total KMs 3 2 1 6 Exposure (x$1,000) $16,696 $1,308 $1,635 $19,639 El Cajon Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Total KMs 6 3 1 10 Exposure (x$1,000) $37,359 $1,712 $690 $39,761 Escondido Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Total KMs 0 0.2 0 0.2 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $145 0 $145 La Mesa Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 National City Total KMs 6 0.2 3 9.2 Exposure (x$1,000) $43,304 $143 $5,131 $48,578 Oceanside Total KMs 2 1 1 4 Exposure (x$1,000) $12,316 $398 $1,650 $14,184 Otay Water District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego Total KMs 4 0.4 4 8.4 Exposure (x1000) $23,476 $276 $6,670 $30,422 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 178 Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Poway Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City) Total KMs 19 6 12 37 Exposure (x$1,000) $123,974 $3,786 $18,165 $145,925 San Diego County Water Authority Total KMs 55 15 22 92 Exposure (x1000) $365,016 $10,363 $32,501 $407,880 San Marcos Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 San Miguel Fire Protection District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Santee Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority Total KMs 8 1 3 12 Exposure (x$1,000) $55,550 $457 $5,131 $61,138 Unincorporated Total KMs 4 1 3 8 Exposure (x$1,000) $24,975 $565 $4,398 $29,938 Vista Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Total Number 140 36 51 226 Total Exposure (x $1,000) $916,390 $23,240 $76,854 $1,016,253 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 179 TABLE 31: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FROM SEA LEVEL RISE (MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER) HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Populatio n Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad 70 1 $389 0 0 Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado 0 0 0 1 $302 Del Mar 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas 0 1 $389 0 0 Escondido 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach 0 0 0 1 $302 La Mesa 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0 0 National City 5,019 0 0 0 0 Oceanside 39 0 0 19 $5,745 Otay Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego 11,560 0 0 4 $1,209 Poway 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City) 6,565 414 $160,880 83 $25,095 San Diego County Water Authority 12,250 416 $161,658 102 $30,840 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 San Miguel Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 Santee 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 Vista 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District 0 0 0 0 0 Total 35,503 832 $323,316 210 $64,493 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 180 TABLE 32: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM SEA LEVEL RISE (MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER) HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT PO T SC H TOTAL Alpine Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $24,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $24,780 Chula Vista Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6,670 Coronado Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $31,450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $31,450 Oceanside Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $5,720 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $5,720 Otay Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $719,793 0 0 $719,793 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 181 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT PO T SC H TOTAL Rancho Santa Fed Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City) Number 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 14 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $82,910 0 0 0 0 0 0 $719,793 0 0 $802,703 San Diego County Water Authority Number 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $162,970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $162,970 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Miguel Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority Number 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $38,120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $38,120 Unincorporated Number 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $11,440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $11,440 Vista Irrigation District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 60 Total Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $364,060 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,439,586 0 0 $1,803,646 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 182 TABLE 33: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM SEA LEVEL RISE (MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER) HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Alpine Fire Protection District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad Total KMs 1 2 0.1 3.1 Exposure (x$1,000) $5,223 $1,400 $161 $6,784 Chula Vista Total KMs 1 0.2 0 1.2 Exposure (x$1,000) $5,230 $133 0 5,363 Coronado Total KMs 4 0.4 0 4.4 Exposure (x$1,000) $29,021 $244 0 $29,265 Del Mar Total KMs 0 0.9 0.05 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $581 $69 $650.00 El Cajon Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Total KMs 1 2 0.002 3 Exposure (x$1,000) $7,777 $1,171 $3 $8,951 Escondido Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Total KMs 0 0.1 0 0.1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 $91 0 $91 La Mesa Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 National City Total KMs 2 0.2 0.6 3 Exposure (x$1,000) $12,791 $131 $993 $13,915 Oceanside Total KMs 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.7 Exposure (x$1,000) $1,399 $246 $174 $1,819 Otay Water District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 183 Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Padre Dam Municipal Water District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego Total KMs 10 2 0.4 12.4 Exposure (x1000) $64,513 $1,277 $543 $66,333 Poway Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City) Total KMs 23 5 1.3 29.3 Exposure (x$1,000) $155,836 $3,744 $2,047 $161,627 San Diego County Water Authority Total KMs 29 11 2.3 42.3 Exposure (x1000) $193,145 $7,495 $3,948 $204,588 San Marcos Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 San Miguel Fire Protection District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Santee Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority Total KMs 3 0.4 0.7 4.1 Exposure (x$1,000) $18,021 $265 $993 $19,279 Unincorporated Total KMs 0.7 0.1 0.3 1.1 Exposure (x$1,000) $4,890 $89 $503 $5,482 Vista Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 184 Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Total Number 75 25 6 106 Total Exposure (x $1,000) $497,846 $16,867 $9,434 $524,147 5.3.5. TSUNAMI Tsunami maximum run-up projections (second-generation) were modeled for the entire San Diego County coastline by the University of Southern California, and distributed by the CA Office of Emergency Services in 2009. The model was a result of a combination of inundation modeling and onsite surveys to show maximum predicted inundation levels due to tsunami. This was a scenario model, which uses a given earthquake intensity and location to determine resulting tsunami effects. The identified vulnerable assets were superimposed on top of this information, resulting in three risk/exposure estimates: 1. The aggregated exposure and building count (both dollar exposure and population) at the census block level for residential and commercial occupancies 2. The aggregated population at risk at the census block level 3. The critical infrastructure at risk (schools, hospitals, airports, bridges, and other facilities of critical nature). These results were then aggregated and presented by hazard risk level per jurisdiction. The first table below provides a breakdown of potential exposure by jurisdiction, and the second table below provides a breakdown of potential exposure to infrastructure and critical facility by jurisdiction. It is important to note the California Geological Survey (CGS) and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) are in the process of generating the third generation of statewide tsunami inundation maps for evacuation planning.137F138F138F 143 Approximately 169,606 people may be at risk from the tsunami hazard in San Diego County: 143 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Tsunami/Tsunami-inundation-map-methodology-2019.pdf SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 185 TABLE 34: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FROM TSUNAMI HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Carlsbad 4,259 114 44,300 1 302 Chula Vista 228 0 0 0 0 Coronado 24,603 3,043 1,182,509 103 311,420 Del Mar 1,173 532 206,735 25 75,587 El Cajon 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas 2,536 3 1,165 10 3,023 Escondido 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach 8,019 2,068 803,624 94 284,209 La Mesa 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0 0 National City 10,156 0 0 0 0 Oceanside 3,599 1,401 544,428 53 160,245 Port of San Diego 13,917 0 0 3694 1,191,259 Poway 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City) 34,592 5,749 2,234,061 875 2,645,562 San Diego County Water Authority 58,040 7,799 3,030,691 956 2,890,466 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 Santee 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach 1,411 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority 5,078 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 1,965 0 0 1 3,023 Vista 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District 0 0 0 0 0 Total 169,606 20,709 8,047,517 2,503 7,567,820 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 186 TABLE 35: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM TSUNAMI HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BU S COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT PO T SCH TOTAL Alpine FPD Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 Carlsbad Number 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Exposure (x$1,000) 77,190 77,190 Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado Number 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 2,000 0 3,048 3,048 0 0 0 26,640 41,406 Del Mar Number 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 19,060 0 0 0 6,096 0 0 0 0 0 25,156 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 12,390 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,390 Escondido Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 38,120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38,120 Oceanside Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 32,400 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 0 0 35,448 Otay Water Distrct Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Padre Dam Municipal Water Distrct Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 Exposure (x1000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,048 0 719,793 0 0 722,841 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water Distrct Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City) Number 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 13 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 78,140 0 0 0 0 0 0 719,793 0 0 797,933 San Diego County Water Authority Number 0 44 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 48 Exposure (x1000) 0 280,180 0 0 0 9,144 0 0 719,793 0 0 1,009,117 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Miguel FPD Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 187 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BU S COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT PO T SCH TOTAL Sweetwater Authority Exposure (x$1,000) 0 38120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38,120 Unincorporated Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 22,880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,880 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number 0 95 0 1 0 7 2 0 3 0 1 109 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 0 605,150 0 2,000 0 21,336 6,096 0 2,159,3 79 0 26,640 2,782,481 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 188 TABLE 36: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM TSUNAMI HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Carlsbad  Total KMs  8 3 1 12 Exposure (x$1,000)  52,405 1,848 1,291 55,544 Chula Vista  Total KMs   1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000)  2,324 0 0 2,324 Coronado  Total KMs  45 9 0 54 Exposure (x$1,000)  298,630 6,325 0 304,955 Del Mar  Total KMs   3 2 1 6 Exposure (x$1,000)  20,014 1,590 1,707 23,311 El Cajon  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Encinitas  Total KMs  6 2 1 9 Exposure (x$1,000)  39,063 1,045 1,642 41,750 Escondido  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach  Total KMs  1 1 0 2 Exposure (x$1,000)  7,824 424 0 8,248 La Mesa  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 National City  Total KMs  3 0 1 4 Exposure (x$1,000)  18,753 0 435 19,188 Oceanside  Total KMs   2 1 1 4 Exposure (x$1,000)  15,911 466 974 17,351 Port of San Diego  Total KMs   2 1 0 3 Exposure (x1000)  9,759 322 0 10,081 Poway  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 San Diego (City)  Total KMs  25 8 1 34 Exposure (x$1,000)  165,169 5,570 1,237 171,976 San Diego County Water Authority  Total KMs  49 16 6 71 Exposure (x1000)  326,623 10,685 9,859 347,167 San Marcos  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Santee  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Solana Beach  Total KMs   0 0 1 1 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 122 122 Sweetwater Water Authority Total KMs   3 0 1 4 Exposure (x$1,000)  21,077 0 435 21,512 Unincorporated  Total KMs  2 1 2 5 Exposure (x$1,000)  12,983 165 2,452 15,600 Vista  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Total Number  150 44 16 210 Total Exposure (x $1,000)  990,535 28,440 20,154 1,039,129 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 189 5.3.6. DAM FAILURE Dam inundation zones, compiled by FEMA or the National Inventory of Dams throughout San Diego County, and purchased through SanGIS, show areas that would be flooded if each dam failed. The identified vulnerable assets were superimposed on top of this information, resulting in three risk/exposure estimates: 1. The aggregated exposure and building count (both dollar exposure and population) at the census block level for residential and commercial occupancies 2. The aggregated population at risk at the census block level 3. The critical infrastructure at risk (schools, hospitals, airports, bridges, and other facilities of critical nature). These results were then aggregated and presented by hazard risk level per jurisdiction. The first table below provides a breakdown of potential exposure by jurisdiction, and the second table provides a breakdown of potential exposure to infrastructure and critical facility by jurisdiction. Approximately 538,132 people are at risk from a dam failure hazard. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 190 TABLE 37: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FROM DAM FAILURE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine FPD 90 4 1,554 0 0 Carlsbad 1,258 523 203,238 24 7,256 Chula Vista 15,822 2,297 892,614 628 189,876 Coronado 2,275 392 152,331 5 1,512 Del mar 1,260 556 216,062 31 9,373 El Cajon 70 0 0 24 7,256 Encinitas 1,026 309 120,077 106 32,049 Escondido 34,783 11,624 4,517,086 969 292,977 Imperial beach 4,341 795 308,937 24 7,256 La Mesa 129 7 2,720 1 302 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0 0 National City 7,603 275 106,865 148 44,748 Oceanside 25,060 8,449 3,283,281 318 96,147 Otay Water District 3,839 761 295,725 173 52,307 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 28,878 10,803 4,198,046 1191 360,099 Port of San Diego 7,034 0 0 48 14,513 Poway 0 7 2,720 3 907 Rainbow Municipal Water District 2,418 827 321,372 46 13,908 Rancho Santa Fe FPD 2,988 821 319,041 82 24,793 San Diego 89,183 32,128 12,484,941 4597 1,389,903 San Diego County Water Authority 234,032 76,679 29,797,459 8983 2,716,010 San Marco 660 119 46,243 4 1,209 San Miguel FPD 1,590 583 226,554 149 45,050 Santee 24,193 10,034 3,899,212 1084 327,747 Solana Beach 206 332 129,015 13 3,931 Sweetwater Authority 9,995 3,350 1,301,810 993 300,234 Unincorporated 36,492 10,189 3,959,445 1076 325,329 Vista 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District 33 0 0 0 0 Total 535,258 171,864 66,786,348 20,720 6,264,692 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 191 TABLE 38: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM DAM FAILURE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Carlsbad Number 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 26,680 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 0 0 29,728 Chula Vista Number 0 20 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 25 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 130,550 0 0 969,000 0 9,144 0 0 30,000 0 1,138,694 Coronado Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Number 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 19,060 0 0 0 6,096 0 0 0 0 0 25,156 El Cajon Number 1 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 Exposure (x$1,000) 257,356 53,360 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 0 0 313,764 Encinitas Number 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 32,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,400 Escondido Number 0 38 0 0 4 4 14 0 0 1 4 65 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 251,560 0 0 1,016,000 12,192 42,672 0 0 163,612 302,882 1,788,918 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,220 39,220 La Mesa Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,670 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 41 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 45 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 268,720 0 0 0 0 9,144 0 0 0 31,376 309,240 Oceanside Number 1 13 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 4 25 Exposure (x$1,000) 86,701 85,760 0 0 0 12,192 6,096 0 0 163,612 185,666 540,027 Otay Water District Number 0 11 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 3 18 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 73,370 0 0 47,000 3,048 3,048 0 0 163,612 355,200 645,278 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 1 68 0 0 1 4 6 0 0 0 7 87 Exposure (x$1,000) 257,356 453,560 0 0 47,000 12,192 18,288 0 0 0 440,004 1,228,400 Port of San Diego Number 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 281,772 0 0 0 0 12,192 0 0 0 0 0 293,964 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 23 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 25 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 153,410 0 0 0 3,048 3,048 0 0 0 0 159,506 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 0 12 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 1 19 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 80,040 0 0 922,000 3,048 0 0 0 550,835 22,496 1,578,419 Number 1 211 1 1 11 18 21 1 0 1 13 279 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 192 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL San Diego (City) Exposure (x$1,000) 271,772 1,394,07 0 1,830 2,000 1,345,000 54,864 64,008 16,629 0 163,612 682,650 3,996,435 San Diego County Water Authority Number 2 483 1 4 24 41 57 1 0 11 41 665 Exposure (x$1,000) 615,829 3,195,01 0 1,830 8,000 4,440,000 124,96 8 173,73 6 16,629 0 1,265,28 2 2,416,98 8 12,258,27 2 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 47,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 47,000 San Miguel FPD Number 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 8 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 40,020 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 163,612 0 206,680 Santee Number 0 48 0 0 1 3 6 0 0 0 6 64 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 320,160 0 0 47,000 9,144 18,288 0 0 0 392,718 787,310 Sweetwater Authority Number 0 74 0 0 2 2 7 0 0 1 3 89 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 472,640 0 0 922,000 6,096 21,336 0 0 30,000 96,866 1,548,938 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporate d Number 0 119 0 3 6 7 8 0 0 11 13 167 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 792,780 0 6,000 1,938,000 21,336 24,384 0 0 864,447 821,696 4,468,643 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number 7 1,192 2 8 57 95 127 2 0 32 97 1,619 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 1,770,78 6 7,849,82 0 3,660 16,000 11,740,00 0 289,56 0 393,19 2 33,258 0 3,558,62 4 5,787,76 2 31,442,66 2 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 193 TABLE 39: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM DAM FAILURE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Carlsbad  Total KMs  23 2 0 25 Exposure (x$1,000)  156,286 1,172 0 157,458 Chula Vista  Total KMs   114 5 2 121 Exposure (x$1,000)  760,393 3,343 2,916 766,652 Coronado  Total KMs  1 1 0 2 Exposure (x$1,000)  5,992 273 0 6,265 Del Mar  Total KMs   6 3 1 10 Exposure (x$1,000)  36,707 1,861 2,057 40,625 El Cajon  Total KMs  3 1 3 7 Exposure (x$1,000)  17,455 446 4,602 22,503 Encinitas  Total KMs  17 5 1 23 Exposure (x$1,000)  113,082 3,596 1,677 118,355 Escondido  Total KMs   88 2 6 96 Exposure (x$1,000)  589,607 1,548 9,310 600,465 Imperial Beach  Total KMs  1 1 0 2 Exposure (x$1,000)  5,498 861 0 6,359 La Mesa  Total KMs  6 1 1 8 Exposure (x$1,000)  36,776 148 1,091 38,015 Lemon Grove  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 National City  Total KMs  76 1 7 84 Exposure (x$1,000)  508,719 920 12,952 522,591 Oceanside  Total KMs   55 8 1 64 Exposure (x$1,000)  365,206 5,322 328 370,856 Otay Water District Total KMs   60 2 0 62 Exposure (x1000)  400,397 1,311 0 401,708 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Total KMs   131 13 5 149 Exposure (x1000)  875,831 8,735 6,871 891,437 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 194 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Port of San Diego  Total KMs   21 5 4 30 Exposure (x1000)  138,956 3,467 5,662 148,085 Poway  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Total KMs  54 1 0 55 Exposure (x$1,000)  359,258 183 0 359,441 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Total KMs  2 1 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000)  13,612 293 0 13,905 San Diego (City)  Total KMs  821 61 51 933 Exposure (x$1,000)  5,476,180 41,921 76,049 5,594,150 San Diego County Water Authority  Total KMs  1,511 115 77 1,703 Exposure (x1000)  10,072,703 78,214 116,118 10,267,035 San Marcos  Total KMs  1 1 0 2 Exposure (x$1,000)  2,883 92 0 2,975 San Miguel FPD Total KMs   32 1 0 33 Exposure (x$1,000)  211,370 291 0 211,661 Santee  Total KMs   121 12 2 135 Exposure (x$1,000)  810,110 8,192 2,269 820,571 Solana Beach  Total KMs   0 0 1 1 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 311 311 Sweetwater Authority  Total KMs  188 8 11 207 Exposure (x$1,000)  1,253,333 5,640 15,868 1,274,841 Unincorporated  Total KMs  239 16 2 257 Exposure (x$1,000)  1,595,903 11,014 2,556 1,609,473 Vista  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Total Number  3,571 266 175 4,012 Total Exposure (x $1,000)  23,806,257 178,843 260,637 24,245,737 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 195 5.3.7. EARTHQUAKE/LIQUEFACTION There was no FEMA HAZUS data available nor enough of any other data sources regarding liquefaction to enable the Planning Group’s creation of a comprehensive liquefaction vulnerability assessment by deadline. However, liquefaction was still considered by the Planning Group as a potential effect of earthquakes with the possibility of causing impacts such as loss of life and property/assets. Therefore, liquefaction was still considered and researched within this vulnerability assessment section. The data used in the earthquake hazard assessment were: 100-, 250-, 500-, 750-, 1000-, 1500-, 2000-, and 2500- year return period USGS probabilistic hazards. Soil conditions for San Diego County as developed by USGS were also used, which allowed for a better reflection of amplification of ground shaking that may occur. The HAZUS software model, which was developed for FEMA by the National Institute of Building Services as a tool to determine earthquake loss estimates, was used to model earthquake and flood for this assessment. This software program integrates with a GIS to facilitate the manipulation of data on building stock, population, and the regional economy with hazard models. PBS&J updated this model in 2003 to HAZUS- MH (Multiple Hazard), which can model earthquake and flood, along with collateral issues associated with each model, such as liquefaction and landslide with earthquakes. This software was not released prior to the beginning of the planning process; however, PBS&J performed vulnerability and loss estimation models for earthquakes and flood for this project using the newer model. Additionally, the earthquake risk assessment explored the potential for collateral hazards such as liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslides. Three cases were examined, one case with shaking only, a second case with liquefaction potential, and a third with earthquake-induced landslides. Once the model was complete, the identified vulnerable assets were superimposed on top of this information, resulting in three risk/loss estimates: 1. The aggregated exposure and building count (both dollar exposure and population) at the census block level for residential and commercial occupancies 2. The aggregated population at risk at the census block level 3. The critical infrastructure at risk (schools, hospitals, airports, bridges, and other facilities of critical nature). These results were then aggregated and presented by hazard risk level per jurisdiction. Results for residential and commercial properties were generated as annualized losses, which average all eight of the modeled return periods (100-year through 2500-year events). For critical facility losses it was helpful to look at 100- and 500-year return periods to plan for an event that is more likely to occur in the near-term. In the near term, a 500-year earthquake would cause increased shaking, liquefaction and landslide, which would be expected to increase loss numbers. Exposure for annualized earthquake included buildings and population in the entire county because a severe or worst-case scenario earthquake could affect any structure in the County. Furthermore, the annualized earthquake loss table also shows potential collateral exposure and losses from liquefaction and landslide separately; this is the additional loss from earthquake due to liquefaction or landslide caused by earthquakes and should be added to the shaking-only loss values to get the correct value. (The collateral liquefaction and landslide loss results for critical facilities were included with earthquake in the tables below, to plan for an event that is more likely to occur in the near-term as discussed above). The first table provides a breakdown of potential exposure and losses due to annualized earthquake events by jurisdiction. The second and third tables below provide a breakdown of infrastructure and critical facility losses from 100-year and 500-year earthquakes, respectively. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 196 Approximately 81,590 people may be at risk from the annualized earthquake and earthquake-induced liquefaction hazards: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 197 TABLE 40: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE AND LOSSES FROM ANNUALIZED EARTHQUAKE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Populatio n Buildin g Count Potential Loss from Shaking (x$1,000 ) Potential Additional Loss from Liquefactio n (x$1,000) Potential Addition al Loss from Landslid e (x$1,000) Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Buildin g Count Potential Loss from Shaking (x$1,000 ) Potential Additional Loss from Liquefactio n (x$1,000) Potential Addition al Loss from Landslid e (x$1,000) Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine Fire Protection District 0 32 26 0 10 26,569 20 12 0 4 10,824 Carlsbad 1,067 6,314 1,535 0 78 3,079,694 377 51 0 119 165,506 Chula Vista 3,170 3,342 1,688 18 115 2,005,905 342 66 2 130 163,269 Coronado 1,275 2,419 281 47 33 1,079,930 201 16 39 14 81,574 Del Mar 471 351 185 0 10 212,056 104 17 0 8 39,064 El Cajon 216 528 889 93 101 625,750 391 52 4 97 164,599 Encinitas 854 378 77 0 25 186,434 237 32 0 39 93,124 Escondido 57 696 142 0 193 400,637 436 53 0 153 194,230 Imperial Beach 1,458 198 28 57 38 124,830 148 13 7 32 60,410 La Mesa 211 243 49 0 48 132,056 163 29 0 20 64,189 Lemon Grove 284 224 29 0 20 105,992 98 8 0 13 35,859 National City 2,348 491 61 0 81 245,761 407 35 0 40 145,642 Oceanside 811 113 178 38 194 203,012 508 60 13 160 224,102 Otay Water District 1,443 259 183 0 56 193,636 94 54 0 94 73,199 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 183 268 129 53 91 210,007 318 74 2 161 167,714 Port Of San Diego 3,788 532 62 36 103 284,895 767 70 32 64 282,002 Poway 57 176 60 0 18 98,602 52 22 0 30 31,535 Rainbow Municipal Water District 39 421 86 27 32 219,737 156 22 1 80 78,248 Rancho Santa Fe FPD 612 616 147 0 49 315,563 313 57 0 93 139,928 San Diego 20,362 4,394 797 393 797 2,478,831 3,163 416 32 429 1,221,524 San Diego County Water Authority 32,161 15,665 3,214 1,685 2,677 9,029,249 9,631 1,345 92 2,632 4,142,044 San Marcos 254 743 153 0 130 398,683 474 58 0 204 222,469 San Miguel FPD 467 520 146 45 84 308,956 332 64 2 105 151,961 Santee 106 116 48 4 34 78,341 92 22 0 54 50,916 Solana Beach 353 136 19 0 9 63,607 109 12 0 8 38,852 Sweetwater Authority 4,987 984 193 18 196 540,326 719 84 2 156 290,468 Unincorporated 2,782 4,738 1,332 718 745 2,926,513 2,359 454 36 1,165 1,213,603 Vista 405 1,600 264 334 249 950,806 850 98 17 322 389,094 Vista Irrigation District 212 1,319 218 169 245 757,788 680 80 7 199 291,949 Total 80,433 47,816 12,219 3,735 6,461 27,284,16 6 23,541 3,376 288 6,625 10,227,89 8 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 198 TABLE 41: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE AND LOSSES TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM ANNUALIZED EARTHQUAKE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRD G BUS COM ELEC EME R GOV T HOSP POR T POT SCH TOTA L Alpine Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 $87,5 00 $3,04 8 0 0 0 $62,7 22 $5,00 0 158,27 0 Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 $87,5 00 0 0 0 0 $33,9 04 $6,09 6 127,50 0 Coronado Number 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 10 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 $91,5 00 $10,0 48 0 0 0 0 $29,0 00 130,54 8 Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 $175, 000 $7,56 8 0 0 0 $10,0 48 0 192,61 6 Encinitas Number 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 6 9 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 $8,48 0 0 0 0 $36,5 04 $20,7 86 65,770 Escondido Number 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 2 0 4 9 22 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 $7,32 1 $437, 500 $3,04 8 0 $40,2 97 0 65,44 5 $32,6 41 586,25 2 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 8 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 $13,9 24 0 0 0 0 $24,1 24 38,048 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $35,0 00 35,000 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $5,00 0 5,000 National City Number 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 8 11 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 $90,2 50 $4,52 3 0 $24,6 62 0 0 $27,7 43 147,17 8 Oceanside Number 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 2 3 10 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 $8,76 4 $6,34 6 0 0 $17,1 91 0 $32,7 22 $9,42 4 74,447 Otay Water Distrct Number 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 $26,2 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,250 Padre Dam Municipal Water Distrct Number 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 $3,70 0 0 0 0 0 0 $5,57 2 0 9,272 Port of San Diego Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Exposure (x1000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $32,722 0 32,722 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water Distrct Number 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 $5,51 7 $91,7 34 0 0 0 0 0 $12,2 49 109,50 0 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 $87,734 0 0 0 0 0 $9,766 97,500 San Diego (City) Number 0 0 0 8 8 1 0 1 0 3 8 29 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 $35,5 89 $193, 456 $26,1 16 0 $31,1 32 0 $199, 084 $24,3 84 509,76 1 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 199 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRD G BUS COM ELEC EME R GOV T HOSP POR T POT SCH TOTA L San Diego County Water Authority Number 0 0 0 8 6 7 0 8 0 12 19 60 Exposure (x1000) 0 0 0 $37,420 $525,000 $26,676 0 $133,034 0 $293,199 $59,572 1,074,901 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 8 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 $4,00 0 0 $10,4 30 0 $16,6 29 0 0 $11,7 14 42,773 San Miguel FPD Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority Number 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 7 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 $176, 444 $3,04 8 0 $16,6 29 0 $32,4 60 $6,09 6 234,67 7 Unincorporated Number 0 0 0 4 2 3 0 1 0 5 7 22 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 $20,0 22 $205, 054 $14,2 34 0 $21,6 39 0 $81,8 06 $21,3 36 364,09 1 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 $9,95 2 0 $16,6 29 0 0 $11,1 44 37,725 Vista Irrigation District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $5,00 0 5,000 Total Number 0 0 0 28 36 24 0 17 0 39 101 245 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 0 0 0 122,3 33 2,281, 268 141,0 95 0 317,8 42 0 886,1 88 356,0 75 4,104, 801 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 200 TABLE 42: POTENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE EXPOSURE AND LOSSES FROM ANNUALIZED EARTHQUAKE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Alpine FPD Total KMs 1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 6,121 0 0 6,121 Carlsbad Total KMs 3 0 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000) 17,303 0 0 17,303 Chula Vista Number 3 0 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000) 21,124 0 0 21,124 Coronado Number 11 0 0 11 Exposure (x$1,000) 74,336 0 0 74,336 Del Mar Number 1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 3,701 0 0 3,701 El Cajon Number 2 0 0 2 Exposure (x$1,000) 15,503 0 0 15,503 Encinitas Number 1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 6,081 0 0 6,081 Escondido Number 4 0 0 4 Exposure (x$1,000) 25,252 0 0 25,252 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 5 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 34,013 0 0 34,013 Lemon Grove Number 3 0 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000) 19,771 0 0 19,771 National City Number 7 0 0 7 Exposure (x$1,000) 43,409 0 0 43,409 Oceanside Number 5 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 33,950 0 0 33,950 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 201 Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Otay Water District Number 6 0 0 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 36,954 0 0 36,954 Padre Dam Municipal Water Distrct Number 7 0 0 7 Exposure (x1000) 44,309 0 0 44,309 Port of San Diego Number 4 0 0 4 Exposure (x1000) 29,618 0 0 29,618 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 2,447 0 0 2,447 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 12 0 0 12 Exposure (x1000) 77,724 0 0 77,724 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 1 0 0 1 Exposure (x1000) 3,194 0 0 3,194 San Diego (City) Number 73 0 0 73 Exposure (x$1,000) 487,978 0 0 487,978 San Diego County Water Authority Number 155 0 0 155 Exposure (x1000) 1,031,356 0 0 1,031,356 San Marcos Number 1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 6,875 0 0 6,875 San Miguel FPD Number 3 0 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000) 22,018 0 0 22,018 Santee Number 5 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 34,354 0 0 34,354 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority Number 10 0 0 10 Exposure (x$1,000) 64,360 0 0 64,360 Unincorporated Number 113 0 5 118 Exposure (x$1,000) 756,449 0 7,954 764,403 Vista Number 1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 5,401 0 0 5,401 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 202 Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Vista Irrigation District Number 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Total Number 437 0 5 449 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 2,903,601 0 7,954 2,960,937 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 203 TABLE 43: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE AND LOSSES FROM 100-YEAR EARTHQUAKE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad 0 0 0 0 0 Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado 0 0 0 0 0 Del mar 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial beach 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0 0 National City 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside 0 0 0 0 0 Otay Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 Poway 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego County Water Authority 0 0 0 0 0 San Marco 0 0 0 0 0 San Miguel Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 Santee 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 4,440 2,982 $1,158,507 77 $23,281 Vista 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4,440 2,982 $1,158,507 77 $23,281 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 204 TABLE 44: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM 100-YEAR EARTHQUAKE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Alpine Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Otay Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fed Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City) Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 205 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL San Diego County Water Authority Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Miguel Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporate d Number 3 11 0 4 6 3 4 0 0 0 3 34 Exposure (x$1,000) $176,37 6 $62,920 0 $8,000 $1,938,0 00 $9,144 $12,192 0 0 0 $27,602 $2,234,2 34 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Exposure (x $1,000) $176,37 6 $62,920 0 $8,000 $1,938,0 00 $9,144 $12,192 0 0 0 $27,602 $2,234,2 34 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 206 TABLE 45: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM 100- YEAR EARTHQUAKE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Alpine Fire Protection District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Chula Vista Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Coronado Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 El Cajon Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Escondido Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 National City Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Otay Water District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Total KMs 0 0 0 0 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 207 Jurisdiction Data HWY OIL GAS RR TOTAL Padre Dam Municipal Water District Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x1000) 0 0 0 0 Poway Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City) Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 San Diego County Water Authority Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x1000) 0 0 0 0 San Marcos Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 San Miguel Fire Protection District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Santee Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Total KMs 183 0 29 212 Exposure (x$1,000) $43,215 0 $1,219,888 $1,263,013 Vista Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District Total KMs 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 Total Number 183 0 29 212 Total Exposure (x $1,000) $43,215 0 $1,219,888 $1,263,013 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 208 TABLE 46: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM 500-YEAR EARTHQUAKE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad 19,092 4,538 $1,763,467 352 $106,427 Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado 0 0 0 0 0 Del mar 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido 96,129 21,857 $8,493,630 974 $294,489 Imperial beach 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0 0 National City 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside 130,943 40,592 $15,774,051 1,492 $451,106 Otay Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 Poway 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District 0 8,313 $3,230,432 54 $16,327 Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego 504 0 0 2 $604,700 San Diego County Water Authority 501,096 138,019 $53,634,183 8,341 $2,521,901 San Marcos 55,473 13,312 $5,173,043 1,148 $347,098 San Miguel Fire Protection District 0 0 0 0 0 Santee 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 193,801 46,242 $17,969,641 3,272 $989,289 Vista 90,570 21,763 $8,457,102 1,041 $423,592 Vista Irrigation District 33,787 1,262 $490,413 61 $18,443 Total 1,121,395 295,898 $114,985,962 16,737 $5,773,372 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 209 TABLE 47: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM 500-YEAR EARTHQUAKE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Carlsbad 0 Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 4 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 5,720 0 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 134,384 143,152 Chula Vista 0 Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado 0 Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar 0 Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon 0 Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas 0 Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido 0 Number 0 22 0 0 3 2 11 1 0 1 17 57 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 146,740 0 0 969,000 6,096 33,528 16,629 0 30,000 996,780 2,198,773 Imperial Beach 0 Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa 0 Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Number 1 27 1 1 1 8 9 1 0 2 17 68 Exposure (x$1,000) 86,701 175,340 1,830 2,000 47,000 30,480 27,432 16,629 0 327,223 775,594 1,490,229 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 41 0 1 2 3 2 0 0 1 4 54 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 273,470 0 2,000 1,797,000 9,144 6,096 0 0 0 0 2,087,710 San Diego (City) Number 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 13,340 0 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 41,736 58,124 San Diego County Water Authority Number 2 159 3 2 20 45 47 3 0 11 83 375 Exposure (x$1,000) 167,681 1,051,980 5,490 4,000 7,564,000 137,160 143,256 49,888 0 1,131,670 4,277,866 14,532,991 San Marcos Number 0 16 1 0 1 5 6 0 0 0 11 40 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 104,820 1,830 0 47,000 15,240 18,288 0 0 0 593,776 780,954 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 210 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Unincorporated Number 3 211 0 7 35 43 42 1 0 13 40 395 Exposure (x$1,000) 271,772 1,383,620 0 14,000 11,581,000 131,064 128,016 16,629 0 924,447 1,280,792 15,731,340 Vista Number 0 8 1 0 1 8 3 0 0 0 15 36 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 52,410 1,830 0 47,000 24,384 9,144 0 0 0 692,122 826,890 Vista Irrigation District Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41,070 47,740 Total Number 6 488 6 11 63 114 122 6 0 28 191 1,035 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 526,154 3,214,110 10,980 22,000 22,052,000 353,568 371,856 99,775 0 2,413,340 8,834,120 37,897,903 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 211 TABLE 48: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM 500- YEAR EARTHQUAKE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Carlsbad  Total KMs  42 3 2 47 Exposure (x$1,000)  277,290 1,768 2,702 281,760 Chula Vista  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Coronado  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Del Mar  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 El Cajon  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Encinitas  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Escondido  Total KMs   113 15 0 128 Exposure (x$1,000)  751,643 9,996 0 761,639 Imperial Beach  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 La Mesa  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 National City  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Oceanside  Total KMs   197 21 21 239 Exposure (x$1,000)  1,315,268 14,640 32,248 1,362,156 Port of San Diego  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x1000)  0 0 0 0 Poway  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 212 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Rainbow Municipal Water District Total KMs  308 25 0 333 Exposure (x$1,000)  2,053,961 16,929 0 2,070,890 San Diego (City)  Total KMs  8 0 0 8 Exposure (x$1,000)  53,990 0 0 53,990 San Diego County Water Authority  Total KMs  1,251 129 44 1,424 Exposure (x1000)  8,342,432 88,164 65,329 8,495,925 San Marcos  Total KMs  140 11 13 164 Exposure (x$1,000)  933,731 16,937 8,600 959,268 Santee  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Solana Beach  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Unincorporated  Total KMs  1,846 69 93 2,008 Exposure (x$1,000)  12,306,924 46,921 139,012 12,492,857 Vista  Total KMs   116 12 8 136 Exposure (x$1,000)  772,613 8,252 12,359 793,224 Vista Irrigation District Total KMs   7 1 1 9 Exposure (x$1,000)  47,718 835 980 49,533 Total Number  4,028 286 182 4,496 Total Exposure (x $1,000)  26,855,570 204,442 265,723 27,321,242 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 213 TABLE 49: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE AND LOSSES FROM ROSE CANYON SCENARIO EARTHQUAKE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine Fpd 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad 114,187 36,605 14,221,043 3,474 1,050,364 Chula Vista 210,011 46,508 18,068,358 4,483 1,355,435 Coronado 19,375 7,211 2,801,474 857 259,114 Del Mar 3,965 2,001 777,389 546 165,083 El Cajon 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas 59,322 19,547 7,594,010 3,192 965,101 Escondido 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach 27,161 5,698 2,213,673 421 127,289 La Mesa 25,203 5,473 2,126,261 604 182,619 Lemon Grove 26,480 6,522 2,533,797 594 179,596 National City 61,014 8,648 3,359,748 1,413 427,221 Oceanside 104,063 28,369 11,021,357 2,281 689,660 Otay Water District 126,387 28,869 11,215,607 1,267 383,077 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Port Of San Diego 14,710 0 0 485 146,640 Poway 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District 0 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fe Fpd 19,844 4,259 1,654,622 329 99,473 San Diego 1,184,880 280,311 108,900,824 36,762 11,114,991 San Diego County Water Authority 1,926,720 454,167 176,443,880 55,724 16,848,151 San Marcos 378 117 45,455 5 1,512 San Miguel Fpd 29,048 5,303 2,060,216 416 125,778 Santee 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach 13,214 5,113 1,986,401 1,229 371,588 Sweetwater Authority 113,119 33,847 13,149,560 5,152 1,557,707 Unincorporated 94,666 13,228 5,139,078 945 285,721 Vista 8,730 1,804 700,854 202 61,075 Vista Irrigation District 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4,182,477 993,600 386,013,599 120,381 36,397,195 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 214 TABLE 50: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM ROSE CANYON SCENARIO EARTHQUAKE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP POT SCH TOTAL Alpine FPD Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad Number 1 44 0 0 7 10 11 0 5 20 98 Exposure (x$1,000) 182,097 289,680 0 0 1,985,000 30,480 33,528 0 684,447 1,139,748 4,344,980 Chula Vista Number 0 54 4 0 8 12 16 2 1 56 153 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 356,380 7,320 0 2,032,000 36,576 48,768 33,259 30,000 6,077,768 8,622,071 Coronado Number 0 1 0 1 3 3 5 1 0 4 18 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 4,000 141,000 9,144 15,240 16,629 0 225,996 418,679 Del Mar Number 0 6 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 13 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 39,070 0 0 0 9,144 12,192 0 0 0 60,406 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 15 0 0 1 6 9 1 1 12 45 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 98,150 0 0 47,000 18,288 27,432 16,629 163,612 579,494 950,605 Escondido Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 12 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 6,096 15,240 0 0 289,784 311,120 La Mesa Number 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 32,400 1,830 0 0 0 0 0 0 117,438 151,668 Lemon Grove Number 0 12 0 0 1 3 5 0 0 5 26 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 79,090 0 0 47,000 9,144 15,240 0 0 208,236 358,710 National City Number 0 65 0 0 6 5 7 1 0 15 99 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 426,900 0 0 282,000 15,240 21,336 16,629 0 919,450 1,681,555 Oceanside Number 1 37 0 1 3 12 18 1 1 20 94 Exposure (x$1,000) 86,701 243,940 0 4,000 969,000 36,576 54,864 16,629 163,612 3,317,050 4,892,372 Otay Water District Number 0 38 1 0 4 7 4 1 0 31 86 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 253,460 1,830 0 1,844,000 21,336 12,192 16,629 0 4,623,446 6,772,893 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port of San Diego Number 3 3 0 0 3 7 4 0 0 0 20 Exposure (x$1,000) 300,604 19,060 0 0 969,000 21,336 12,192 0 0 0 1,322,192 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 0 15 0 0 1 2 4 0 4 3 29 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 100,050 0 0 47,000 6,096 12,192 0 520,835 64,010 750,183 San Diego (City) Number 3 550 11 32 65 94 138 9 5 263 1,170 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 215 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP POT SCH TOTAL Exposure (x$1,000) 745,778 3,637,150 20,130 128,000 13,819,000 286,512 420,624 149,663 684,447 28,292,272 48,183,576 San Diego County Water Authority Number 4 859 16 33 96 154 220 14 17 410 1,823 Exposure (x$1,000) 1,014,575 5,676,330 29,280 132,000 21,072,000 469,392 670,560 232,809 2,246,952 41,331,960 72,875,858 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Miguel FPD Number 0 36 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 6 46 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 240,120 0 0 0 6,096 3,048 0 30,000 284,752 564,016 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach Number 0 4 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 13 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 26,680 0 0 0 3,048 12,192 0 0 113,146 155,066 Sweetwater Authority Number 0 119 3 0 13 14 23 2 2 48 224 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 783,280 5,490 0 2,267,000 42,672 70,104 33,259 60,000 2,654,158 5,915,963 Unincorporated Number 0 79 0 0 4 7 8 0 5 11 114 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 526,930 0 0 1,844,000 21,336 24,384 0 550,835 414,252 3,381,737 Vista Number 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 0 47,000 3,048 0 0 0 163,106 219,824 Vista Irrigation District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number 9 1,923 35 67 212 335 477 32 42 909 4,041 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 2,029,150 12,711,460 64,050 268,000 46,396,000 1,021,080 1,453,896 532,135 5,134,740 90,490,392 160,100,903 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 216 TABLE 51: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM ROSE CANYON SCENARIO EARTHQUAKE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Alpine FPD Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Carlsbad  Total KMs  175 86 19 280 Exposure (x$1,000)  1,166,948 58,397 29,139 1,254,484 Chula Vista  Total KMs   313 43 16 372 Exposure (x$1,000)  2,088,358 29,225 23,583 2,141,166 Coronado  Total KMs  17 16 0 33 Exposure (x$1,000)  115,663 10,875 0 126,538 Del Mar  Total KMs   3 8 6 17 Exposure (x$1,000)  20,658 5,734 8,561 34,953 El Cajon  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Encinitas  Total KMs  84 43 12 139 Exposure (x$1,000)  560,387 29,238 18,293 607,918 Escondido  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach  Total KMs  3 4 0 7 Exposure (x$1,000)  16,720 2,743 0 19,463 La Mesa  Total KMs  57 3 4 64 Exposure (x$1,000)  379,149 1,806 6,699 387,654 Lemon Grove  Total KMs  41 6 9 56 Exposure (x$1,000)  270,926 3,781 12,751 287,458 National City  Total KMs  105 12 28 145 Exposure (x$1,000)  703,183 8,240 42,451 753,874 Oceanside  Total KMs   183 39 22 244 Exposure (x$1,000)  1,221,266 26,798 32,077 1,280,141 Total KMs   139 22 0 161 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 217 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Otay Water District Exposure (x1000)  930,061 15,258 0 945,319 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Total KMs   0 0 0 45 Exposure (x1000)  0 0 0 139,152 Port of San Diego  Total KMs   15 9 21 45 Exposure (x1000)  101,430 6,267 31,455 139,152 Poway  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x1000)  0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Total KMs  3 5 0 8 Exposure (x$1,000)  19,405 3,355 0 22,760 San Diego (City)  Total KMs  1,145 303 213 1,661 Exposure (x$1,000)  7,633,100 207,096 319,623 8,159,819 San Diego County Water Authority  Total KMs  1,233 580 257 2,070 Exposure (x1000)  8,222,970 396,449 386,060 9,005,479 San Marcos  Total KMs  3 0 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000)  17,139 0 0 17,139 San Miguel FPD Total KMs   49 9 0 58 Exposure (x$1,000)  327,067 6,148 0 333,215 Santee  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Solana Beach  Total KMs   22 14 5 41 Exposure (x$1,000)  149,284 9,776 6,752 165,812 Sweetwater Authority Total KMs  80 5 38 123 Exposure (x$1,000)  531,071 3,375 57,035 591,481 Unincorporated  Total KMs  153 22 1 176 Exposure (x$1,000)  1,019,835 15,237 130 1,035,202 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 218 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Vista  Total KMs   22 1 0 23 Exposure (x$1,000)  143,694 908 0 144,602 Vista Irrigation District Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Total Number  3,845 1,230 651 5,726 Total Exposure (x $1,000)  25,638,314 840,706 974,609 27,453,629 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 219 5.3.8. FLOOD Digitized 100-year and 500-year flood maps with base flood elevation (BFE) from the FEMA FIRM program for most of the areas were used for this project. Census blocks with non-zero population and non-zero dollar exposure that intersect with these polygons were used in the analysis. For the areas that did not include BFE information, a base flood elevation was estimated for the final purpose of computing the flood depth at different locations of the region as follows: • Transect lines across the flood polygon (perpendicular to the flow direction) were created using an approximation method for Zone A flood polygons. Zone A is the FEMA FIRM Zone that is defined as the 100-year base flood. • A point file was extracted from the line (Begin node, End node and center point). The Zonal operation in the GIS tool Spatial Analyst (with the point file and a digital elevation model [DEM]) was used to estimate the ground elevation in the intersection of the line with the flood polygon borders. The average value of the End and Begin point of the line was calculated. This value was assumed as the base flood elevation for each transect. A surface model (triangulated irregular network, or TIN) was derived from the original transect with the derived BFE value and the flood polygon. This TIN file approximated a continuous and variable flood elevation along the flood polygon. A grid file was then derived from the TIN file with the same extent and pixel resolution of the DEM (30-meter resolution). The difference of the flood elevation grid file and the DEM was calculated to produce an approximate flood depth for the whole study area. HAZUS-MH based damage functions, in a raster format, were created for each of the occupancies present in the census blocks. A customized Visual Basic (VBA) script was written to assign the ratio of damage expected (function of computed flood depth) for each type of occupancy based on the HAZUS-MH damage functions. HAZUS-MH exposure values ($) in raster format were created using Spatial Analyst. Since not all areas in the census blocks are completely within the flood area, the exposure at risk was weighted and estimated accordingly based on the number of pixels in flood area. Losses were then estimated through multiplication of damage ratio with the exposure at risk for each block. Losses were then approximated based on 100- and 500-year losses (high and low hazards). The first table below provides a breakdown of potential exposure and losses by jurisdiction for 100-year flood, and the second table provides a breakdown of infrastructure and critical facility losses for 100-year flood by jurisdiction. The third table provides a breakdown of potential exposure and losses by jurisdiction from 500-year flood, and the fourth table provides a breakdown of potential infrastructure and critical facility losses by jurisdiction. The loss tables also provide a breakdown of loss ratios for commercial and residential properties by jurisdiction. These loss ratios are determined by dividing the loss values by the exposure values for each jurisdiction, and give a perspective of the potential losses for each jurisdiction for this hazard. For example, a loss ratio value of 0.4 in El Cajon would mean that 40% of the exposed buildings in El Cajon would be lost due to a 100- or 500-year flood. Approximately 270,263 people may be at risk from the 100-year flood hazard. Approximately 585,882 people are at risk from the 500-year flood hazard. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 220 TABLE 52: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE AND LOSSES FROM 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine Fire Protection District 268 23 $8,938 1 $302 Carlsbad 2,497 619 $240,543 15 $4,535 Chula Vista 1,741 633 $245,984 169 $51,097 Coronado 4,022 0 $0 2 $605 Del Mar 1,123 384 $149,222 29 $8,768 El Cajon 5,427 80 $31,088 30 $9,071 Encinitas 661 32 $12,435 6 $1,814 Escondido 7,380 1,625 $631,475 209 $63,191 Imperial Beach 2,702 55 $21,373 1 $302 La Mesa 73 1 $389 3 $907 Lemon Grove 0 3 $1,166 4 $1,209 National City 10,693 149 $57,901 139 $42,027 Oceanside 13,323 4,540 $1,764,244 448 $135,453 Otay Water District 2,623 51 $19,819 16 $4,838 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 5,330 613 $238,212 75 $22,676 Port of San Diego 17,614 0 $0 2 $605 Poway 656 343 $133,290 64 $19,350 Rainbow Municipal Water District 1,124 105 $40,803 25 $7,559 Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District 1,252 23 $8,938 7 $2,116 San Diego (City) 35,523 4,976 $1,933,674 733 $221,623 San Diego County Water Authority 101,369 16,590 $6,446,874 2,397 $724,733 San Marcos 4,150 279 $108,419 106 $32,049 San Miguel Fire Protection District 3,575 524 $203,626 59 $17,839 Santee 1,279 40 $15,544 13 $3,931 Solana Beach 656 313 $121,632 11 $3,326 Sweetwater Authority 13,338 1,195 $464,377 486 $146,942 Unincorporated: 17,979 4,151 $1,613,079 530 $160,246 Vista 889 455 $176,813 38 $11,489 Vista Irrigation District 481 35 $13,601 7 $2,116 Total 257,748 37,837 14,703,459 5,625 1,700,719 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 221 TABLE 53: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Alpine Fire Protection District Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad Number 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 123,880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123,880 Chula Vista Number 0 14 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 16 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 91,480 0 0 922,000 3,048 3,048 0 0 0 0 1,019,576 Coronado Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,670 Del Mar Number 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 19,060 0 0 0 6,096 0 0 0 0 0 25,156 El Cajon Number 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 20,010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 230,806 250,816 Encinitas Number 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 32,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,400 Escondido Number 0 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 14 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 53,360 0 0 0 3,048 6,096 0 0 0 200,836 263,340 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 64,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64,800 Oceanside Number 1 21 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 2 31 Exposure (x$1,000) 86,701 134,370 0 0 0 9,144 12,192 0 0 0 88,356 330,763 Otay Water District Number 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 100,050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,050 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Exposure (x$1,000) 206,770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 206,770 Port of San Diego Number 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Exposure (x$1,000) 6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 719,793 0 0 726,463 Poway Number 0 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 80,040 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 0 0 83,088 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 17 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 19 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 113,390 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 0 14,430 130,868 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 53,360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163,612 0 216,972 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 222 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL San Diego (City) Number 0 138 0 3 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 149 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 903,360 0 6,000 94,000 6,096 6,096 0 719,793 0 43,068 1,778,413 San Diego County Water Authority Number 1 360 0 6 4 11 11 0 1 1 11 406 Exposure (x$1,000) 86,701 2,364,150 0 12,000 1,016,000 33,528 33,528 0 719,793 163,612 364,476 4,793,788 San Marcos Number 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 63,850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63,850 San Miguel FPD Number 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 166,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166,750 Santee Number 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 80,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,040 Solana Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,670 Sweetwater Authority Number 0 24 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 30 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 156,280 0 0 922,000 3,048 6,096 0 0 0 22,126 1,109,550 Unincorporated Number 1 124 0 7 4 4 4 0 0 2 6 152 Exposure (x$1,000) 80,980 824,230 0 14,000 1,844,000 12,192 12,192 0 0 193,612 99,012 3,080,218 Vista Number 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 19,060 0 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 0 22,108 Vista Irrigation District Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 5,720 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,720 Total Number 35 834 0 16 14 27 27 0 3 4 27 985 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 467,822 5,482,980 0 32,000 4,798,000 82,296 82,296 0 2,159,379 520,836 1,063,110 14,688,719 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 223 TABLE 54: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Carlsbad  Total KMs  13 7 1 21 Exposure (x$1,000)  83,715 4,631 342 88,688 Chula Vista  Total KMs   32 3 1 36 Exposure (x$1,000)  210,783 2,373 194 213,350 Coronado  Total KMs  2 3 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000)  11,014 1,984 0 12,998 Del Mar  Total KMs   6 3 2 11 Exposure (x$1,000)  37,125 1,804 2,515 41,444 El Cajon  Total KMs  3 1 1 5 Exposure (x$1,000)  17,924 84 98 18,106 Encinitas  Total KMs  5 4 1 10 Exposure (x$1,000)  32,741 2,541 119 35,401 Escondido  Total KMs   26 2 0 28 Exposure (x$1,000)  172,723 1,651 0 174,374 Imperial Beach  Total KMs  0 1 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 543 0 543 La Mesa  Total KMs  1 1 1 3 Exposure (x$1,000)  3,158 225 180 3,563 Lemon Grove  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 National City  Total KMs  14 1 1 16 Exposure (x$1,000)  95,654 233 384 96,271 Oceanside  Total KMs   54 10 10 74 Exposure (x$1,000)  362,336 6,755 14,077 383,168 Otay Water District Total KMs   26 3 0 29 Exposure (x1000)  170,295 2,057 0 172,352 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 224 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Padre Dam Municipal Water District Total KMs   7 2 1 10 Exposure (x1000)  48,638 1,591 98 50,327 Port of San Diego  Total KMs   5 2 6 13 Exposure (x1000)  31,645 1,210 8,353 41,208 Poway  Total KMs  2 1 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000)  11,352 114 0 11,466 Rainbow Municipal Water District Total KMs  22 1 0 23 Exposure (x$1,000)  147,114 844 0 147,958 San Diego (City)  Total KMs  141 22 38 201 Exposure (x$1,000)  1,141,289 15,261 57,503 1,214,053 San Diego County Water Authority  Total KMs  426 63 53 542 Exposure (x1000)  2,842,718 43,267 79,247 2,965,232 San Marcos  Total KMs  19 2 2 23 Exposure (x$1,000)  128,671 1,238 2,565 132,474 San Miguel FPD Total KMs   2 1 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000)  14,886 704 0 15,590 Santee  Total KMs   5 2 0 7 Exposure (x$1,000)  35,785 1,394 0 37,179 Solana Beach  Total KMs   0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 Sweetwater Authority  Total KMs   47 3 1 51 Exposure (x$1,000)  310,550 2,059 577 313,186 Unincorporated  Total KMs  104 8 1 113 Exposure (x$1,000)  694,666 5,505 1,032 701,203 Vista  Total KMs   9 1 1 11 Exposure (x$1,000)  57,799 369 928 59,096 Vista Irrigation District Total KMs   2 0 1 3 Exposure (x$1,000)  13,618 0 37 13,655 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 225 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Total Number  973 147 122 1,242 Total Exposure (x $1,000)  6,676,199 98,437 168,249 6,942,885 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 226 TABLE 55: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE AND LOSSES FROM 500-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine Fpd 268 23 8,938 1 302 Carlsbad 2,497 619 240,543 15 4,535 Chula Vista 14,651 3,628 1,409,841 556 168,107 Coronado 4,022 0 0 2 605 Del Mar 1,228 475 184,585 36 10,885 El Cajon 20,560 6,231 2,421,367 867 262,137 Encinitas 681 44 17,098 10 3,024 Escondido 31,005 10,048 3,904,653 545 164,781 Imperial Beach 2,702 55 21,373 3 907 La Mesa 105 1 389 3 907 Lemon Grove 0 3 1,166 4 1,209 National City 12,868 909 353,237 200 60,470 Oceanside 33,750 12,611 4,900,635 659 199,249 Otay Water District 4,976 632 245,595 116 35,073 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 7,573 1,447 562,304 298 90,100 Port Of San Diego 17,736 0 0 18 5,442 Poway 3,107 1,090 423,574 134 40,515 Rainbow Municipal Water District 3,137 773 300,388 45 13,606 Rancho Santa Fe Fpd 1,262 36 13,990 7 2,116 San Diego 68,368 14,269 5,544,933 1,706 515,809 San Diego County Water Authority 221,421 56,606 21,997,092 5,880 1,777,818 San Marcos 4,230 503 195,466 178 53,818 San Miguel Fpd 5,417 700 272,020 86 26,002 Santee 2,846 751 291,839 217 65,610 Solana Beach 1,022 509 197,797 57 17,234 Sweetwater Authority 30,746 4,378 1,701,291 857 259,114 Unincorporated 26,802 5,967 2,318,776 618 186,852 Vista 3,135 1,096 425,906 230 69,541 Vista Irrigation District 818 48 18,653 14 4,233 Total 526,933 123,452 47,973,449 13,362 4,040,001 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 227 TABLE 56: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM 500-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Carlsbad Number 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 123,880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123,880 Chula Vista Number 0 19 1 0 4 2 1 0 0 0 1 28 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 124,830 1,830 0 1,844,000 6,096 3,048 0 0 0 119,880 2,099,684 Coronado Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,670 Del Mar Number 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 19,060 0 0 0 6,096 0 0 0 0 0 25,156 El Cajon Number 0 25 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 5 35 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 166,750 1,830 0 0 6,096 6,096 0 0 0 368,594 549,366 Encinitas Number 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 32,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,400 Escondido Number 0 34 0 0 3 3 9 0 0 1 8 58 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 224,880 0 0 969,000 9,144 27,432 0 0 163,612 420,246 1,814,314 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 12 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 14 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 78,140 0 0 0 0 6,096 0 0 0 0 84,236 Oceanside Number 1 23 0 1 0 6 6 0 0 0 5 42 Exposure (x$1,000) 20,137 147,710 0 2,000 0 18,288 18,288 0 0 0 199,578 406,001 Otay Water District Number 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 106,720 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163,612 0 270,332 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 0 43 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 45 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 286,810 0 0 0 3,048 3,048 0 0 0 0 292,906 Port of San Diego Number 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 0 922,000 3,048 0 0 719,793 0 0 1,651,511 Poway Number 0 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 19 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 120,060 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 0 0 123,108 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 19 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 21 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 126,730 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 0 14,430 144,208 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 53,360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163,612 0 216,972 San Diego (City) Number 0 184 1 3 4 4 8 0 1 1 3 209 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 1,208,280 5,490 6,000 1,016,000 12,192 24,384 0 719,793 163,612 138,602 3,294,353 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 228 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL San Diego County Water Authority Number 1 486 6 7 11 24 34 0 1 4 29 603 Exposure (x$1,000) 20,137 3,200,770 10,980 14,000 3,829,000 73,152 103,632 0 719,793 654,447 1,395,270 10,021,181 San Marcos Number 0 13 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 17 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 83,860 1,830 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 13,912 102,650 San Miguel FPD Number 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 26 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 166,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163,612 0 330,362 Santee Number 0 17 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 18 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 113,390 0 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 0 116,438 Solana Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,670 Sweetwater Authority Number 0 30 1 0 4 2 4 0 0 0 2 43 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 196,300 1,830 0 1,844,000 6,096 12,192 0 0 0 142,006 2,202,424 Unincorporated Number 1 133 0 7 4 4 5 0 0 3 7 164 Exposure (x$1,000) 14,416 884,260 0 14,000 1,844,000 12,192 15,240 0 0 357,223 114,626 3,255,957 Vista Number 0 5 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 13 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 32,400 0 0 0 9,144 9,144 0 0 0 63,048 113,736 Vista Irrigation District Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 25,730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,730 Total Number 3 1,144 11 18 32 56 77 0 3 12 65 1,421 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 54,690 7,543,080 23,790 36,000 12,268,000 170,688 234,696 0 2,159,379 1,829,730 2,990,192 27,310,245 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 229 TABLE 57: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM 500-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Carlsbad  Total KMs  13 7 1 21 Exposure (x$1,000)  83,915 4,681 342 88,938 Chula Vista  Total KMs   68 8 5 81 Exposure (x$1,000)  454,289 5,173 7,439 466,901 Coronado  Total KMs  2 3 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000)  11,014 1,984 0 12,998 Del Mar  Total KMs   6 3 2 11 Exposure (x$1,000)  38,837 1,972 2,965 43,774 El Cajon  Total KMs  49 3 4 56 Exposure (x$1,000)  326,126 2,043 5,268 333,437 Encinitas  Total KMs  5 4 0 9 Exposure (x$1,000)  32,741 2,620 0 35,361 Escondido  Total KMs   65 6 1 72 Exposure (x$1,000)  431,452 4,162 752 436,366 Imperial Beach  Total KMs  1 1 0 2 Exposure (x$1,000)  1,097 543 0 1,640 La Mesa  Total KMs  1 1 1 3 Exposure (x$1,000)  3,158 281 180 3,619 Lemon Grove  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 National City  Total KMs  28 1 1 30 Exposure (x$1,000)  188,912 405 414 189,731 Oceanside  Total KMs   94 12 11 117 Exposure (x$1,000)  624,041 8,133 16,729 648,903 Otay Water District Total KMs   38 4 0 42 Exposure (x1000)  256,525 2,418 0 258,943 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Total KMs   28 4 3 35 Exposure (x1000)  184,247 2,915 5,218 192,380 Port of San Diego  Total KMs   9 2 9 20 Exposure (x1000)  28,995 1,211 13,073 43,279 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 230 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Poway  Total KMs  4 1 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000)  23,390 198 0 23,588 Rainbow Municipal Water District Total KMs  32 1 0 33 Exposure (x$1,000)  212,499 844 0 213,343 San Diego (City)  Total KMs  367 3 67 437 Exposure (x$1,000)  2,448,289 22,199 100,606 2,571,094 San Diego County Water Authority  Total KMs  859 89 94 1,042 Exposure (x1000)  5,730,566 61,124 140,601 5,932,291 San Marcos  Total KMs  26 2 2 30 Exposure (x$1,000)  172,749 1,393 3,617 177,759 San Miguel FPD Total KMs   4 1 0 5 Exposure (x$1,000)  24,494 759 0 25,253 Santee  Total KMs   25 4 1 30 Exposure (x$1,000)  166,448 2,574 303 169,325 Solana Beach  Total KMs   0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 Sweetwater Authority Total KMs   86 7 5 98 Exposure (x$1,000)  574,882 4,765 7,853 587,500 Unincorporated  Total KMs  124 9 1 134 Exposure (x$1,000)  823,809 5,942 1,070 830,821 Vista  Total KMs   25 1 1 27 Exposure (x$1,000)  167,522 560 1,486 169,568 Vista Irrigation District Total KMs   3 0 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000)  20,253 0 0 20,253 Total Number  1,962 177 209 2,348 Total Exposure (x $1,000)  13,030,250 138,899 307,916 13,477,065 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 231 5.3.9. RAIN-INDUCED LANDSLIDE Steep slope and soils data from SANDAG, as well as data from the State of California, U.S. Geological Survey and HAZUS for all of San Diego County were combined and modeled to determine areas susceptible to rain-induced landslides. Soils that are prone to movement were determined from the database, and combined with areas that have greater than 25% slope, which are prone to sliding. The combination of these two factors gives a general idea of landslide susceptibility. Localized hard copy maps developed by TAN were also reviewed. The TAN landslide susceptibility modeling takes into account more information, such as past landslides, landslide-prone formations, and steep slope. The identified vulnerable assets were superimposed on top of this information, resulting in three risk/exposure estimates: 1. The aggregated exposure and building count (both dollar exposure and population) at the census block level for residential and commercial occupancies 2. The aggregated population at risk at the census block level 3. The critical infrastructure at risk (schools, hospitals, airports, bridges, and other facilities of critical nature). These results were then aggregated and presented by hazard risk level per jurisdiction. The first table below provides a breakdown of potential exposure for high-risk rain-induced landslide hazard by jurisdiction, and the second table below provides a breakdown of infrastructure and critical facility exposure for high risk. The third table provides a breakdown of potential exposure for moderate risk rain- induced landslide by jurisdiction, and the fourth table below provides a breakdown of potential infrastructure and critical facility exposure for moderate risk. Approximately 181,501 people may be at risk from a rain-induced landslide hazard: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 232 TABLE 58: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FROM RAIN-INDUCED LANDSLIDE HAZARD (HIGH RISK) BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Populatio n Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine Fpd 292 2 777 0 0 Carlsbad 2,163 24 9,324 1 302,350 Chula Vista 865 0 0 0 0 Coronado 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon 1,337 11 4,273 0 0 Encinitas 158 4 1,554 0 0 Escondido 4,372 76 29,526 3 907,050 Imperial Beach 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0 0 National City 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside 0 0 0 0 0 Otay Water District 5,522 32 12,432 0 0 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 846 30 11,655 0 0 Port Of San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 Poway 574 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District 1,968 84 32,634 8 2,418,800 Rancho Santa Fe Fpd 10,853 3,285 1,276,223 226 68,331,100 San Diego 1,222 9 3,497 0 0 San Diego County Water Authority 68,465 5,076 1,972,026 270 81,634,500 San Marcos 8,693 943 366,356 12 3,628,200 San Miguel Fpd 1,773 48 18,648 0 0 Santee 8 11 4,274 1 302,350 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority 2,592 89 34,577 2 604,700 Unincorporated 51,594 4,300 1,670,550 259 78,308,650 Vista 2,782 21 8,159 1 302,350 Vista Irrigation District 1,733 68 26,418 2 604,700 Total 167,812 14,113 5,482,903 785 237,344,750 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 233 TABLE 59: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM RAIN-INDUCED LANDSLIDE HAZARD (HIGH RISK) BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT RAIL SCH TOTAL Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Otay Water District Number 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 47,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47,000 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 0 2 0 0 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 4 14 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 13,340 0 0 94,000 3,048 12,192 0 0 0 163,612 0 218,078 504,270 San Diego County Water Authority Number 0 2 0 4 3 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 4 20 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 13,340 0 8,000 141,000 6,096 12,192 0 0 0 163,612 0 218,078 562,318 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 234 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT RAIL SCH TOTAL Santee Number 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporat ed Number 0 2 0 3 3 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 4 18 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 13,340 0 6,000 141,000 3,048 12,192 0 0 0 163,612 0 218,078 557,270 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number 0 6 0 9 9 4 12 0 0 0 3 0 12 55 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 0 40,020 0 18,000 423,000 2,192 36,576 0 0 0 490,836 0 654,234 1,674,858 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 235 TABLE 60: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM RAIN-INDUCED LANDSLIDE HAZARD (HIGH RISK) BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Carlsbad  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Chula Vista  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Coronado  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Del Mar  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 El Cajon  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Encinitas  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Escondido  Total KMs   0 1 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 246 0 246 Imperial Beach  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 La Mesa  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 National City  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Otay Water District Total KMs   3 1 0 4 Exposure (x$1,000)  17,437 635 0 18,072 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 236 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Oceanside  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Total KMs   1 1 Exposure (x1000)  726 726 Port of San Diego  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x1000)  0 0 0 0 Poway  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Total KMs  2 1 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000)  14,962 887 0 15,849 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Total KMs  15 1 0 16 Exposure (x$1,000)  98,127 742 0 98,869 San Diego (City)  Total KMs  1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000)  2,823 0 0 2,823 San Diego County Water Authority  Total KMs  37 6 0 43 Exposure (x1000)  248,125 4,231 0 252,356 San Marcos  Total KMs  8 0 0 8 Exposure (x$1,000)  55,696 0 0 55,696 San Miguel FPD Total KMs   0 1 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 600 0 600 Santee  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Solana Beach  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority Total KMs  0 1 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 139 0 139 Unincorporated  Total KMs  47 6 2 55 Exposure (x$1,000)  311,472 3,962 2,442 317,876 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 237 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Vista  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District Total KMs   1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000)  2,020 0 0 2,020 Total Number  114 19 2 135 Total Exposure (x $1,000)  750,662 12,168 2,442 765,272 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 238 TABLE 61: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO RAIN-INDUCED LANDSLIDE HAZARD (MODERATE RISK) BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine Fpd 0 0 0 0 0 Carlsbad 0 0 0 0 0 Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon 177 57 22,145 2 605 Encinitas 60 4 1,554 0 0 Escondido 558 494 191,919 26 7,861 Imperial Beach 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa 0 2 777 0 0 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0 0 National City 0 64 24,864 1 302 Oceanside 0 0 0 0 0 Otay Water District 9,569 20,175 7,837,988 1,071 323,817 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 3,972 6,051 2,350,814 427 129,103 Port Of San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 Poway 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District 2,837 1,351 524,864 57 17,234 Rancho Santa Fe Fpd 16,246 11,707 4,548,170 684 206,807 San Diego 560 4 1,554 0 0 San Diego County Water Authority 115,920 103,190 40,089,315 6,267 1,894,827 San Marcos 258 150 58,275 5 1,512 San Miguel Fpd 23,999 41,324 16,054,374 2,186 660,937 Santee 0 0 0 0 0 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority 4,265 5,316 2,065,266 301 91,007 Unincorporated 115,732 102,862 39,961,887 6,279 1,898,456 Vista 0 66 25,641 2 605 Vista Irrigation District 4,182 5,802 2,254,077 454 137,267 Total 298,335 298,619 116,013,484 17,762 5,307,340 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 239 TABLE 62: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM RAIN-INDUCED LANDSLIDE HAZARD (MODERATE RISK) BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coronado Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Otay Water District Number 0 41 0 15 9 9 9 0 0 2 19 104 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 273,470 0 30,000 2,907,000 27,432 27,432 0 0 193,612 3,621,338 7,080,284 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 36 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 226,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114,552 341,332 Poway Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 20,010 0 0 875,000 3,048 0 0 0 30,000 0 928,058 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 0 26 0 0 5 4 5 0 0 7 6 53 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 173,420 0 0 1,063,000 12,192 15,240 0 0 878,059 370,874 2,512,785 San Diego (City) Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego County Water Authority Number 0 245 0 21 28 31 28 0 0 14 56 423 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 1,629,400 0 42,000 8,768,000 94,488 85,344 0 0 1,355,282 5,323,190 17,297,704 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 240 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL San Marcos Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,670 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Miguel FPD Number 0 97 0 0 4 9 9 0 0 3 29 151 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 646,990 0 0 188,000 27,432 27,432 0 0 223,612 4,117,656 5,231,122 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority Number 0 32 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 3 41 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 213,440 0 0 47,000 3,048 9,144 0 0 30,000 98,494 401,126 Unincorporated Number 0 250 0 21 30 31 28 0 0 15 56 431 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 1,662,750 0 42,000 9,690,000 94,488 85,344 0 0 1,385,282 5,323,190 18,283,054 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Irrigation District Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 25,730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91,464 117,194 Total Number 0 733 0 57 78 86 82 0 0 43 173 1,252 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 0 4,878,660 0 114,000 23,538,000 262,128 249,936 0 0 4,095,847 19,060,758 52,199,329 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 241 TABLE 63: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM RAIN-INDUCED LANDSLIDE HAZARD (MODERATE RISK) BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Carlsbad  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Chula Vista  Total KMs   1 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000)  2,941 0 0 2,941 Coronado  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Del Mar  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 El Cajon  Total KMs  2 1 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000)  11,578 95 0 11,673 Encinitas  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Escondido  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 La Mesa  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 National City  Total KMs  23 0 0 23 Exposure (x$1,000)  155,397 0 0 155,397 Oceanside  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Otay Water District Total KMs   166 41 0 207 Exposure (x$1,000)  1,309,054 28,206 0 1,337,260 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 242 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Padre Dam Municipal Water District Total KMs   26 3 0 29 Exposure (x1000)  171,195 2,376 0 173,571 Port of San Diego  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x1000)  0 0 0 0 Poway  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Rainbow Municipal Water District Total KMs  52 2 0 54 Exposure (x$1,000)  346,138 1,174 0 347,312 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Total KMs  43 5 0 48 Exposure (x1000)  288,347 3,352 0 291,699 San Diego (City)  Total KMs  6 0 2 8 Exposure (x$1,000)  40,763 0 2,312 43,075 San Diego County Water Authority  Total KMs  1,033 179 58 1,270 Exposure (x1000)  6,888,284 122,442 87,479 7,098,205 San Marcos  Total KMs  2 1 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000)  13,026 306 0 13,332 San Miguel FPD Total KMs   215 49 0 264 Exposure (x$1,000)  1,430,630 33,517 0 1,464,147 Santee  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Solana Beach  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Sweetwater Authority Total KMs   94 7 0 101 Exposure (x$1,000)  629,031 4,909 0 633,940 Unincorporated  Total KMs  1,113 180 58 1,351 Exposure (x$1,000)  7,424,405 122,740 87,336 7,634,481 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 243 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Vista  Total KMs   1 0 1 2 Exposure (x$1,000)  5,205 0 272 5,477 Vista Irrigation District Total KMs   40 2 3 45 Exposure (x$1,000)  268,108 1,566 4,609 274,283 Total Number  2,817 470 122 3,409 Total Exposure (x $1,000)  18,984,102 320,683 182,008 19,486,793 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 244 5.3.10. WILDFIRE/STRUCTURE FIRE CDF-FRAP (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program) modeled wildland fire threat for the state of California in 2002. This model was used in GIS to profile the fire hazard throughout the County and is described in detail below in the Vulnerability Assessment portion of this document. This data was updated as requested by the Encinitas jurisdiction and is reflected in the hazard modeling process and subsequent mapping. It should be noted that the hazard level depicted within current data boundaries will change after the CDF re-evaluates burned areas. After this re-evaluation is complete, it is expected that the CDF-FRAP will remodel the fire risk and provide updated risk maps. These updated maps should be included in future revisions of this plan. In the model, fire threat is a combination of factors including: 1. Historical fire regime and fire regime condition class 2. Existing vegetation 3. Topography. These factors were combined to create five fire regime classes ranging from little or no threat to extreme. The regime classes are: Fire Regime I - 0-35 year frequency and low to mixed severity Fire Regime II - 0-35 year frequency and high severity Fire regime III - 35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity Fire Regime IV - 35-100 + year frequency and high severity Fire Regime V - 200+ year frequency and high severity Wildfire loss estimates were determined using the CDF-FRAP Wildfire Hazard Severity Zones data. CDF- FRAP modeled wildland fire threat for the state of California in 2008. This model was used in GIS to profile the fire hazard throughout the County, then used in overlays to determine the loss estimates. In the model, fire threat is a combination of two factors: 1) fire rotation, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (fuel rank). These two factors were combined to create five threat classes ranging from little or no threat to very high. The fuel ranking methodology assigned ranks based on expected fire behavior for unique combinations of topography and vegetative fuels under a given severe weather condition (wind speed, humidity, temperature, and fuel moisture). The procedure made an initial assessment of rank based on as assigned fuel model and slope, then potentially increases ranks based on the amount of ladder and/or crown fuel present to arrive at a final fuel rank. Fire rotation class intervals were calculated from fifty years of fire history on land areas grouped into “strata” based on fire environment conditions. These strata are defined by climate, vegetation, and land ownership. The fire rotation interval is the number of years it would take for past fires to burn an area equivalent to the area of a given stratum. Fire rotation interval for a given stratum is calculated by dividing the annual number of acres burned into the total area of the stratum. Finally, fire rotation values were grouped into classes. The larger fire rotation values correspond to less frequent burning. CDF calculated a numerical index of fire threat based on the combination of fuel rank and fire rotation. A 1-3 ranking of fuel rank was summed with the 1-3 ranking from rotation class to develop a threat index ranging from 2 to 6. This threat index was then grouped into four threat classes. Areas that do not support wildland fuels (e.g., open water, agriculture lands, etc.) were omitted from the calculation, however areas of very large urban centers (i.e., concrete jungles) were left in but received a moderate threat value. This data was updated as requested by the City of Encinitas to more accurately reflect their fire risks, and is reflected in the hazard modeling process and subsequent mapping. The identified vulnerable assets were superimposed on top of this information, resulting in four risk/exposure estimates: 1) the aggregated exposure and building count at the parcel level for residential SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 245 and commercial occupancies, 2) the aggregated population at risk at the census block level, 3) the critical facilities at risk (schools, hospitals, airports, bridges, and other facilities of a critical nature), and 4) the critical infrastructure (major roadways, railways, and oil/gas pipelines) at risk. These results were then aggregated and presented by hazard risk level per jurisdiction. Wildfire can create a multi-hazard effect, where areas that are burned by wildfire suddenly have greater flooding risks because the vegetation that prevented erosion is now gone. Watershed from streams and rivers will change and floodplain mapping may need to be updated. Also, air quality issues during a large- scale fire would cause further economic losses than only the structural losses described below. Road closures and business closures due to large-scale fires would also increase the economic losses shown below. The tables below provide a breakdown of potential greatest exposures to the San Diego region: SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 246 TABLE 64: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FROM VERY HIGH WILDFIRE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine FPD 14,696 4,961 1,927,845 84 25,397 Carlsbad 19,479 5,075 1,972,145 561 169,618 Chula Vista 15,354 2,583 1,003,754 64 19,350 Coronado 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar 3,555 340 132,124 249 75,285 El Cajon 13,057 1,523 591,838 7 2,116 Encinitas 11,633 3,801 1,476,689 89 26,909 Escondido 33,762 4,639 1,802,715 148 44,748 Imperial Beach 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa 106 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0 0 National City 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside 14,768 1,823 708,418 128 38,701 Otay Water District 25,962 6,989 2,715,925 383 115,800 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 68,029 14,780 5,743,508 802 242,485 Port Of San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 Poway 25,892 5,326 2,069,684 569 172,037 Rainbow Municipal Water District 11,651 4,168 1,619,685 60 18,141 Rancho Santa Fe Fpd 27,114 3,586 1,393,520 173 52,307 San Diego 341,251 123,699 48,069,431 3,517 1,063,365 San Diego County Water Authority 791,081 203,245 78,981,007 8,821 2,667,029 San Marcos 41,364 7,043 2,736,910 355 107,334 San Miguel Fpd 21,741 4,418 1,716,835 157 47,469 Santee 17,792 4,673 1,815,928 115 34,770 Solana Beach 2,538 579 224,999 25 7,559 Sweetwater Authority 734 0 0 78 23,583 Unincorporated 322,758 52,594 20,438,028 3,708 1,121,114 Vista 21,628 1,680 652,848 279 84,356 Vista Irrigation District 20,066 1,497 581,734 54 16,327 Total 1,866,011 459,022 178,375,570 20,426 6,175,800 Wildfire dataset provided by City of Encinitas for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 247 TABLE 65: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM VERY HIGH WILDFIRE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Alpine PFD Number 0 34 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 42 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 226,780 0 0 47,000 0 9,144 0 0 0 114,922 397,846 Carlsbad Number 0 7 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 1 2 17 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 46,690 0 0 47,000 12,192 6,096 0 0 163,612 108,188 383,778 Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 47,000 3,048 0 0 0 0 0 50,048 Coronado Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon Number 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 9 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 13,340 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 0 6,997,070 7,013,458 Encinitas Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 22,880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163,612 51,948 78,628 Escondido Number 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 13 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 73,370 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 42,106 145,476 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Number 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 Exposure (x$1,000) 86,701 6,670 0 0 0 3,048 3,048 0 0 0 37,518 136,985 Otay Water District Number 0 16 0 15 11 4 6 0 0 2 8 62 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 106,720 0 30,000 3,001,000 12,192 18,288 0 0 193,612 474,192 3,836,004 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 0 47 0 0 1 4 4 0 0 1 16 73 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 313,490 0 0 47,000 12,192 12,192 0 0 163,612 7,396,966 7,945,452 Poway Number 0 32 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 6 3 46 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 213,440 0 0 141,000 3,048 3,048 0 0 180,000 155,918 696,454 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 33 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 40 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 220,110 0 2,000 922,000 6,096 3,048 0 0 0 14,430 1,167,684 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 15 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 53,360 0 0 1,016,000 0 0 0 0 193,612 0 1,262,972 San Diego (City) Number 1 260 2 21 34 18 14 1 0 4 70 425 Exposure (x$1,000) 20,137 1,716,150 3,660 42,000 8,222,000 54,864 42,672 16,629 0 387,223 15,821,496 26,326,831 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 248 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL San Diego County Water Authority Number 1 457 2 53 59 49 33 4 0 26 119 803 Exposure (x$1,000) 106,837 3,026,340 3,660 106,000 13,537,000 149,352 100,584 33,259 0 1,982,505 37,210,012 56,255,550 San Marcos Number 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 17 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 4,000 857,000 3,048 0 0 0 0 12,941,120 13,811,838 San Miguel FPD Number 0 2 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 2 3 13 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 13,340 0 0 94,000 3,048 9,144 0 0 193,612 71,780 384,924 Santee Number 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 13,340 0 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 163,612 152,366 332,366 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Number 0 258 0 33 37 44 33 0 0 15 34 454 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 1,701,860 0 66,000 6,707,000 131,064 100,584 0 0 1,118,059 1,029,784 10,854,351 Vista Number 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 13,340 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 0 0 16,388 Total Number 3 1,177 4 125 157 132 102 5 0 63 183 2,050 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 213,675 7,787,890 7,320 250,000 34,685,000 399,288 310,896 49,888 0 4,933,071 82,619,816 131,097,033 Wildfire dataset provided by City of Encinitas for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 249 TABLE 66: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURE FROM VERY HIGH WILDFIRE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Alpine FPD Total KMs  65 3 0 68 Exposure (x$1,000)  434,832 2,268 0 437,100 Carlsbad  Total KMs  61 13 0 74 Exposure (x$1,000)  407,897 8,578 0 416,475 Chula Vista  Total KMs   41 4 0 45 Exposure (x$1,000)  273,960 2,566 0 276,526 Coronado  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Del Mar  Total KMs   0 1 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 652 0 652 El Cajon  Total KMs  16 2 0 18 Exposure (x$1,000)  107,171 1,079 0 108,250 Encinitas  Total KMs  21 10 0 24 Exposure (x$1,000)  65,575 6,717 0 140,769 Escondido  Total KMs   40 9 0 49 Exposure (x$1,000)  267,984 6,149 0 274,133 Imperial Beach  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 La Mesa  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 National City  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Oceanside  Total KMs   14 3 0 17 Exposure (x$1,000)  90,850 2,180 0 93,030 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 250 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Otay Water District Total KMs   216 24 0 240 Exposure (x1000)  1,438,065 16,706 0 1,454,771 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Total KMs   137 22 0 159 Exposure (x1000)  911,453 14,984 0 926,437 Port of San Diego  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x1000)  0 0 0 0 Poway  Total KMs  58 4 0 62 Exposure (x$1,000)  388,142 2,414 0 390,556 Rainbow Municipal Water District Total KMs   262 11 0 273 Exposure (x1000)  1,744,280 7,763 0 1,752,043 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Total KMs  14 2 0 16 Exposure (x$1,000)  93,346 1,630 0 94,976 San Diego (City)  Total KMs  1,934 126 56 2,116 Exposure (x$1,000)  12,894,842 85,728 83,589 13,064,159 San Diego County Water Authority  Total KMs  3,316 292 89 3,697 Exposure (x1000)  22,108,904 199,668 133,388 22,441,960 San Marcos  Total KMs  40 2 1 43 Exposure (x$1,000)  266,929 1,183 1,642 269,754 San Miguel FPD Total KMs   51 21 0 72 Exposure (x$1,000)  338,443 14,334 0 352,777 Santee  Total KMs   33 2 0 35 Exposure (x$1,000)  223,061 1,448 0 224,509 Solana Beach  Total KMs   9 3 1 13 Exposure (x$1,000)  61,678 1,776 254 63,708 Unincorporated  Total KMs  2,185 123 90 2,398 Exposure (x$1,000)  14,569,105 83,698 134,264 14,787,067 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 251 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Vista  Total KMs   13 3 0 16 Exposure (x$1,000)  87,845 1,723 0 89,568 Vista Irrigation District Total KMs   12 0 1 13 Exposure (x$1,000)  79,247 0 535 79,782 Total Number  8,538 680 238 9,449 Total Exposure (x $1,000)  58,853,609 463,244 353,672 57,739,002 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 252 TABLE 67: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FROM HIGH WILDFIRE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1,000) Alpine FPD 991 788 306,138 138 41,724 Carlsbad 24,365 8,513 3,307,301 238 71,959 Chula Vista 8,464 2,863 1,112,276 57 17,234 Coronado 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar 940 255 99,068 8 2,419 El Cajon 1,131 168 65,268 20 6,047 Escondido 9,189 1,629 632,867 76 22,979 Imperial Beach 0 6 2,331 0 0 La Mesa 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0 0 National City 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside 18,152 5,128 1,992,228 144 43,538 Otay Water District 15,736 4,372 1,698,522 355 107,334 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 11,393 3,746 1,455,321 284 85,867 Port Of San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 Poway 7,010 1,974 766,899 202 61,075 Rainbow Municipal Water District 4,867 2,021 785,159 63 19,048 Rancho Santa Fe FPD 11,976 2,456 954,156 103 31,142 San Diego 30,619 9,281 3,605,669 1,427 431,453 San Diego County Water Authority 224,927 55,177 21,436,265 3,591 1,085,739 San Marcos 11,262 5,276 2,049,726 124 37,491 San Miguel FPD 5,147 1,672 649,572 263 79,518 Santee 7,644 2,047 795,260 75 22,676 Solana Beach 954 505 196,193 15 4,535 Sweetwater Authority 491 472 183,372 21 6,349 Unincorporated 98,697 16,146 6,272,721 1,157 349,819 Vista 15,117 999 388,112 88 26,607 Vista Irrigation District 8,960 674 261,849 36 10,885 Total 518,032 126,168 49,016,273 8,485 2,565,438 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 253 TABLE 68: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM HIGH WILDFIRE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL Alpine FPD Number 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 20,010 0 0 0 6,096 0 0 0 0 18,722 44,828 Carlsbad Number 0 9 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 7 19 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 60,030 0 0 0 0 6,096 0 0 163,612 452,436 682,174 Chula Vista Number 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 20,010 1,830 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 42,550 67,438 Coronado Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 6,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,670 Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Escondido Number 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 2,000 1,750,000 0 0 0 0 163,612 98,346 2,013,958 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Number 0 7 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 15 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 46,690 0 0 47,000 6,096 3,048 0 0 163,612 125,060 391,506 Otay Water District Number 0 8 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 2 17 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 53,360 1,830 0 922,000 9,144 3,048 0 0 0 201,428 1,190,810 Padre Dam Municipal Water District Number 0 12 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 17 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 80,040 0 0 0 6,096 3,048 0 0 0 72,372 161,556 Poway Number 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 46,690 0 0 47,000 0 0 0 0 60,000 0 153,690 Rainbow Municipal Water District Number 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 46,690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46,690 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Number 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 11 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 40,020 0 0 0 6,096 0 0 0 0 246,864 292,980 San Diego (City) Number 2 14 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 20 Exposure (x$1,000) 161,960 93,380 0 0 0 3,048 3,048 0 0 0 221,852 483,288 San Diego County Water Authority Number 1 94 1 1 12 12 11 0 0 7 35 174 Exposure (x$1,000) 344,057 622,230 1,830 2,000 3,876,000 36,576 33,528 0 0 878,059 2,012,874 7,807,154 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 254 Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP PORT POT SCH TOTAL San Marcos Number 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 6 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 13,340 0 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 264,624 281,012 San Miguel FPD Number 0 7 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 46,690 0 0 47,000 3,048 3,048 0 0 0 158,878 258,664 Santee Number 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 13,340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53,650 66,990 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24,864 24,864 Sweetwater Authority Number 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 8 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 40,020 0 0 0 0 3,048 0 0 0 33,004 76,072 Unincorporated Number 1 79 0 0 12 10 6 0 0 2 16 126 Exposure (x$1,000) 196,513 517,430 0 0 2,220,000 30,480 18,288 0 0 327,223 727,346 4,037,280 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Exposure (x$1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48,396 48,396 Total Number 4 267 3 2 31 35 27 0 0 14 83 466 Total Exposure (x $1,000) 702,530 1,766,640 5,490 4,000 8,909,000 106,680 82,296 0 0 1,756,118 4,803,266 19,806,356 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 255 TABLE 69: POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO INFRASTRUCTURES FROM HIGH WILDFIRE HAZARD BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Alpine FPD Total KMs  6 1 0 7 Exposure (x$1,000)  38,043 595 0 38,638 Carlsbad  Total KMs  129 24 0 153 Exposure (x$1,000)  861,708 16,189 0 877,897 Chula Vista  Total KMs   33 2 0 35 Exposure (x$1,000)  218,981 1,024 0 220,005 Coronado  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Del Mar  Total KMs   1 2 1 4 Exposure (x$1,000)  2,219 1,200 257 3,676 El Cajon  Total KMs  3 1 0 4 Exposure (x$1,000)  23,274 438 0 23,712 Escondido  Total KMs   20 2 0 22 Exposure (x$1,000)  135,087 1,550 0 136,637 Imperial Beach  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 La Mesa  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Lemon Grove  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 National City  Total KMs  0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1,000)  0 0 0 0 Oceanside  Total KMs   50 4 0 54 Exposure (x$1,000)  330,311 2,580 0 332,891 Otay Water District Total KMs   84 10 0 94 Exposure (x1000)  559,789 6,922 0 566,711 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 256 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Padre Dam Municipal Water District Total KMs   24 3 0 27 Exposure (x1000)  161,849 2,232 0 164,081 Port of San Diego  Total KMs   0 0 0 0 Exposure (x1000)  0 0 0 0 Poway  Total KMs  14 1 0 15 Exposure (x$1,000)  96,648 227 0 96,875 Rainbow Municipal Water District Total KMs   35 2 0 37 Exposure (x1000)  235,403 1,607 0 237,010 Rancho Santa Fe FPD Total KMs  14 1 0 15 Exposure (x$1,000)  95,745 432 0 96,177 San Diego (City)  Total KMs  130 6 2 138 Exposure (x$1,000)  864,555 4,184 2,817 871,556 San Diego County Water Authority  Total KMs  683 119 19 821 Exposure (x1000)  4,553,847 81,510 28,331 4,663,688 San Marcos  Total KMs  40 1 3 44 Exposure (x$1,000)  267,402 843 5,094 273,339 San Miguel FPD Total KMs   24 2 0 26 Exposure (x$1,000)  163,233 1,433 0 164,666 Santee  Total KMs   13 2 0 15 Exposure (x$1,000)  87,222 1,340 0 88,562 Solana Beach  Total KMs   1 2 1 4 Exposure (x$1,000)  1,572 1,282 701 3,555 Sweetwater Authority Total KMs  1 3 0 4 Exposure (x$1,000)  6,227 2,058 0 8,285 Unincorporated  Total KMs  420 71 32 523 Exposure (x$1,000)  2,798,149 48,323 47,473 2,893,945 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 257 Jurisdiction  Data  HWY  OIL GAS  RR  TOTAL  Vista  Total KMs   12 2 0 14 Exposure (x$1,000)  83,218 1,463 0 84,681 Vista Irrigation District Total KMs   2 0 0 2 Exposure (x$1,000)  14,101 0 0 14,101 Total Number  1,739 261 58 2,058 Total Exposure (x $1,000)  11,598,583 177,432 84,673 11,860,688 SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 258 5.3.11. HUMAN-CAUSED HAZARDS The vulnerability assessment information for human-caused hazards is considered sensitive homeland security information and is provided in a separate, confidential document (Attachment A). 5.3.12. CLIMATE CHANGE (EXTREME HEAT, DROUGHT, COMPOUNDING EVENTS) The following paragraphs provide an assessment summary of Climate Change impacts and threats to people and property in the San Diego region, provided by planning partners from Scripps Institution of Oceanography (more sources are listed in this plan’s appendices):138F139F139F 144 Scripps Institution of Oceanography Assessment Summary Community adaptations to climate change should best be conducted with an awareness of the existing local climate, along with spatially specific climate projections. This section summarizes and updates findings of the San Diego Region Report (Kalansky et al., 2018) and the San Diego County Ecosystems Report (Jennings et al., 2018) which have recently synthesized the current state of the science and understanding of the impacts from climate variability and future climate change in the region. The section will be organized by key climate-related phenomena: temperature, precipitation, Santa Ana winds and wildfires, coastal low clouds, and sea level. The section concludes by discussing compounding extreme events. Warming Temperature, Extreme Heat, and Drought As has been projected across California (Pierce et al., 2018), models indicate that temperature in San Diego will warm progressively through the 21st Century. By the end of the 21st Century, the projected warming ranges from 4˚F to 9˚F, with magnitude depending greatly upon global greenhouse gas emissions. Warming is projected to be greater in late summer and early fall than in other months of the year, and this monthly difference is more pronounced for minimum daily temperatures and under a non-mitigated greenhouse gas emission scenario (RCP 8.5). Because the oceans warm more slowly than land masses, temperature increases along the coast are projected to be about 1˚F less than other locations throughout the region. The most severe impacts of rising temperature will likely result during occurrences of weather patterns that cause extreme heat. Heat waves have impacts on human health, ecosystems, agriculture, energy demand, and infrastructure. By the end of the century, similar to the average temperature change, the hottest day of the year is projected to increase by 4-9˚F depending on the greenhouse gas emission scenario. The frequency, or the probability of a heat wave occurrence, does not necessarily follow background warming however (Guirguis et al., 2018). For example, under 6˚F of warming, nighttime frequency of heat waves is projected to increase by approximately 51% in the coastal zone, while that of daytime heat waves is only projected to increase by 23% (Jennings et al., 2018). Unlike the coasts, the local mountains, such as Cuyamaca have a similar increase (~30%) in the probability of nighttime and daytime heat waves. This contrast is a result of differences in the number of days of extreme temperature (long warm tails). Relative to background warming, which is projected to be stronger inland than at the coast, scientists (Gershunov & Guirguis, 2012) have projected more intense future heat waves along the coast compared to inland areas. In San Diego, as in the rest of California, coastal low clouds modulate temperatures by providing a cooling effect (Iacobellis & Cayan, 2013) while their absence can boost heat waves relative to normal temperatures (Clemesha et al., 2018). This relationship has an impact on projections of heatwaves; however, the sensitivity of coastal low clouds to climate change is complicated and is an area of active research at present. Moreover, winter Santa Ana wind-driven coastal heat wave activity is on the rise (Gershunov et al. 2021) and these events are known to carry a health burden (Schwarz et al. 2020). The San Diego Region Report highlighted that the most vulnerable populations to health impacts from extreme events, such as heatwaves, are those who lack resources or are uninsured, are socially isolated, or 144 Higbee, Melissa, Daniel Cayan, Sam Iacobellis, Mary Tyree (2014). Report from San Diego Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Training Workshop #1: Climate Change and Hazards in San Diego. ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://www.icleiusa.org/library/documents/training-workshop-report/view SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 259 whose health is already compromised. For example, cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses are exacerbated by heat and air pollution (Analitis et al., 2014) and psychiatric illness has been shown to triple the risk of death from extreme heat (Bouchama et al., 2007). Heatwaves increase morbidity and mortality as was seen with the July 2006 heat wave in California, which exhibited unprecedented magnitude and unusually high humidity levels (Gershunov et al., 2009). The 2006 extreme heat wave resulted in over 600 excess deaths (Ostro et al., 2009), over 1200 excess hospitalizations for cardiovascular and other diseases (Guirguis et al., 2014), and over 16,000 excess emergency-department visits (Knowlton et al., 2009). In addition, recent research since the San Diego report has shown heat waves in the week prior can cause preterm birth (Ilango et al., 2020) and significant increases in renal hospital admissions for urinary tract infection, septicemia (blood poisoning), urinary stones, and composite kidney disease (Malig et al., 2019). Throughout California and in San Diego, the effect of high apparent temperature, a combination of hot temperatures and high humidity, can have a greater impact in mortality (heat-related deaths) in coastal areas than inland areas (Basu, 2009). Guirguis et al, (2018, 2014) found that higher daily rates of heat wave-related hospitalization in coastal areas was caused by a lack of air conditioning, while community members in inland areas more often did have air conditioning. Building on this, McElroy et al. (McElroy et al., 2020), examined heat wave definitions (length, threshold percentiles and nighttime versus daytime temperature) and found that community members in climatologically warmer inland and desert climate zones in San Diego had more hospitalizations during heatwaves that had high nighttime warming, as compared to community members in the coastal zone. Both studies underscore the need for heat warning systems that account for differences in the climate zones throughout San Diego. Furthermore, warming temperatures statewide could result in reduced water supply for the San Diego region. The State Water Project and Colorado River provide 75% to 95% of the water supply for the San Diego region, depending on the year. Both water supplies originate in mountain snowpack. Over the past 50 years across most of the Southwest, there has been less late-winter precipitation falling as snow, earlier snowmelt, and earlier arrival of most of the year’s streamflow. Projections of further warming will result in reduced snowpack, which could translate into reduced water supply for the San Diego region’s cities, agriculture, and ecosystems. An additional threat to water supply is the vulnerability of the levees protecting the California Delta, which feeds the State Water Project. While the San Diego region’s water supply is likely to decrease, water demand is expected to also increase approximately 29% by 2050 due to economic growth and population pressures. Local water managers also report that higher temperatures could lead to increased demand for water for irrigation. Water shortages could become more frequent and more severe in the future, straining the local economy. In Southern California, high temperatures also have great impacts on energy and transportation. A study of Los Angeles, which examined vulnerabilities of energy infrastructure at the neighborhood level, estimated losses up to 20% of peak demand safe operating electrical system capacity during projected extreme temperatures at the end of the century. High temperatures in neighboring San Diego County are expected to have similar impacts. Possible adaptations identified for the Los Angeles case, including higher density housing and reduction of sunlight absorbed (increasing albedo) are relevant for the San Diego region (Burillo et al., 2018, 2019). Data relating to temperature impacts on transportation in Southern California is limited, but studies elsewhere indicate that high temperatures must be included as design criteria in order to avoid damage to roads and rail lines (Sias-Daniel et al., 2014). Research is advancing on effective adaptations to help combat the impact of heat. As Guirguis et al. (2018) showed, access to air conditioning can help prevent hospitalizations during extreme heat events. People living in hotter areas within cities have suffered an overall 6% higher risk of mortality/ morbidity compared to those in cooler areas, and those living in less vegetated areas had 5% higher risk compared to those living in more vegetated areas (Schinasi et al., 2018). In Los Angeles, increases in roof albedo, through light- colored reflecting roof surface treatments, reduces near-surface air temperature (Mohegh et al., 2018). With respect to infrastructure, the increase of solar energy generation in San Diego will help to offset increased electricity demand during hot sunny days, although this local source of energy will not help to satisfy nighttime energy needs for air conditioning on hot nights, and will be less effective during, cloudy, hot and SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 260 often humid days. The addition of batteries can extend solar power's ability to provide energy during nighttime and on cloudy days. Highly Volatile Precipitation Precipitation in Southern California has the highest year-to-year variability of any place in the continental U.S (Dettinger et al., 2011). In the San Diego region this variability is exemplified by the unusually wet water years of 2005, 2011, and 2017 and the droughts of 2001-2004, 2007-2010 and 2012-2016. As is the case for Northern California (Dettinger & Cayan, 2014), the high year-to-year variability in San Diego County is driven by extreme precipitation events, wherein days with precipitation at or exceeding the 95th percentile account for 80% of the year-to-year variability in annual total precipitation (Jennings et al., 2018). The heaviest events mostly occur in winter, although the region occasionally experiences high rainfall events from tropical storms or convective rainfall patterns during late summer and early fall. Large spatial variability adds to the complexity of the climate regime in the region. Mean annual precipitation ranges widely in San Diego County, between approximately 8-36 inches with most differences resulting from topographic influences - most precipitation on the west and south facing slopes and least in the rain shadow of the local mountains. Model projections indicate that precipitation in California will become even more variable in future decades. While days with measurable precipitation become less frequent in Southern California (Pierce et al., 2013; Polade et al., 2014), extreme precipitation events will intensify (Polade et al., 2017). By the end of the century, the average wettest day every five years is projected to increase by 10-30%. Driving the precipitation regime change are atmospheric rivers, which are transports of moisture from the tropics over the Pacific Ocean in long, thin streams of moisture, like rivers in the sky. Precipitation from atmospheric rivers is projected to increase in the future, while precipitation from other forms of precipitation is projected to decrease. This tendency is particularly evident for the most extreme events — model projections suggest the strongest increases in the wettest 1% of days, nearly all of which are found to be atmospheric rivers (Gershunov et al., 2019). Atmospheric rivers are projected to be associated with floods, annual maximum flow events, 8% more often in the end of the century as compared to 1950-2000 (Cao et al., 2020). Historically atmospheric rivers have caused the greatest flood damages to property in California and elsewhere along the West Coast as compared to other types of storms (Corringham et al., 2019). Also, coastal runoff created by atmospheric rivers has been shown to result in fecal pollution in coastal waters (Aguilera et al., 2019). In future decades, projected increases in precipitation from atmospheric rivers will likely increase both the flood damages and water pollution as a result of the extreme precipitation. The average of several climate models project that Southern California will be drier in the future. However, the models project a range of changes in annual precipitation, due to differences in the representation of atmospheric circulation changes across different global climate models, and to the highly variable nature of the San Diego precipitation (Gershunov et al., 2019). Drought, both interannual and annual, impacts ecosystems and enhances wildfire risk. The recent 2012-2016 drought may be an early form of future droughts in California, not only having diminished annual precipitation amounts, but also featuring temperatures exceeding historical levels. This combination of warming and drying results in greater evaporative demand from plants and the land surface, which exacerbates the drought (McEvoy et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2015). While reductions of annual precipitation are somewhat uncertain, the increase in temperature is baked into the future because of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere. The strong likelihood of warming continuing through future decades would indicate that enhanced evapotranspiration and landscape drying are quite certain. Because of this, future projections of drought that incorporate the evapotranspiration as well as precipitation project more multi-year droughts relative to projections of drought that only include precipitation (Kalansky et al. 2018; McEvoy et al., 2020). Ecosystems have adapted to the high variability of San Diego’s hydroclimate, but this variability is projected to increase. The recent 2012-2016 drought showed that certain species were more susceptible to multi-year SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 261 droughts than others (Venturas et al., 2016). Meanwhile, recurrent drying, along with persistent warming since 1999 has pushed the Southwest toward “mega drought” (Williams et al., 2020). Extreme drought has the potential to intensify and change community composition and structure of ecosystems. Drought has severe consequences because it operates at spatial scales larger than other disturbances such as fire (Jennings et al., 2018). Adding to impacts caused by interannual drought, the seasonal drought that is characteristic of the Mediterranean climate is projected to become longer with reduced precipitation in the shoulder seasons, spring, and fall. Such a shift toward a narrower precipitation season would stress some plant communities because spring features the largest increases in biomass for many plants due to the availability of moisture as well as the longer daylight hours (Parker et al., 2016). Thus, the projected spring drying has the potential to limit the growth of plants during their primary growing season. The largest impact of fall drying might likely be the increased occurrence of dry live and dry fuels during the season when Santa Ana winds occur, which would intensify the fall wildfire season. Growing Threats of Wildfire from Warmer Climate and Santa Ana Winds Santa Ana conditions erase the presence of the North Pacific air mass that usually blankets San Diego County. Santa Ana events typically last a few days and often carry strong and gusty winds from east or northeast directions that produce extreme dryness. Santa Ana Winds bring some of the highest winds experienced by many parts of San Diego County. Peaking in early winter, Santa Ana winds originate in the elevated Great Basin as cool air masses and are pushed southwestward by a synoptic pressure gradient creating offshore winds throughout San Diego (Hughes & Hall, 2010). Clear skies are typically associated with Santa Ana wind events as the offshore winds blow air pollution offshore (Aguilera et al., 2020a). Some Santa Anas are quite cool, owing to their origins from cold dry Great Basin air masses, but the majority of Santa Anas are warm. In fact, hot, dry Santa wind events have accounted for many of the extremely warm (99th percentile) days within the September through May period: 90% of the warm extremes in winter, 30% in fall and 40% in spring. These non-summer heatwaves increase hospitalizations for dehydration, renal failure and stroke (McElroy et al., 2020). San Diego’s highest wildfire risk occurs during Santa Ana winds. In recent years, the region suffered some of California’s largest conflagrations, including the September 1970 Laguna fire (175,425 acres burned), the October 2003 Cedar fire (273,246 acres burned) and the October 2007 Witch (197,990 acres burned) and Harris (90,440 acres burned) fires, all fanned by Santa Ana winds. The Santa Ana season typically commences in October, when vegetation is driest. An ignition of parched vegetation under this strong, gusty, dry wind causes wildfires that are extremely difficult if not impossible to control. This explains the timing of the peak of the traditional southern California wildfire season — October — when the Santa Ana season starts and before the first rainstorms of winter. During fires under Santa Ana conditions, air pollution (particulate matter under 2.5 microns - PM2.5) increases throughout San Diego and PM2.5 from wildfire is up to 10 times more harmful than air pollution from other sources (Aguilera et al., 2020b). In addition to the personal safety, infrastructure and public health hazards posed by wildfires, San Diego ecosystems are also sensitive to too frequent fires. A growing risk in a warmer, fire-prone climate is the conversion of woody chaparral and coastal sage shrublands to grasses and other weedy herbaceous vegetation (Syphard et al., 2018), or the conversion from native coniferous forests to shrublands or exotic grasslands (Franklin, 2010). Climate model projections of Santa Ana winds indicate that their activity could decrease in the warmer future. In the second half of the century under a non-reduction of greenhouse gas emission scenario (RCP 8.5) Santa Ana wind frequency is projected to decrease by between 8-20% and winds speeds between 5- 10% relative to a historical period of 1950-1999. Further, the Santa Ana activity is projected to decrease mainly in the shoulder seasons, fall and spring, relative to winter (Guzman-Morales & Gershunov, 2019). The decrease in Santa Ana wind activity in the fall may help mitigate future wildfire risk resulting from drier autumns and more frequent multi-year droughts. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 262 On the other hand, projected delays in the wet season (Pierce et al., 2013) would extend the presence of dry vegetation into the December peak of Santa Ana wind activity (Guzman-Morales et al., 2016) which will always see more frequent Santa Ana winds than October ever did (Guzman-Morales & Gershunov, 2019). December fires could occasionally be fanned by back-to-back Santa Ana wind events and have the potential to grow to unprecedented proportions. These were the antecedent conditions that led to the Lilac Fire in San Diego and one of the largest fires in California history, the Thomas Fire, which burned in Ventura and Santa Barbara. The Thomas Fire continued to burn throughout most of December 2017 and into January 2018, when its smoldering remains were finally put out by the first significant rain of the season — an atmospheric river, which caused deadly debris flows. A later start of the wet season is already apparent in the observations, while a decrease in Santa Ana wind activity has not yet emerged from the natural variability (Williams et al., 2019). Moreover, there are hot and cold flavors of the Santa Ana (Gershunov et al. 2021), of which the hot SAWs spread the largest wildfires. Research yet needs to be carried out to understand the possibly differential impact of climate change on the two flavors of SAWs. Variable Marine Layer Clouds Coastal low stratus clouds, also referred to by scientists as Marine Layer Clouds (MLC) or by locals in Southern California as “May gray” and “June gloom,” are a defining and highly variable aspect of coastal California summer climate. MLC in San Diego are common in late spring and early summer when cool moist air near the ocean surface and sinking warm air above cause a temperature inversion which traps low level moisture and creates optimal conditions for these blanketlike stratiform clouds. When present, MLC shield the coast from summertime heat and are an important weather pattern to the coastal ecosystems in San Diego (Jennings et al., 2018) and as important modulators of coastal expressions of summertime heat waves (Clemesha et al., 2018). The stability of the lower atmosphere and ocean temperatures are important in the development of MLC, but there are additional drivers that interact on various spatial and temporal scales (Clemesha et al., 2016, 2017; Schwartz, 2015). Because global climate models are coarse-grid calculations and only poorly resolve the high gradient atmosphere-ocean structure along the California coast, and because the controls that govern the presence of coastal stratus are a balance of competing large and smaller scale processes, MLC appear to be poorly predicted. These factors and interactions need to be better understood to provide credible predictions of any future changes in MLC along San Diego County’s coastal zone under future climate change. Sea-Level Rise, Coastal Storms, and Erosion The coast is an important part of San Diego’s landscape, culture, and economy. It is also one of the more vulnerable landscapes in San Diego as many of its beaches, cliffs, and estuaries are already experiencing erosion and flooding, and these hazards are expected to accelerate in frequency and intensity with climate change. Over the last century sea level has risen about 0.6 ft over much of the Central and Southern California coast. Global sea level provides an important indicator of the state of the warming climate, but regional sea- level rise varies across coastal communities because processes that cause sea-level rise interact differently and vary across coastal regions (Hamlington et al., 2020). Between 1980 and 2000, sea level along San Diego was relatively stable, even decreasing slightly as stronger wind stress gradients over the eastern Pacific suppressed the global rise along North America. Since 2000, sea level has been increasing as the wind systems relaxed once again (Bromirski et al., 2011, 2012; Hamlington et al., 2016). For the San Diego region, sea-level rise models project similar ranges in elevated sea-levels until 2050 (approximately 0.6 to 1.3 feet). In the second half of the century, sea-level rise is expected to accelerate significantly, but there is greater uncertainty as to how extreme this rise will be at the end of the century (0.9 to 4 feet) with the possibility that it is much higher (Griggs et al., 2017). This is SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 263 related to unknown global greenhouse gas emission reductions and uncertainties about how rapid ocean warming will impact ice sheet melting (Griggs et al., 2017; Kalansky et al., 2018) Given the increased rate of sea level rise, in the near term the greatest impacts from sea level rise are mostly likely to occur during events that combine high tides, El Nino and both locally and distantly generated wind-driven waves. For example, the generally elevated sea levels along the California coast during the super El Nino of 1982-83 were heightened by large winter storms and high waves during high tide periods, causing enormous coastal damage along the San Diego County shoreline (Flick, 1998). The next period of unusually high tides will occur in 2021 from 16.8 and 4.4-year lunar tidal cycles, and will produce peak monthly tides about 0.5 ft higher than years in between cycle peaks (Cayan et al., 2008; Zetler & Flick, 1985). Hazardous coastal storm events are expected to become more severe as global sea level rises. San Diego’s long history of coastal monitoring and research are now being used more to advance our understanding of how extreme events as repetitive stressors are increasing San Diego’s coastal vulnerabilities. Recent improvements in coastal wave forecasting (Crosby et al., 2016, 2017) coupled with enhanced wave runup modeling are improving coastal flood forecasting capabilities for San Diego communities by defining the incident wave conditions and tide levels that result in site-specific flooding (Fiedler et al., 2018, 2020). A long history of coastal monitoring and analysis by San Diego researchers (Ludka et al., 2019) has led to improved wave forecasts, improved understanding of sediment processes, including beach nourishment (addition of sand to the beaches) and cliff erosion, and improved understanding of local estuarine dynamics and ecosystems. Beach processes and sediment budgets are typically characterized within a particular littoral cell, a series of sand sources (such as rivers, streams, and eroding coastal bluffs) that provide sand to the shoreline, sand sinks (such as coastal dunes and submarine canyons) where sand is lost from the shoreline, and alongshore transport that moves sand along the shoreline. Over the years, human activity, such as damming rivers, has limited the amount of sand that enters the littoral cell. For example, 60% (40% dammed and 20% urbanized and not dammed) of the Oceanside Littoral Cell watershed no longer generates beach sand (Young et al., 2010). Beach sand levels and waves have been monitored at selected San Diego beaches for as long as 17 years (Torrey Pines, Imperial Beach, Solana Beach, and Cardiff Beach) including two energetic El Nino winters that showed significant beach degradation (Ludka et al., 2019). These observations have led to a better understanding of seasonal beach sand level changes, areas of chronic erosion (Doria et al., 2016; Yates et al., 2009, 2011) and coastal impacts associated with El Niño events (Barnard et al., 2017; Doria et al., 2016; Ludka et al., 2015, 2016, 2018; Young, 2018). Cliff erosion is a natural coastal process for much of northern San Diego County. In San Diego, between 1998 and 2009 the mean cliff top retreat was 0.46 ft/yr (Young, 2018). San Onofre State Beach is a cliff erosion hot spot in San Diego County due to extensive deep-seated landslide (Adam P Young, 2015). Other areas in north San Diego County, such as Encinitas and Del Mar, have also experienced a number of significant cliff failures in recent years. Researchers are advancing understanding of how wave-cliff impacts and rainfall contribute to both upper and lower coastal cliff erosion providing insight into how increasing sea levels, and storm driven waves and rainfall may further accelerate this erosion (Young et al., 2021) Additionally, beach nourishment, or the addition of sand, is an important part of the sediment supply to beaches throughout the San Diego region, beginning at the end of World War II. SANDAG spent $44 million in 2001 and 2012 on non-opportunistic nourishment by placing 3.5 million cubic yards of sand on beaches throughout the County and north San Diego County has developed a 50-year, $160 million plan for beach nourishment (Diehl, 2015). The impacts of beach nourishment are complex as there are several physical processes that interact to determine the impacts on flooding, erosion, and ecosystems. Successive beach monitoring during the nourishments provides insight into how site-specific sediment transport processes, sand grain size, timing of the nourishment and the intensity and frequency of storm-driven wave energy can affect the success of a nourishment (Ludka et al., 2016, 2018, 2019). SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 264 Compounding Extreme Events One concern, both historically and in the future is a sequence of hazards, or “compounding extreme events.” For example, the largest fire in California history, the Thomas Fire, and subsequent Montecito debris flows, unleashed from the barren landscape that was burned off by the Thomas Fire, is an example of a devastating sequence of climate related events. The December 2017 Thomas fire burned 281,893 acres occurred several months after a very wet winter (more than 22 inches November through May as an average over the South Coast Climate Division) and immediately following an extremely dry September through November that delivered only about 0.3 inches of precipitation. When a strong Santa Ana wind event occurred in early December, the dry landscape provided the fuel for a devastating wildfire that was fanned by strong and back-to-back Santa Ana Wind events common in December. The conditions allowed the Thomas fire to grow to the largest wildfire in Southern California’s modern history. The first measurable rainfall occurred on January 8. During the storm, high intensity rainfall resulted in devastating post-fire debris flows in Montecito and Carpinteria resulting in 23 deaths, 246 structures destroyed, and 167 damaged. This sequence of devastating events has the potential to become more frequent given the projections of a drier fall, extending the annual seasonal drought into the main Santa Ana season, increasing the likelihood that a strong Santa Ana wind event occurs over a dry landscape that can provide fuel for the fire. Further extreme precipitation is projected to become more extreme, leading to the increased possibility of post-fire debris flows. Other relevant compound co-occurring extremes for the San Diego area include public health impact form waves, wildfires, droughts, extreme precipitation, as well as coastal and inland flooding. A frequent compounder of wildfire and smoke impacts on public health (Aguilera et al. 2020, 2021a, 2021b) is the coastal heat that is often produced by Santa Ana winds (Gershunov et al. 2021), also known to impact health in the fall, winter, and spring (Schwarz et al. 2020). Another possible compounding event that could heighten the potential for increased frequency and severity of impacts in the future is the combination of a storm causing both terrestrial and coastal flooding. As sea level rises, and extreme precipitation becomes more extreme, the combination of coastal and storm water flooding has the potential to have devastating impacts on property, infrastructure, and water quality. SECTION FIVE | Risk Assessment 265 SECTION SIX: Develop a Mitigation Strategy Decorative Image Photo by CAL FIRE San Diego Communications Bureau San Diego County, California 2023 SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 266 6. SECTION SIX: DEVELOP A MITIGATION STRATEGY After each participating jurisdiction reviewed the Risk Assessment (Section 5), jurisdictional leads met with their individual Local Planning Groups (LPG) to identify appropriate jurisdictional-level goals, objectives, and mitigation action items. This section of the Plan incorporates: 1. Mitigation goals and objectives 2. Mitigation actions/priorities 3. An action plan/implementation strategy The mitigation strategy serves as the long-term blueprint for reducing potential losses identified in the risk assessment. The mitigation strategy describes how the community will accomplish the overall purpose, or mission, of the planning process. The mitigation strategy is made up of three main required components: mitigation goals, mitigation actions, and an action plan for implementation. These provide the framework to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to reduce risk to hazards. Mitigation goals are general guidelines that explain what the community wants to achieve with the plan They are usually broad policy-type statements that are long-term, and they represent visions for reducing or avoiding losses from the identified hazards Mitigation actions are specific projects and activities that help achieve the goals. The action plan describes how the mitigation actions will be implemented, including how those actions will be prioritized, administered, and incorporated into the community’s existing planning mechanisms. In a multi-jurisdictional plan, each jurisdiction must have an action plan specific to that jurisdiction and its vulnerabilities. Although not required, some communities choose to develop objectives to help define or organize mitigation actions. Objectives are broader than specific actions, but are measurable, unlike goals. Objectives connect goals with the actual mitigation actions. Each jurisdiction reviewed hazard profile and loss estimation information presented in Section 5 and used this as a basis for developing mitigation goals and objectives. Other important inputs to the development of jurisdiction-level goals and objectives include performing reviews of existing local plans, policy documents, and regulations for consistency and complementary goals, as well as soliciting input from the public. 6.1. MITIGATION ACTION EVALUATION Mitigation actions that address the goals and objectives developed in the previous step were identified, evaluated, and prioritized. These actions form the core of the mitigation plan. Jurisdictions conducted a capabilities assessment, reviewed and incorporated existing local plans, policies, and regulations for any other capabilities relevant to hazard mitigation planning. An analysis of their capability to carry out these implementation measures regarding hazard and loss prevention was conducted. The capabilities assessment required an inventory of each jurisdiction’s legal, administrative, fiscal, and technical capacities to support hazard mitigation planning. SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 267 After completion of the capabilities assessment, each jurisdiction evaluated and prioritized their proposed mitigations. As part of this process, each jurisdiction reviewed the actions detailed in the 2018 plan to see if they were completed, had been dropped due to issues such as lack of political support or lack of funding, or were on-going and should be continued in the new plan. The status of each jurisdiction’s action items is detailed in Section 7 of this Plan and jurisdiction-specific Annexes, if applicable. In all cases, the mitigation actions selected are prioritized based on the benefit of the action compared to the cost (in terms of funding, staff time, time to complete) of conducting that action. Also considered were cost-benefit reviews, changes in development, safe growth audits, mitigation efforts, mitigation potential improvement, and current/updated priorities. Each participant used their local planning group to evaluate alternative mitigation actions by considering the implications of each action item. One potential method available to the cities to accomplish this was the STAPLEE method. The STAPLEE criteria is a tool used to assist communities in deciding which actions to include in their implementation strategy. The table below shows the evaluation and prioritization of each mitigation action being considered by the Planning Team. For each action, evaluate the potential benefits and/or likelihood of successful implementation for the criteria defined below. Rank each of the criteria with a -1, 0 or 1 using the following scale: • 1 = Highly effective or feasible • 0 = Neutral • -1 = Ineffective or not feasible STAPLEE Evaluation Criteria: • Life Safety – How effective will the action be at protecting lives and preventing injuries? • Property Protection – How significant will the action be at eliminating or reducing damage to structures and infrastructure? • Technical – Is the mitigation action technically feasible? Is it a long-term solution? Eliminate actions that, from a technical standpoint, will not meet the goals. • Political – Is there overall public support for the mitigation action? Is there the political will to support it? • Legal – Does the community have the authority to implement the action? • Environmental – What are the potential environmental impacts of the action? Will it comply with environmental regulations? • Social – Will the proposed action adversely affect one segment of the population? Will the action disrupt established neighborhoods, break up voting districts, or cause the relocation of lower income people? • Administrative – Does the community have the personnel and administrative capabilities to implement the action and maintain it or will outside help be necessary? • Local Champion – Is there a strong advocate for the action or project among local departments and agencies that will support the action’s implementation? • Other Community Objectives – Does the action advance other community objectives, such as capital improvements, economic development, environmental quality, or open space preservation? Does it support the policies of the comprehensive plan? SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 268 Letters preceding Mitigation Action titles correspond with Section 6.2’s “Prioritized Actions” sections. TABLE 70: MITIGATION ACTIONS Mitigation Action Life Safety Property Protection Technical Political Legal Environ mental Social Admini strative Local Champio n Other Community Objectives Total Score Local Plans and Regulations D. Climate Change Planning - - - - - - - - - - Not rated G. Building Codes - - - - - - - - - - Not rated H. Hazard Mitigation Action Adoption 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 I. MSCP Open Space Acquisitions Efforts 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 K. Agricultural/Live stock Pass Program: - - - - - - - - - - Not rated L. Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (OA EOP)/Associated Annexes, Regional Emergency Plans, Concept of Operations (ConOps), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Planning/Training, Work Plans and Charters - - - - - - - - - - Not rated M. Excessive Heat Awareness Promotion, Resilience, Adaptation and Mitigation 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 N. Regional Planning Efforts - - - - - - - - - - Not rated SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 269 Mitigation Action Life Safety Property Protection Technical Political Legal Environ mental Social Admini strative Local Champio n Other Community Objectives Total Score Structure and Infrastructure Projects A. Limit Development in Floodplains and Other Hazardous Areas 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 E. Expansion of Automatic Local Evaluation in Real- Time (ALERT) to Vulnerable and Underserved Communities: - - - - - - - - - - Not rated F. Community Rating System (CRS) Implementation and Improvement - - - - - - - - - - Not rated Natural Systems Protection B. Forest Management 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 C. Invasive and Noxious Weed Control (Vegetation Management) - - - - - - - - - - Not rated J. Wetland Protection and Restoration Efforts 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Education and Awareness Programs M. Excessive Heat Awareness Promotion, Resilience, Adaptation and Mitigation: 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 O. Training and Exercises - - - - - - - - - - Not rated P. Public Education and Outreach Programs: - - - - - - - - - - Not rated Q. Sustainable Department Goals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 R. Three-Day Preparedness Kits - - - - - - - - - - Not rated SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 270 S. San Diego County Fire Community Emergency Response Team’s Community Emergency Preparedness Outreach Program - - - - - - - - - - Not rated T. Free Residential Knox Box Program - - - - - - - - - - Not rated U. Free Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Classes/Training for Communities - - - - - - - - - - Not rated V. The California Wildfire Mitigation Program - Home- Hardening Initiative - - - - - - - - - - Not rated W. Support Symposiums - - - - - - - - - - Not rated Mitigation Actions marked as “Not rated” in the table above are often considered existing County/Department priorities. 6.2. MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTIONS IMPLEMENTATION This version of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was revised over the past five years to reflect changes in development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities. Generally, hazard priorities remained unchanged, though some hazards’ (such as Climate Change, Drought, and Extreme Heat) prevalence and/or probability of occurrence increased and, therefore, needed an updated Vulnerability Assessment. All Hazard Profiles were researched for more modern content, data, and details. This plan’s Goals, Objectives, and Actions were updated from the last version to reflect current priorities within existing plans such as the County Strategic Plan/Initiatives and the County General Plan’s Safety Element. Local Mitigation Planning Groups (LMPGs) are comprised of individuals from various departments bringing their experience and knowledge of the region, the jurisdiction, and local constraints to assist in the evaluation of the hazards and the development of mitigations strategies, goals, objectives, and actions. Individual local planning group membership and decisions are discussed in each jurisdictions’ annex. There were four goals established by the County of San Diego’s LMPG. They are listed in order of importance and do not differ significantly from 2018 goals. Instead, these updated goals reflect consolidated versions of 2018 repetitive sentences and were rewritten to use FEMA and existing County/Regional plans’ terminology. Once developed, County staff SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 271 submitted the plan to Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and FEMA for approval. Once approved, the Plan will be submitted to the Unified Disaster Council, then to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors for adoption. The goals and objectives were developed by considering the risk assessment findings, localized hazard identification and loss/exposure estimates, and an analysis of the jurisdiction’s current capabilities assessment. These preliminary goals, objectives, and actions were developed to represent a vision of long-term hazard reduction or enhancement of capabilities. To help further development of these goals and objectives, the LMPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the County’s planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, County representatives met with County OES to specifically discuss these hazard-related goals, objectives, and actions as they related to the plan. For each goal, one or more objectives were identified that provide strategies to attain the goal. Where appropriate, the County has identified a range of specific actions to achieve the objective and goal. A mitigation action is a specific action, project, activity, or process taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards and their impacts. Implementing mitigation actions helps achieve the plan’s mission and goals. The actions to reduce vulnerability to threats and hazards form the core of the plan and are a key outcome of the planning process. Mitigation actions that will provide the most benefits in the least amount of time with available resources were selected as the highest priorities. This does not mean other actions are not considered important. It merely indicates that the LMPG set out to complete actions with current resources. The other actions will be completed as additional resources become available. Below is a broad, general list of the County of San Diego’s hazard-related Goals, Objectives, and Actions as prepared by the LMPG, and in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG), locally elected officials, and the public. The County of San Diego developed the broad list of Goals, Objectives, and Actions to assist in the implementation and achieving of the four identified hazard mitigation goals. For each Goal and Objective, specific Actions were developed that would foster implementation. A smaller list of prioritized actions, and discussion of the prioritization and implementation of the action items is provided in Section 6.1. of this plan. That smaller list of Prioritized Actions will require progress reports during the next plan update. “Grants and Local funds,” “Potential Grant Funding,” “Grants,” “FEMA HMA Grants,” and “State Grant Funding” named in the Base Plan and within the Annexes refers to FEMA funding available through the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs: the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program; and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program. SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 272 GOAL 1 FOSTER SAFE, SUSTAINABLE, AND THRIVING ENVIRONMENTS. Objective 1 Promote hazard-resistant future developments and enhance operational resources. GOAL 2 REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGES AND LOSSES TO EXISTING ASSETS (SUCH AS PEOPLE, CRITICAL FACILITIES/INFRASTRUCTURES, AND COUNTY-OWNED FACILITIES). Objective 2 Develop and/or enhance comprehensive all hazard mitigation policies, plans, technologies, and services. GOAL 3 ENHANCE LOCAL CAPACITY AND COMMITMENT TO BECOME LESS VULNERABLE TO ALL HAZARDS. Objective 3 Strengthen all hazard mitigation coordination and communication with local, state, tribal and federal governments/partners. GOAL 4 PROMOTE REGIONAL CULTURE OF HAZARD UNDERSTANDING, SUPPORT, AND PREPAREDNESS. Objective 4 Provide accessible and inclusive education, training, and resources to prepare the whole community for natural and human-caused hazards. The County of San Diego developed the following broad list of objectives and actions to assist in the implementation and achieving of the four identified hazard mitigation goals. For each objective, specific actions were developed that would foster implementation. A discussion of the prioritization and implementation of the action items is provided in Section 6.1.: SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 273 TABLE 71: HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTIONS Goal 1: Foster safe, sustainable, and thriving environments. Objective 1 Promote hazard-resistant future developments and enhance operational resources. Action 1. A. Facilitate the review, development, adoption, updating, and consistent enforcement of general plans, zoning ordinances and building codes by: • Strengthening existing development regulations to discourage land uses and activities that create or worsen hazards • planning and zoning for open space, recreational agricultural or other low intensity uses within floodway fringes • reviewing and revising, as necessary, sediment and erosion control regulations • ensuring newly constructed and existing critical facilities are designed to function after a major earthquake • updating building codes to reflect current earthquake standards • updating the County Consolidated Fire Code as necessary • updating the General Plan and zoning regulations to reflect hazardous areas using development patterns that should respect environmental characteristics and are harmonious with existing topography • developing model Weed Abatement and Fuel Modification ordinances • continuing to protect and restore wetlands by revising development ordinances, incorporating, and maintaining valuable wetlands in open space preservation programs to mitigate effects of development on wetland areas • staffing enforcement personnel to ensure compliance • supporting coordinated permitting activities processes through developing and coordinating permits for all agencies, developing notification procedures for all permits that support affected agencies, continuing to streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of efforts and continuing to exchange resources and work with local/regional partners • continuing to utilize multi-agency permitting and enforcement team • continuing to enforce trespassing regulations in high-risk areas • continuing forest and open space management efforts Action 1. B. Protect existing assets and limit future development in hazardous areas by: • continuing to identify high hazard areas, identify hazard-prone structures/assets, inventory wildlife vegetative communities by type and vegetation age class, and develop/update data sets necessary to test hazard scenarios and mitigation tools using GIS (Geographic Information Systems) • managing wildland vegetative communities to promote less hazardous conditions through defining target class ranges, developing partnerships within communities to fix age class ranges, and promoting cooperative vegetation management programs that incorporate hazard mitigation • continuing to construct barriers around hazard-prone structures • continuing to assess countywide utility infrastructures with regard to earthquake risk • continuing to review and compare existing flood control standards, zoning and building requirements • acquiring properties, when feasible, on floodway to prevent development • encouraging and conducting structural retrofitting to strengthen resistance to damage • encouraging clustering • continuing to gain public acceptance for avoidance policies in high-hazard areas • adopting policies that discourage growth in flood-prone areas • assuring adequate funding to restore damaged facilities to 100-year flood design SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 274 • updating storm water system plans and improving storm water facilities in high- risk areas • limiting development in areas of known geologic hazards • creating demand for hazard-resistant construction and site planning • increasing public understanding, support, and demand for new developments’ hazard mitigation • supporting transfer of development rights in hazard-prone areas. To protect lives and property, development in floodplains shall be appropriate and limited, and high fire hazard areas shall have adequate access for emergency vehicles. Responsible Department(s) • Fire • Land Use & Environment Group • Department of Public Works • Planning & Development Services • Parks & Recreation • Office of Emergency Services • Department of Agriculture, Weights & Measures Prioritized Actions A. Limit Development in Floodplains and Other Hazardous Areas: County Department of Public Works will continue to limit development of park structures and facilities in floodplains and other hazardous areas. B. Forest Management: County Parks & Recreation will continue to conduct brush and vegetation management in preserves to reduce fire and flooding risks. C. Invasive and Noxious Weed Control (Vegetation Management): The County Department of Agriculture, Weights & Measures will continue to promote cooperative vegetation management programs that promote hazard mitigation will be critical in continue to mitigate wildfire risks from vegetation. D. Climate Change Planning: The County Department of Public Works’ Flood Control District will lead efforts related to downscale modeling, stress testing Flood Control facilities during higher flows, updating County Special Drainage Area (SDA) Master Plans, update of County Hydrology Manual and Hydraulic Design Manual to account for climate change impacts. E. Expansion of Automatic Local Evaluation in Real-Time (ALERT) to Vulnerable and Underserved Communities: The County Department of Public Works’ Flood Control District will lead these efforts. F. Community Rating System (CRS) Implementation and Improvement: The County Department of Public Works’ Flood Control District will lead these efforts. G. Building Codes: County Planning & Development Services (PDS: Building Division) will review building codes to reflect current earthquake, fire, and wind standards annually and adopt as necessary to ensure structures are built to withstand hazard events. County staff will attend conferences and industry meetings to better understand changes to codes and after-event support efforts. H. Hazard Mitigation Action Adoption: County Planning & Development Services (PDS), County Fire, County Technology Office (CTO), County Communications Office (CCO) and County Office of Emergency Services (OES) will publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation actions throughout the region. I. MSCP Open Space Acquisitions Efforts: County Department of Parks & Recreation will continue open space acquisition efforts, such as purchasing land that could be preserved/protect natural resources and undeveloped land in high hazard areas. J. Wetland Protection and Restoration Efforts: The County Department of Parks & Recreation will continue wetland protection and restoration efforts. K. Agricultural/Livestock Pass Program: The County Department of Agriculture, Weights & Measures will help the County of San Diego establish a county-based program that grants agriculturalists special access to their farms or ranches during disaster. SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 275 Potential Funding Source(s) General Fund, federal and/or state grants Timeline January 2023 – January 2028 Goal 2: Reduce the possibility of damages and losses to existing assets (such as people, critical facilities/infrastructures and County-owned facilities). Objective 2 Develop and/or enhance comprehensive all hazard mitigation policies, plans, technologies, and services. Action 2.A. Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to hazard effects by: • protecting vulnerable populations from the effects of hazards • identifying projects related to all hazards for pre-disaster mitigation funding • including safety considerations in the planning and decision-making process by establishing policies related to future development that will minimize the risk of personal injury, loss of life, property damage, and environmental damage associated with natural and human-caused hazards. Action 2.B. Create, update and/or improve existing hazard/hazard mitigation policies, Concept of Operations (ConOps), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), plans, projects, technologies, and services with partners related, but not limited, to: • Avalanche • Dam Failure o by updating dam inundation plans every ten years, at minimum o by coordinating with partners and supporting existing efforts to mitigate dam failures (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water Resources) • Drought o by encouraging the public to adopt drought tolerant landscaping or xeriscape practices o by promoting use of reclaimed water for all landscaping efforts, where available and feasible. o support groundwater recycling efforts • Earthquake o by continuing to study ground motion, landslide ad liquefaction o by continuing to implement an ongoing seismic risk assessment program o by developing and implementing an incentive program for seismic retrofits o by studying ground motion, landslide and liquefaction • Erosion o by continuing to coordinate with coastal cities to develop comprehensive plans • Expansive Soils • Extreme Cold • Extreme Heat o by supporting regional efforts to prepare for excessive heat events, participating in “Excessive Heat Emergency Awareness” events and exercising heat emergency plans as established by the County Health & Human Services Agency (HHSA), Aging & Independence Services (AIS), Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Public Health Services (PHS) o by continuing to provide “Cool Zones” during excessive heat events • Flood o by developing a flood control strategy that ensures coordination with local, state, and federal agencies/partners o by minimize repetitive losses caused by flooding o by increasing participation and improving compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 276 • Hail • Hurricane • Landslide o by studying and improving storm drains for landslide-prone areas • Lightning • Sea Level Rise • Severe Wind • Severe Winter Weather • Subsidence • Tornado • Tsunami o coordinate with coastal cities to develop comprehensive plans • Wildfire/Structure Fire o by coordinating and supporting existing and new efforts to mitigate structural and vegetation fires o by continuing to develop partnerships for a countywide vegetation management program o by enforcing Defensible Space Clearance distances o by working with community-based groups to pilot chipping programs o by continuing to research options to provide low-cost insurance to cover landowners who allow prescribed burning on their lands o by establishing and continuing wildland fire technical working group o by continuing to develop partnerships for a countywide vegetation management program o by reporting annually to the Board of Supervisors on the progress of fire mitigation strategies • Climate Change o by raising awareness of the climate change links to public health o by reducing the public health impacts of climate change o by mitigating potential hazards caused by climate related events • Terrorism / Cyber Terrorism o Attachment A contains Terrorism/Cyber Terrorism Goals, Objectives, and Actions, is categorized as For Official Use Only, and is only available to official partners. • Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosion (CBRNE) Threats o Attachment A contains Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosion (CBRNE) threats’ goals, objectives, and actions, is categorized as For Official Use Only, and is only available to official partners. • Pandemic Disease Responsible Department(s) • Sheriff’s Department • Fire • Public Safety Group • Office of Emergency Services • Department of Public Works • Planning & Development Services • Land Use and Environmental Group/GIS • Health & Human Services Agency • Emergency Medical Services • Public Health Preparedness & Response • Public Health Services • Department of Environmental Health & Quality/ Hazardous Incident Response Team Prioritized Actions L. Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (OA EOP)/Associated Annexes, Regional Emergency Plans, Concept of Operations (ConOps), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Planning/Training, Work Plans and Charters, and Safety Element (of the County SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 277 General Plan): The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) will work with the eighteen incorporated cities and participating county departments, special districts and partners to revise, update and complete these plans, projects, technologies and services annually and/or as needed. M. Excessive Heat Awareness Promotion, Resilience, Adaptation and Mitigation: The County of San Diego, Public Health Services and the Health & Human Services Agency are undertaking initiatives over the next several years to raise awareness around excessive heat and climate change. Potential Funding Source(s) General Fund, federal and/or state grants Timeline January 2023 - January 2028 Goal 3: Enhance local capacity and commitment to become less vulnerable to all hazards. Objective 3 Strengthen all hazard mitigation coordination and communication with local, state, tribal and federal governments/partners. Action 3.A. Increase awareness and knowledge of hazard mitigation principles and practice among partners by: • continuously demonstrating the importance of pre-disaster mitigation planning to the Board of Supervisors and other public officials • conducting meetings with key elected officials to determine local issues and concerns • leveraging the County Communications Office/County News Center and the Partner Relay to promote mitigation actions Action 3.B. Encourage other partners/organizations to incorporate hazard mitigation activities by: • continuing to streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of efforts • continuing to encourage tribal governments to become part of the Hazardous Incident Response Team (HIRT) Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). Action 3.C. Establish, maintain, and improve close and lasting working relationships with partners by: • supporting the County Fire Safe Council • continuing and maintaining multi-jurisdictional/multi-functional training and exercises to enhance hazard mitigation • leveraging resources and expertise that will further hazard mitigation efforts • inviting/encouraging participation of tribal governments and special districts in Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan updates. Action 3.D. Improve the County’s capability and efficiency at administering pre- and post-disaster mitigation by: • collaborating with partners to identify, prioritize and implement mitigation actions • continuing to establish a requirement that all hazard mitigation projects submitted to the State must be reviewed by the County • continuing to improve coordination with the State Hazard Mitigation Department about local issues • maintaining consistency with the State in administering recovery programs SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 278 • coordinating recovery activities while restoring and maintaining public services through maintenance of two damage assessment teams and their activation/reporting procedures. Responsible Department(s) • Fire • Office of Emergency Services • Public Safety Group • Department of Environmental Health & Quality/Hazardous Incident Response Team Prioritized Actions N. Regional Planning Efforts: The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and participating County departments will streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of efforts in regional planning efforts (i.e. Hazard Mitigation Plan updates, etc.) by coordinating emergency management activities with regional stakeholders and facilitating meetings on a regular basis with regional emergency managers/the eighteen incorporated cities, healthcare agencies, campus emergency managers, Department of Defense (DOD)/local military partners, Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD) and faith-based partners. O. Training and Exercises: The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and participating county departments will collaborate with the eighteen incorporated cities and private sector agencies to maintain multi-jurisdictional/multi-functional training and annual exercises. Potential Funding Source(s) General Fund, federal and/or state grants Timeline January 2023 - January 2028 Goal 4: Promote regional culture of hazard understanding, support, and preparedness. Objective 4 Provide accessible and inclusive education, training, and resources to prepare the whole community for natural and human-caused hazards. Action 4.A. Improve the County’s ability to manage pre- and post-disaster scenarios and respond effectively during an event by: • attracting, recruiting, and retaining qualified, professional, and experienced staff • training staff for appropriate positions/assignments within the Operational Area Emergency Operations Center (OA EOC). Action 4.B. Increase and improve public education and awareness of hazards and mitigation action opportunities using a whole community approach by: • continuing to identify hazard-specific issues and needs and identifying communities that have recurring losses • publicizing and encouraging the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation actions • providing hazard information on County websites and leveraging the County Communications Office/County News Center • continuing to encourage the public to prepare and maintain a three-day preparedness kit for home and work • promoting the County’s “Know Your Hazards” and “SD Emergency” applications. • coordinating production of brochures, informational packets, and other handouts • delivering presentations as requested/needed • implementing hazard awareness program SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 279 • improving hazard warnings and response planning • implementing public education program to address fire dangers and corrective measures • continuing to develop, plan and publish evacuation procedures to the public • continuing to participate in community awareness meetings • continuing to collaborate with local, state and federal agencies’ on mapping efforts • continuing to support public and private sector symposiums • developing and maintaining hazard mitigation partnerships with the media. Action 4.C. Monitor and publicize the effectiveness of hazard mitigation actions implemented countywide by: • continuing to use County websites to publicize mitigation actions • continuing to establish budgets and identifying funding resources for mitigation outreach • continuing to determine mitigation messages to convey and create marketing campaigns • continuing to develop and distribute hazard brochures, CDs and other publications. Action 4.D. Promote hazard mitigation in the business community by: • increasing knowledge and awareness of hazard mitigation principles and practices • encouraging and empowering businesses to identify and address hazard- specific issues and needs • encouraging businesses to develop and implement hazard mitigation actions. Responsible Department(s) • Office of Emergency Services • Public Safety Group • Fire Prioritized Actions P. Public Education and Outreach Programs: The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and County Communication Office (CCO) will develop and maintain hazard mitigation-related public education and outreach programs (i.e. annual defensible space education/outreach, terrorism prevention, erosion control, etc.) Q. Sustainable Department Goals: The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) will continue to research ways to sustainably retain a trained workforce, particularly related to Emergency Operations Center positions. County OES will also continue to research economically sustainable efforts, technologies, equipment, vehicles, and other necessities to reduce the department’s carbon footprint. R. Three-Day Preparedness Kits: The County Office of Emergency Services (OES), County Communications Office (CCO), and the County Technology Office (CTO) will encourage the public to prepare and maintain a three-day preparedness kit for home and work through outreach events, social media, paid media and earned media. S. San Diego County Fire Community Emergency Response Team’s Community Emergency Preparedness Outreach Program: Utilize County Fire’s Community Emergency Response Team (trained and background checked volunteers) to conduct in-person outreach training, events and activities bringing emergency preparedness information to underserved populations in their rural communities. T. Free Residential Knox Box Program: County Fire will integrate the Knox Box Program through outreach efforts with CAL FIRE, participating County departments, Fire Safe Council of San Diego County, and other various stakeholders. U. Free Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Classes/Training for Communities: County Fire can integrate with partner agencies to offer the WUI course throughout San SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 280 Diego County. Participating agencies could include CAL FIRE, Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, and local Fire Safe Councils. V. The California Wildfire Mitigation Program - Home-Hardening Initiative: County Fire is currently working with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to pilot the California Wildfire Mitigation Program (CWMP) Home-Hardening Initiative. The CWMP Home Hardening Initiative aims to perform defensible space and retrofit measures on existing residential homesites to mitigate against wildfire losses. This program targets high social-vulnerability communities and provides financial assistance to qualifying low-and moderate-income (LMI) households. This pilot program will be implemented in three high-risk areas within San Diego County: Dulzura, Potrero, and Campo. W. Support Symposiums: The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and participating county departments will collaborate with the eighteen incorporated cities and the private sector to support public and private sector hazard mitigation planning symposiums. Potential Funding Source(s) General Fund, federal and/or state grants Timeline January 2023 - January 2028 Once the comprehensive list of jurisdictional goals, objectives, and action items listed above was developed, the proposed mitigation actions were prioritized using FEMA’s STAPLEE criteria. This step resulted in a list of acceptable and realistic actions that address the hazards identified in each jurisdiction. This prioritized list of action items was formed by the LPG. The Prioritized Actions below reflect progress in local mitigation efforts as well as changes in development. The Disaster Mitigation Action of 2000 (at 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206) requires the development of an action plan that not only includes prioritized actions but one that includes information on how the prioritized actions will be implemented. Implementation consists of identifying who is responsible for which action, what kind of funding mechanisms and other resources are available or will be pursued, and when the action will be completed. The top 23 Prioritized Actions, as well as an implementation strategy for each (i.e., will need a progress report during the next plan update cycle, according to current FEMA requirements), are: A. Prioritized Action: Limit Development in Floodplains and Other Hazardous Areas: County Department of Public Works will continue to limit development of park structures and facilities in floodplains and other hazardous areas. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Department of Public Works • Potential Funding Source: Flood Control District Fund, General Fund, grants • Implementation Timeline: Current- 2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood B. Prioritized Action: Forest Management: County Parks & Recreation will continue to conduct brush and vegetation management in preserves to reduce fire and flooding risks. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Department of Parks & Recreation • Potential Funding Source: General Fund and grants • Implementation Timeline: Current- 2028 SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 281 • Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire/Structure Fire, Flood C. Prioritized Action: Invasive and Noxious Weed Control (Vegetation Management): The County Department of Agriculture, Weights & Measures will continue to promote cooperative vegetation management programs that promote hazard mitigation will be critical in continue to mitigate wildfire risks from vegetation. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Department of Agriculture, Weights & Measures • Potential Funding Source: Current cost is funded with California Department of Food and Agriculture invasive weed grants, and internal agreements with DPR and DPW • Implementation Timeline: Current- 2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire/Structure Fire, Flood D. Prioritized Action: Climate Change Planning: The County Department of Public Works’ Flood Control District will lead efforts related to downscale modeling, stress testing Flood Control facilities during higher flows, updating County Special Drainage Area (SDA) Master Plans, update of County Hydrology Manual and Hydraulic Design Manual to account for climate change impacts. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Department of Public Works’ Flood Control District • Potential Funding Source: Grants and local funds • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: Climate Change, Flood, Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion E. Prioritized Action: Expansion of Automatic Local Evaluation in Real-Time (ALERT) to Vulnerable and Underserved Communities: The County Department of Public Works’ Flood Control District will lead these efforts. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Department of Public Works’ Flood Control District • Potential Funding Source: Grants and local funds • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Dam Failure F. Prioritized Action: Community Rating System (CRS) Implementation and Improvement: The County Department of Public Works’ Flood Control District will lead these efforts. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Department of Public Works’ Flood Control District • Potential Funding Source: Grants and local funds • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood G. Prioritized Action: Building Codes: County Planning & Development Services (PDS: Building Division) will review building codes to reflect current earthquake, fire, and wind standards annually and adopt as necessary to ensure structures are built to withstand hazard events. County staff will attend conferences and industry meetings to better understand changes to codes and after-event support efforts. SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 282 • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Planning & Development Services (Building Division) • Potential Funding Source: Unknown, potential future grants • Implementation Timeline: Annually • Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire/Structure Fire, Flood, Earthquake/Liquefaction H. Prioritized Action: Hazard Mitigation Action Adoption: County Planning & Development Services (PDS), County Fire, County Technology Office (CTO), County Communications Office (CCO) and County Office of Emergency Services (OES) will publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation actions throughout the region. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Planning & Development Services (PDS), County Fire, County Technology Office (CTO), County Communications Office (CCO) and County Office of Emergency Services (OES) • Potential Funding Source: General Fund, federal and/or state grants • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, Wildfire/Structure Fire I. Prioritized Action: MSCP Open Space Acquisitions Efforts: County Department of Parks & Recreation will continue open space acquisition efforts, such as purchasing land that could be preserved/protect natural resources and undeveloped land in high hazard areas. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Department of Parks & Recreation • Potential Funding Source: General Fund, grants, endowments, etc. • Implementation Timeline: Each Fiscal Year • Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, Wildfire/Structure Fire J. Prioritized Action: Wetland Protection and Restoration Efforts: The County Department of Parks & Recreation will continue wetland protection and restoration efforts. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Department of Parks & Recreation • Potential Funding Source: General Fund and grants • Implementation Timeline: Current-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: Climate Change, Drought, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human- Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Tsunami K. Prioritized Action: Agricultural/Livestock Pass Program: The County Department of Agriculture, Weights & Measures will help the County of San Diego establish a county- based program that grants agriculturalists special access to their farms or ranches during disaster. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Department of Agriculture, Weights & Measures • Potential Funding Source: General Fund, Potential future grants SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 283 • Implementation Timeline: Feasibility Analysis 3/2022-6/2022, Program Development 7/2022-12/2022, and Program Implementation 1/2023 • Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, Wildfire/Structure Fire L. Prioritized Action: Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (OA EOP)/Associated Annexes, Regional Emergency Plans, Concept of Operations (ConOps), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Planning/Training, Work Plans and Charters, and Safety Element (of the County General Plan): The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) will work with the eighteen incorporated cities and participating county departments, special districts and partners to revise, update and complete these plans, projects, technologies and services annually and/or as needed. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Office of Emergency Services and Planning & Development Services (for the Safety Element of the County General Plan) • Potential Funding Source: General Fund, federal and/or state grants • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Severe Winter Weather, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, Wildfire/Structure Fire M. Prioritized Action: Excessive Heat Awareness Promotion, Resilience, Adaptation and Mitigation: The County of San Diego, Public Health Services and the Health & Human Services Agency are undertaking initiatives over the next several years to raise awareness around excessive heat and climate change. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County of San Diego, Public Health Services, and the Health & Human Services Agency • Potential Funding Source: To be determined • Implementation Timeline: 2-5 years based on timeline for implementation • Hazard(s) Addressed: Climate Change, Extreme Heat, Drought N. Prioritized Action: Regional Planning Efforts: The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and participating County departments will streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of efforts in regional planning efforts (i.e. Hazard Mitigation Plan updates, etc.) by coordinating emergency management activities with regional stakeholders and facilitating meetings on a regular basis with regional emergency managers/the eighteen incorporated cities, healthcare agencies, campus emergency managers, Department of Defense (DOD)/local military partners, Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD) and faith-based partners. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Office of Emergency Services and participating County departments • Potential Funding Source: General Fund, federal and/or state grants • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 284 • Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, Wildfire/Structure Fire O. Prioritized Action: Training and Exercises: The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and participating county departments will collaborate with the eighteen incorporated cities and private sector agencies to maintain multi-jurisdictional/multi-functional training and annual exercises. • Coordinating Individual/Department: The County Office of Emergency Services and participating county departments • Potential Funding Source: General Fund, federal and/or state grants • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, Wildfire/Structure Fire P. Prioritized Action: Public Education and Outreach Programs: The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and County Communication Office (CCO) will develop and maintain hazard mitigation-related public education and outreach programs (i.e. annual defensible space education/outreach, terrorism prevention, erosion control, etc.) • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Office of Emergency Services and County Communication Office • Potential Funding Source: General Fund, federal and/or state grants • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, Wildfire/Structure Fire Q. Prioritized Action: Sustainable Department Goals: The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) will continue to research ways to sustainably retain a trained workforce, particularly related to Emergency Operations Center positions. County OES will also continue to research economically sustainable efforts, technologies, equipment, vehicles, and other necessities to reduce the department’s carbon footprint. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Office of Emergency Services • Potential Funding Source: General fund as grants as available • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, Wildfire/Structure Fire R. Prioritized Action: Three-Day Preparedness Kits: The County Office of Emergency Services (OES), County Communications Office (CCO), and the County Technology Office SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 285 (CTO) will encourage the public to prepare and maintain a three-day preparedness kit for home and work through outreach events, social media, paid media and earned media. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Office of Emergency Services, County Communications Office, and the County Technology Office • Potential Funding Source: General Fund, federal and/or state grants • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, Wildfire/Structure Fire S. Prioritized Action: San Diego County Fire Community Emergency Response Team’s Community Emergency Preparedness Outreach Program: Utilize County Fire’s Community Emergency Response Team (trained and background checked volunteers) to conduct in- person outreach training, events and activities bringing emergency preparedness information to underserved populations in their rural communities. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Fire • Potential Funding Source: Grant funds available to Community Emergency Response Teams through San Diego Gas and Electric, the Governor’s California Office of Emergency Services and other one-time grant opportunities. • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 and annual Community Emergency Preparedness Outreach. • Hazard Addressed: All Hazards including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, Wildfire/Structure Fire T. Prioritized Action: Free Residential Knox Box Program: County Fire will integrate the Knox Box Program through outreach efforts with CAL FIRE, participating County departments, Fire Safe Council of San Diego County, and other various stakeholders. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Fire • Potential Funding Source: General Fund, federal and/or state grants • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, Wildfire/Structure Fire U. Prioritized Action: Free Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Classes/Training for Communities: County Fire can integrate with partner agencies to offer the WUI course throughout San Diego County. Participating agencies could include CAL FIRE, Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, and local Fire Safe Councils. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Fire • Potential Funding Source: General Fund, federal and/or state grants • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire/Structure Fire SECTION SIX | Develop a Mitigation Strategy 286 V. Prioritized Action: The California Wildfire Mitigation Program - Home-Hardening Initiative: County Fire is currently working with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to pilot the California Wildfire Mitigation Program (CWMP) Home-Hardening Initiative. The CWMP Home Hardening Initiative aims to perform defensible space and retrofit measures on existing residential homesites to mitigate against wildfire losses. This program targets high social-vulnerability communities and provides financial assistance to qualifying low-and moderate-income (LMI) households. This pilot program will be implemented in three high- risk areas within San Diego County: Dulzura, Potrero, and Campo. • Coordinating Individual/Department: County Fire • Potential Funding Source: Federal and state grants • Implementation Timeline: 3-year program (2022-2025); potentially longer subject to the availability of additional funding. • Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire/Structure Fire W. Prioritized Action: Support Symposiums: The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and participating county departments will collaborate with the eighteen incorporated cities and the private sector to support public and private sector hazard mitigation planning symposiums. • Coordinating Individual/Department: The County Office of Emergency Services • Potential Funding Source: General Fund, federal and/or state grants • Implementation Timeline: 2023-2028 • Hazard(s) Addressed: All Hazards including, but not limited to, Climate Change, Dam Failure, Drought, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Extreme Heat, Flood, Human-Caused Hazards (Terrorism & Hazardous Materials Incidents (CBRNE threats)), Rain-Induced Landslide, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Storms/Erosion, Tsunami, Wildfire/Structure Fire See respective annexes for other jurisdictions’/planning participants’ hazard mitigation Goals, Objectives, Actions/Prioritized Actions, and implementation strategies. SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 287 SECTION SEVEN: Keep the Plan Current Decorative Image Photo by County OES San Diego County, California 2023 SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 288 7. SECTION SEVEN: KEEP THE PLAN CURRENT Hazard Mitigation Plan updates provide the opportunity to consider how well the procedures established in the previously approved plan worked and revise them as needed. This plan was last updated in 2018. This section of the 2023 Plan describes the formal process that will ensure The Plan remains an active and relevant document. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the Plan annually and producing a plan revision every five years. This section describes how the jurisdiction will integrate public participation throughout the plan maintenance process. 7.1. MITIGATION ACTION PROGRESS This version of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was revised over the past five years to reflect changes in development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities. Generally, hazard priorities remained unchanged, though some hazards’ (such as Climate Change, Drought, and Extreme Heat) prevalence and/or probability of occurrence increased and, therefore, needed an updated Vulnerability Assessment. All Hazard Profiles were researched for more modern content, data, and details. This plan’s Goals, Objectives, and Actions were updated from the last version to reflect current priorities within existing plans such as the County Strategic Plan/Initiatives and the County General Plan’s Safety Element. The 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic negatively affected overall progress on the 2018 plan and actions’ progress, but did not negatively impact the community’s vulnerability because the plan was created in tandem with existing local plans/procedures and thus aided in local government responses and actions to keep communities and assets safe. Below are progress reports for the eleven priority mitigation actions listed in the 2018 Plan: 1. Action/Project Title: Update Operational Area Emergency Operational Plan (OA EOP) and associated Annexes Progress Report Period: January 2019 to January 2020 Responsible Agency: The County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) worked with the 18 incorporated cities and participating special districts to revise and update the OA EOP/Annexes. Project Status: Project delayed Explain: Project was delayed due to COVID-19 Pandemic needs/priorities and OES staff/Project Manager turnover. Summary: During the reporting period, the previous County OES project manager(s) conducted meetings to discuss the OA EOP Basic Plan and annex revision suggestions/updates with county departments and partners from the eighteen incorporated cities and special districts. The project is a priority for County OES, but is a large project requiring many staff hours, and collaboration is contingent on the availability of participating project partners. SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 289 This project was managed, at minimum, by three different County OES staff members who left the department, so staff turnover caused deadline obstacles and time delays. Furthermore, County OES was initially responsible for coordinating response and resources for the COVID-19 Pandemic once County OES’ Emergency Operations Center was activated. Therefore, this project, and many others, could no longer be considered a departmental priority, as County OES instead needed to focus on ensuring the safety and well-being of San Diego County community members. This project is still considered relevant, and revision/update is ongoing. The mention of this project within the updated Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) will be revised to reflect elements eligible for hazard mitigation grant funding, such as (but not limited to), incorporation of passed legislation, cohesive integration with the MJHMP and other existing county/department plans, Emergency Operations Center training, equipment, etc. This project is estimated to be complete by June 30, 2022. 2. Action/Project Title: Develop and maintain public education and outreach programs related to actions community members can take to mitigate hazards they may face. (Annual defensible space education/outreach; terrorism prevention; erosion control, etc.) Progress Report Period: January 2018 to January 2023 Responsible Agency: County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) and County Communications Office (CCO) Project Status: Completed and Ongoing (but delayed) Explain: Action/Project has been completed and is also an ongoing effort/action. Project delayed because priorities shifted due to COVID-19 pandemic. There were also staffing changes. Summary: There have been staffing changes which limit the ability to report on the full scope of accomplishments for the reporting period. Awareness of accomplishments during this period include developing and posting protective actions community members can take to prepare themselves for emergencies and natural disasters from 2018 and thereon on County OES social media platforms in English and in Spanish, the dissemination of the updated Personal Disaster Plans translated into 12 languages, printing of flyers AlertSanDiego, and the SD Emergency app disseminating these flyers at community events and presentations. Community members have been encouraged to take appropriate hazard mitigation actions through alert and warning postings and press releases posted to the Ready San Diego website, AlertSanDiego, the SD Emergency app, County News Center articles. Campaigns were also conducted to increase the number of community members registered for AlertSanDiego Lyft (2018). Hazard mitigation messages have been developed, written, and promoted through television interviews in English and Spanish. These messages have also been provided to the Partner Relay network (a group with over 700 individuals) which is made of trusted community organizations who serve San Diego’s diverse, underserved communities, as well as community members with limited English proficiency through emails and trainings provided to the organizations. They can share these messages with the clients they serve. Numerous of these messages have also been translated into Spanish. The goal is to continue these efforts for the next few months leading through 2023. SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 290 The project is typically a priority for County OES, but is a large project requiring many staff hours, and collaboration is contingent on the outreach resources, implemented contracts, translation staff/resources, and funding. This project was managed, at minimum, by two different County OES staff members. One staff member left the department, so staff turnover caused deadline obstacles and time delays. Furthermore, County OES was initially responsible for coordinating response and resources for the COVID-19 Pandemic once County OES’ Emergency Operations Center was activated. Therefore, this project, and many others, could no longer be considered a departmental priority, as County OES instead needed to focus on ensuring the safety and well-being of San Diego County community members. Public education, information, outreach and community engagement efforts will continue through January 2023 and include attending presentations on preparedness, supporting staff with documentation and writing of internal documents, materials design & inventory, communications, review of current and past communications messages, draft updated templates with preparedness/hazard mitigation messages, post preparedness messages on social media platforms, preparedness interviews on television, create a Partner Relay capacity plan, Partner Relay Content Creation, Partner Relay train EOC liaisons, conduct countywide preparedness survey, outreach campaigns including on AlertSanDiego, SD Emergency app, and translations of documents from English to Spanish. 3. Action/Project Title: Review the County Consolidated Fire Code annually and update as necessary Progress Report Period: January 2018 to January 2023 Responsible Agency: County Planning & Development Services and County Fire Project Status: Completed Summary: The County of San Diego Consolidated Fire Code has been updated twice during the reporting period, with the most recent update taking place in March 2020. This is an ongoing project that is still relevant for inclusion in the San Diego County Hazard Mitigation Plan. San Diego County Fire, in coordination with the County Planning & Development Services Department, will continue reviewing the Consolidated Fire Code on an annual basis and will make updates to the code as needed, or at minimum, will update it once every three years. 4. Action/Project Title: Streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of effort in regional planning efforts by coordinating emergency management activities with regional stakeholders by facilitating meetings on a regular basis with regional emergency managers, campus emergency managers, DOD partners, Voluntary Agencies Active in Disaster, and faith-based partners. Progress Report Period: January 2019 to January 2023 Responsible Agency: County Office of Emergency Services (County OES), County Departments, local military, healthcare agencies and the 18 incorporated cities Project Status: Ongoing SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 291 Summary: The County OES’ Volunteer Coordinator, participates in the San Diego VOAD (Volunteer Organizations Active in Disasters) General Meeting on a monthly basis. There, each organization, including the County OES’ representative, give updates on efforts provided within the Operational Area. There are also talks surrounding coordination for efforts needed. Participants of this meeting are made up of local, state, and federal organizations, as well as non-governmental organizations, to include faithed based partners. The County OES’ Volunteer Coordinator also holds a meeting with non-governmental organizations that make up the County’s Feeding Taskforce every two months. This meeting is designed to discuss organizations’ roles, resources, and capabilities as it pertains to ensuring food security within the region, should the American Red Cross’ feeding operations become overwhelmed. The County OES Ops Coordinator hosts bimonthly Emergency Managers’ meetings to leverage access to, planning with, and partnership development with the 18 cities, special districts, and other key Emergency Managers. The County OES Ops Coordinator is managing the deployment of the regional Full Scale Exercise project that will occur in January 2023. Monthly planning meetings started in February 2022, and meetings have attracted and leveraged access to more than 85 key stakeholders at all levels of government and nonprofit agencies working together for a common goal. The COVID-19 Pandemic caused a lapse in the meetings of these groups, and it has been challenging to gain traction with these meetings. However, this project is still relevant and ongoing. Interactions with these groups play a vital role in County OES’ operations during an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) activation. 5. Action/Project Title: Publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation actions throughout the region Progress Report Period: January 2018 to January 2023 Responsible Agency: County Office of Emergency Services (County OES), County Planning & Development Services, County Fire, County Communications Office, County Technology Office Project Status: Delayed and Ongoing Explain: Priorities shifted due to COVID-19 pandemic. There were also staffing changes. Summary: There have been staffing changes, which limit the ability to report on the full scope of accomplishments for the reporting period. Awareness of accomplishments during this period include developing and posting protective actions community members can take to prepare themselves for emergencies and natural disasters from 2018 and thereon on County OES social media platforms in English and in Spanish, the dissemination of the updated Personal Disaster Plans translated into 12 languages, printing of flyers AlertSanDiego, and the SD Emergency app disseminating these flyers at community events and presentations. Community members have been encouraged to take appropriate hazard mitigation actions through alert and warning postings and press releases posted to the Ready SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 292 San Diego website, AlertSanDiego, the SD Emergency app, county news center articles. Campaigns were also conducted to increase the number of community members registered for AlertSanDiego Lyft (2018). Hazard mitigation messages have been developed, written, and promoted through television interviews in English and Spanish. These messages have also been provided to the Partner Relay network (a group with over 700 individuals) which is made of trusted community organizations who serve San Diego’s diverse and underserved neighborhoods, as well as community members with limited English proficiency, through emails and trainings provided to the organizations. They can share these messages with the clients they serve. Numerous of these messages have also been translated into Spanish. The goal is to continue these efforts for the next few months leading through 2023. Obstacles, problems, or delays include shift in priorities due to COVID-19 pandemic, staffing changes/staff turnover, completing trainings, the learning curve, competing priority projects, project also requires many staff hours, and collaboration is in part contingent on resources, others, invitations, creating opportunities to share the information with others and potentially funding for incentives to create additional opportunities to share the information with the public. The project is still relevant and ongoing since the County is still at risk for emergencies and natural disasters and not all community members are informed on the County’s resources, nor on what actions to take to prepare for emergencies and natural disasters before, during and after they occur. Public education, information, outreach and community engagement efforts will continue through January, 2023 and include attending presentations on preparedness, supporting staff with documentation and writing of internal documents, materials design & inventory, communications, review of current and past communications messages, draft updated templates with preparedness/hazard mitigation messages, post preparedness messages on social media platforms, preparedness interviews on television, create a Partner Relay capacity plan, Partner Relay Content Creation, Partner Relay train EOC liaisons, conduct countywide preparedness survey, outreach campaigns including on AlertSanDiego, SD Emergency app, and translations of documents from English to Spanish. 6. Action/Project Title: Building Codes Progress Report Period: January 1, 2020 to March 30, 2022 Responsible Agency: County of San Diego, County Planning & Development Services (Building Division), and County Fire Project Status: Completed Summary: Building codes were reviewed to reflect current earthquake standards annually and update as necessary. County Staff attended jurisdictional conferences related code changes or updates related to seismic and other natural disasters. Groups included International Code Counsel, County Building Officials Association of California (CBOAC), California Building Officials (Calbo). This is an ongoing effort, and project is still relevant. Department suggests adding a review of fire and wind standards annually to include the most relevant natural disasters that effect our community. SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 293 7. Action/Project Title: Support public and private sector symposiums that emphasize hazard mitigation planning Progress Report Period: January 2018 to January 2023 Responsible Agency: County Office of Emergency Services (County OES), County Departments, Cities, and private sector partners Project Status: Completed and Ongoing Summary: County OES maintains a support posture of public and private sector symposiums with an emphasis on hazard mitigation. In September 2021, County OES participated with the Air Protection Control District (APCD) and the California Air Resource Board in a symposium tailored around air-quality. County OES also participates quarterly with San Diego Gas & Electric’s (SDG&E’s) Access and Functional Needs team to discuss ways the public can be best prepared for Public Safety Power Shutoffs. Obstacles, problems, or delays include shift in priorities due to COVID-19 pandemic and staffing changes/staff turnover. The department suggests this project should outline key deliverables and note specifically what is to be accomplished through supporting symposiums. 8. Action/Project Title: Maintain multi-jurisdictional/multi-functional training and annual exercises to enhance hazard mitigation Progress Report Period: January 2018 to January 2023 Responsible Agency: County Office of Emergency Services (County OES), County Departments, All 18 Cities/appropriate Private Sector Agencies Project Status: Ongoing Summary: From Fall 2017 to Summer 2018, County OES staff planned and deployed a San Diego Regional Tabletop Exercise (TTX) conducted on June 18, 2018, completing the process with a published AAR/IP (After Action Report / Improvement Plan.) This was the result of a UASI grant proposal from OES. From Spring 2019 to October 2019, County OES’ team planned a November 6, 2019 San Diego Regional Full Scale Exercise (FSE) across regional agencies at all levels of government and the private sector, in response to priorities of the San Diego MyTEP (Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan – San Diego Urban Area, 2019-2022. They completed the process with a published AAR/IP. This was the result of a UASI grant proposal from OES. From Fall 2020 to July 2021, County OES’ staff also planned a July 27, 2021 San Diego Regional TTX for government and nonprofit agencies across San Diego, with AAR After Action Report improvements in response to priorities of the San Diego MyTEP (Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan – San Diego Urban Area, 2019-2022. They completed the process with a published AAR/IP. This was the result of a UASI grant proposal from County OES. To meet the priorities of San Diego MyTEPs for 2019-2022 and 2022-2025, OES’s team kicked off planning for a January2023 regional FSE (Full Scale Exercise) in December 2021 and are currently hosting monthly planning meetings with large SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 294 regional stakeholder groups, attracting approximately 85 stakeholder agency members. A FSE planning team of about 30 members is now meeting, including all 18 City Emergency managers, and a variety of special districts such as water agencies, airport and ports, USAR (Urban Search and Rescue) team, as well as public safety partners. This exercise prioritizes testing core capabilities testing identified in the MyTEPs and testing regional response plans such as OA EOP, local EOPs and response plans. The OA and local agency EOC response will be tested for a catastrophic natural and human caused hazard scenario. This FSE will also testing Emergency Public Information through a regional JIC response, EOC activation and response procedures across agencies and jurisdictions, recovery operations and Initial Damage Assessment, alert and warning, regional coordination and communication, terrorism response and infrastructure systems, such as water agency response in emergencies. County OES staff from 2021 to April 2022, OES planned, developed, and deployed a 6-month long training program for new and existing OES Staffs for the all-hazards response Staff Duty Officer (SDO) program; with subsequent Qualification Board testing for all SDO Under Instruction candidates in April 2022, to certify and deploy them as SDOs for emergency response. Staff had a 100% pass rate through this intensive oral Qual Board and practical hands-on technical test. From November 2021 to present, the County OES training officer promoted UASI and CSTI training courses to County OES staff, EOC responders and EOC partner agencies, to bolster training for local important courses such as EOC positions Specific training – Planning, management, operations and Finance/Admin, Public Information Officer course, Mass Care courses and Recovery Operations, among others and booked a local EOC Operations and Planning course in the San Diego IA EOC for November 2022. On April 10, 2022, The County OES Ops Coordinator completed a County OES training program needs assessment to identify areas for improvement, as presented to County OES leadership, and plans are underway to continue to expand training in FY 2022-23. To meet the priorities of the San Diego MyTEP (Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan) – San Diego Urban Area, 2019-2022 and 2022-2025, County OES staff planned and conducted the following EOC exercises: o Hot Wash on Two Coastal Incidents – Tongan Tsunami and Orange / San Diego County Oil Spill and generated After Action Lessons Learned for approximately 25 regional agencies at all levels of government. o EOC Planning P, EOC Action Plan, Battle Rhythm and EOC Planning TTX 2/23/22 o EOC Operations functional training exercise 3/2/22 o Tongan Tsunami Advisory for San Diego FSE 1/18/22 Projects obstacles, problems and delays Coordinators were hired October 2021; departure of key staffs that managed projects, causing significant delays in initiatives, including Training & Exercises Lead departing. SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 295 Obstacles can arise any time such as when County OES staffs the EOC in emergencies and the two-year long COVID emergency activation caused competing priorities. The COVID emergency activation also delayed access to many training and exercise opportunities nationwide 2020 to 2022, due to social distancing health safety considerations. Other significant EOC activations that also tapped out staffs and changed priorities - wildfire season response, west coast oil spill, west coast tsunami advisory and other emergency EOC activations. Regional FSE is an Ops Plan goal for fiscal include extensive staff turnover at County OES – five new Emergency Services year 2022, July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023. Training and Exercise Planning remains a high priority for County OES. 9. Action/Project Title: Review and update annually regional emergency plans, Concept of Operation plans, protocols, and standard operating procedures Progress Report Period: January 2018 to January 2023 Responsible Agency: County Office of Emergency Services (County OES), appropriate county Departments, and all 18 Cities/Special Districts Project Status: Delayed and Ongoing Explain: Project was delayed due to OES staff turnover. Summary: County OES created a Plan Revision Schedule which includes an annual cycle where Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Concept of Operations (ConOps), Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP), Site Evacuation Plan (SEP), Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), and Checklists are reviewed, updated, tested, validated, approved, and trained. This project is a priority for County OES and is contingent on collaboration with County OES staff members. County OES staff turnover caused deadline obstacles and time delays. This project is still considered relevant, and revisions/updates to regional emergency plans, ConOps, protocols, and SOPs are ongoing. County OES is updating the SOP Library document to include a revision, training, and testing schedule; review and approval process; review checklist; version control measures and storage location; handling confidential information process; and training, testing and validation process. 10. Action/Project Title: Encourage the public to prepare and maintain a 3-day preparedness kit for home and work through outreach events, social media, paid media and earned media. Progress Report Period: January 2018 to January 2023 Responsible Agency: County Office of Emergency Services (County OES), County Communications Office, and County Technology Office Project Status: Delayed and Ongoing Explain: The department is not aware of what would constitute the project as complete. The project could be considered ongoing. Since the potential for emergencies and natural disasters continues, the project still has relevancy. The project could stay the same or potentially be modified to recommend community members ideally prepare a kit with food, water to last at least three days, but three SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 296 days could also be a challenge with current inflation and perhaps that should be considered as well. Summary: There have been staffing changes which limit the ability to report on the full scope of accomplishments for the reporting period. Awareness of accomplishments during this period include the vast number of files, emails, PowerPoint presentations, and documents left from the previous Public Outreach Specialist would indicate a high-level work ethic to achieve the Office of Emergency Services vision and the essential functions of the position. It should also be noted PowerPoint presentations created prior to the recent staffing changes indicate a recommendation to build a kit to last for 3 to 5 days. Efforts to achieve this goal are visible in the recently updated Personal Disaster Plans. Page 40 of the plan encourages readers to prepare a home kit to service for at least three days without water or electricity. Additionally, these plans were made to consider individuals with access and functional needs. These disaster plans were translated and available in 12 languages. They are available for free to download from the OES website and are also regularly mailed out to community members who request a hard copy. The PowerPoint was used for a presentation at La Jolla Country Day on November 18, 2021, where the recommendation was made for those in attendance to build a preparedness kit to last 3-5 days. This project could be considered ongoing and be included in current and future public education, information, outreach, and community engagement efforts (These messages can continue to be shared with the public and included in future outreach programming through January 2023). Obstacles, problems, or delays include shift in priorities due to COVID-19 pandemic, staffing changes/staff turnover, completing trainings, the learning curve, competing priority projects, project also requires many staff hours, and collaboration is in part contingent on resources, others, invitations, creating opportunities to share the information with others and potentially funding for incentives to create additional opportunities to share the information with the public. 11. Action/Project Title: Develop a Climate Action Plan Progress Report Period: January 2018 to January 2023 Responsible Agency: Land Use & Environment Group and County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) Project Status: Completed Summary: For further details, please visit the County’s Climate Action Plan website.139F140F140F 145 145 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/sustainability/cap.html#:~:text=The%20County%20of%20San%20Diego,over%20the %20next%2030%20years. SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 297 7.2. PLAN UPDATE EVALUATION TABLE 72: PLANNING AND MITIGATION EVALUATION Plan Section Considerations Explanation Planning Process Should new jurisdictions and/or districts be invited to participate in future plan updates? All jurisdictions within San Diego County are welcome to participate and will continue to be invited to participate in future plan updates. Have any internal or external agencies been invaluable to the mitigation strategy? All internal and external planning partners are invaluable to our mitigation strategy. Internal partners assisted most with updating the hazard assessment, mitigation actions, strategies and providing progress reports. External partner assistance was most helpful related to climate change incorporation into hazards and updating the hazard assessment. Can any procedures (e.g., meeting announcements, plan updates) be done differently or more efficiently? County OES recommends allotting more time for all planning partners to complete FEMA Handbook Tasks 5, 6 and 7 since these sections require greater amounts of time and effort to collaborate with additional team members, plan/document in-depth goals/objectives/actions and provide supporting documentation for previous plan accomplishments. Has the Planning Team undertaken any public outreach activities? The Planning Team conducted public outreach activities outlined in Section 3 of this plan. Some future public outreach activities are outlined in Section 6 of this plan, but are not inclusive of all public outreach activities. How can public participation be improved? Public participation may be improved with continued partner outreach, seminars, surveys, public education opportunities/presentations and other methods (both virtual and in-person) outlined in Section 6 of this plan. Have there been any changes in public support and/or decision- maker priorities related to hazard mitigation? Public feedback details are provided in Section 3 of this plan. Updated priorities and reasoning are covered in Section 6 and 7 of this plan. Capability Assessment Have jurisdictions adopted new policies, plans, regulations, or reports that could be incorporated into this plan? Jurisdiction-specific adoptions/incorporations are covered in individual annexes to this plan. Are there different or additional administrative, human, technical, and financial resources available for mitigation planning? Not currently. The Planning Team will continue to monitor. Are there different or new education and outreach programs and resources available for mitigation activities? The Planning Team will continue to monitor and seek opportunities to facilitate new education and outreach programs/resources, especially for priority actions outlined in Section 6 of this plan. Has NFIP participation changed in the participating jurisdictions? For NFIP participation, see Sections 1 and 7 of this plan for the County of San Diego and associated plan annexes for all other participating jurisdictions. Risk Assessment Has a natural and/or technical or human-caused disaster occurred? Disasters, such as, but not limited to, pandemic disease and wildfires, have occurred during the planning stages of this plan. Should the list of hazards addressed in the plan be modified? Not currently. The Planning Team will continue to monitor, assess, and update as needed. Are there new data sources and/or additional maps and studies Not currently. The Planning Team will continue to monitor, assess, and update as needed. SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 298 Plan Section Considerations Explanation Risk Assessment available? If so, what are they and what have they revealed? Should the information be incorporated into future plan updates? Do any new critical facilities or infrastructure need to be added to the asset lists? Not currently. The Planning Team will continue to monitor, assess, and update as needed. Have any changes in development trends occurred that could create additional risks? See the Development Section of this plan and the 2021 County of San Diego Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Report for a list of policies to minimize new residential development in very-high and high fire hazard severity zones, and increase resilience of existing development in high-risk areas. Are there repetitive losses and/or severe repetitive losses to document? According to the 2022 FEMA Repetitive Loss Summary Report, the County of San Diego has 20 Repetitive Loss properties, and 3 Severe Repetitive Loss properties. Plan Section Considerations Explanation Mitigation Strategy Is the mitigation strategy being implemented as anticipated? Were the cost and timeline estimates accurate? The mitigation strategy experienced delayed implementation due to some staff/project manager turnover and decreased time available to plan and implement. Emergency Operations Center activation for the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic affected timeline estimates. Should new mitigation actions be added to the Action Plan? Should existing mitigation actions be revised or eliminated from the plan? Not currently. The Planning Team will continue to monitor, assess, and update as needed. Are there new obstacles that were not anticipated in the plan that will need to be considered in the next plan update? Not currently. The Planning Team will continue to monitor, assess, and update as needed. Are there new funding sources to consider? Not currently. The Planning Team will continue to monitor, assess, and update as needed. Have elements of the plan been incorporated into other planning mechanisms? Yes, e.g., the Emergency Operations Plan and other County emergency plans. Plan Maintenance Procedures Was the plan monitored and evaluated as anticipated? The plan was monitored and evaluated as anticipated. However, it would have been more helpful to the Planning Team to have more time to complete Sections 5-7 of this plan, which will be accounted for in the next planning cycle. What are needed improvements to the procedures? None currently. The Planning Team will continue to monitor, assess, and update as needed. 7.3. PLAN MAINTENANCE, MONITORING, EVALUATION, & UPDATES Hazard Mitigation Plan maintenance is the process the Planning Team establishes to track the plan’s implementation progress and to inform the plan update. The plan must include a description of the method and schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating it within a 5- year cycle. These procedures help to: SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 299 • Ensure that the mitigation strategy is implemented according to the plan. • Provide the foundation for an ongoing mitigation program in your community. • Standardize long-term monitoring of hazard-related activities. • Integrate mitigation principles into community officials’ daily job responsibilities and department roles. • Maintain momentum through continued engagement and accountability in the plan’s progress. 7.3.1 PLAN MONITORING Plan monitoring means tracking the implementation of the plan over time. The plan must identify how, when, and by whom the plan will be monitored. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) participants listed in Section 2 of this plan will be responsible for monitoring the plan annually for updates to jurisdictional goals, objectives, and action items. If needed, these participants will coordinate through the County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) to integrate these updates into the Plan. County OES will be responsible for monitoring the Plan for updates on an annual basis. Status of this plan’s Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Actions are tracked annually by County OES via a five-year cycle project plan and charter created by County OES. Every year, County OES will ask planning participants named in Section 2 of this plan to report on the status of their projects, the success of various implementation processes, difficulties encountered, success of coordination efforts, and strategies that should be revised. 7.3.2. PLAN EVALUATION The Plan is evaluated by the County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) and by each participating jurisdiction annually to determine the effectiveness of programs, and to reflect changes in land development or programs that may affect mitigation priorities. This includes re-evaluation by Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) leads (or their select jurisdictional representative) based upon the initial STAPPLEE criteria used to draft goals, objectives, and action items for each jurisdiction. County OES and city representatives also review the goals and action items to determine their relevance to changing situations in the county, as well as changes in State or Federal regulations and policy. County OES and jurisdictional representatives review the risk assessment portion of the Plan to determine if this information should be updated or modified, given any new available data. The coordinating organizations responsible for the various action items will report on the status of their projects, the success of various implementation processes, difficulties encountered, success of coordination efforts, and which strategies should be revised. Any updates or changes necessary will be forwarded by planning participants to County OES for inclusion in further updates to the Plan. The HMPG and each Local Mitigation Planning Team meet annually to discuss the status of this Plan. 7.3.3. PLAN UPDATES Since this Plan’s original adoption in 2005 the Hazard Mitigation Planning Group (HMPG) has participated in an annual review. This process was continued after the adoption of the 2010 SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 300 plan. The review details all mitigation actions that were deferred, begun, continued, or completed during that calendar year. In the past five years, there has been considerable progress made with the successful completion of most action items developed by the participating jurisdictions. Section 7.1 details the status of the action items from the 2018 plan. This review process has been effective in identifying gaps and shortfalls in funding, support, and other resources. It has also allowed for the re-prioritization of specific actions as circumstances change. It allows each participating jurisdiction to maintain the plan as a living document. This review process has enabled the HMPG to improve the document by eliminating actions that have been completed, adding new actions that have been identified since the plan’s adoption and reprioritizing other actions to reflect new priorities and/or constraints. The negative side of this review process is that it is time consuming, pulling staff away from their day-to-day responsibilities. The County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) will continue to be the responsible agency for updates to the Plan, and responsible for monitoring the Plan for updates on an annual basis. All HMPG participants will continue to be responsible to provide County OES with jurisdictional-level updates to the Plan annually or when/if necessary, as described above. Status of this plan’s Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Actions are tracked annually by County OES via a five-year cycle project plan and charter created by County OES. Every year, County OES will ask planning participants named in Section 2 of this plan to report on the status of their projects, the success of various implementation processes, difficulties encountered, success of coordination efforts, and strategies that should be revised. Every five years the plan will be updated and submitted to existing authorities outlined in Section 1 of this plan and Cal OES and FEMA for review. Below is a general five-year timeline of when and how this plan will be updated, per FEMA guidelines and requirements outlined within FEMA’s “Local Mitigation Planning Handbook” 146: ❖ YEAR 1 (FEBRUARY 7, 2023-DECEMBER 31, 2023): • Complete FEMA Task 1 (“Determine the Planning Area and Resources”) • Complete FEMA Task 2 (“Build the Planning Team”) • Start FEMA Task 3 (“Create an Outreach Strategy) ❖ YEAR 2 (JANUARY 1, 2024-DECEMBER 31, 2024): • Complete FEMA Task 3 (“Create an Outreach Strategy) • Complete FEMA Task 4 (“Review Community Capabilities”) • Start FEMA Task 5 (“Conduct a Risk Assessment”) ❖ YEAR 3 (JANUARY 1, 2025-DECEMBER 31, 2025): • Complete FEMA Task 5 (“Conduct a Risk Assessment”) • Start FEMA Task 6 (“Develop A Mitigation Strategy”) ❖ YEAR 4 (JANUARY 1, 2026-DECEMBER 31, 2026): • Complete FEMA Task 6 (“Develop A Mitigation Strategy”) 146 https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/fema-local-mitigation-planning-handbook_03-2013.pdf. SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 301 • Complete FEMA Task 7 (“Keep the Plan Current”) ❖ YEAR 5 (JANUARY 1, 2027-FEBRUARY 7, 2028) • Complete FEMA Task 8 (“Review and Adopt the Plan”) • Complete FEMA Task 9 (“Create a Safe and Resilient Community”) 7.3.4. IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND OTHER PLANNING MECHANISMS County and local jurisdictions have implemented most of the Priority Actions from the 2018 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) through existing programs and procedures. Planning participants used (and will continue to use) this plan as a baseline of information related to priority hazards impacting their jurisdictions, to identify vulnerable communities and critical assets, and plan for their protection. The planning participants have also been able to refer to existing institutions, integrations, plans, policies, and ordinances defined for each jurisdiction, which was outlined in Section 2 of this plan (e.g., General Plan). After regional adoption of this MJHMP update, planning participants will incorporate this plan into their General Plans and/or other comprehensive plans and procedures as those plans require review and revisions. Some of those documents will implement and/or be informed by this plan, which include (and are not limited to): • San Diego County/Cities General Plans & Safety Element o Required incorporation of this plan’s 2018 and 2023 updates, including evacuation information and priority hazards into the County’s Safety Element (lead by Planning & Development Services) to demonstrate progress of local hazard mitigation efforts and ensure compliance with the California Government Code. Plan leads (listed in Section 2 of this plan) met as needed to collaborate on cohesive updates, then discuss how and where to include the update within their respective plans.140F141F141F 147 • County Legislative Program o The vulnerability assessments, priority hazards, Goals, Objectives, and Actions/Priority Actions from this plan update helped the Office of Emergency Services’ planning group inform the County Legislative Program’s Priority Issues and Policy Guidelines through the addition of mitigation considerations and an all- hazard approach to disaster planning and legislation support.141F142F142F 148 • San Diego County Evacuation and Sheltering Plans o This plan’s priority hazards, hazard profiles, hazard mitigation actions/priority actions, and vulnerability assessments inform evacuation and sheltering plans to account for the safety of people and assets during all-hazard scenarios to the furthest extent feasible. Implementation of this plan’s update ensure compliance with existing federal and state legislation. • San Diego County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan 2022 o Hazard information from the MJHMP update was incorporated into the 2022 County of San Diego Operational Emergency Operations Plan (OA EOP) update. 147 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/generalplan/GP-Progress-Reports.html#ProgressReports 148 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/cao/edga.html SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 302 All high significance hazards identified in the MJHMP update were addressed in the 2022 OA EOP update. • State & Federal Hazard Mitigation Programs o Members from the Office of Emergency Services’ planning group participated in interviews with Cal OES to share planning experiences and best practices from this plan’s update, provide feedback on the State & Federal Hazard Mitigation Program, and provide recommendations for program and plan improvement. Task Four of the FEMA Local Mitigation Handbook, Sections 1, 2, 4, and 7 of this plan, and jurisdiction-specific annexes describe the process by which local governments will integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans. The County of San Diego specifically meets with all necessary partners to collaborate on planning mechanisms/updates, conducts an approval process through the public, department leadership, Unified Disaster Council (UDC) voting/approval, then Board of Supervisor and other elected official approval. All listed steps were conducted on necessary and required bases. The administrative and technical capabilities of the County, as discussed in Sections 2 and 4 of this plan, provide an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in Section 6 of this plan. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners, and engineers with an understanding of natural or human-caused hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. 7.3.5. RESPONSE PLANS Several other operational or functional response plans are also influenced by information contained in this plan. These plans include but are not limited to: General Plan, Safety Element and Emergency Operations Plan, Annex Q – Evacuation: A review of the vulnerability and estimated losses detailed in the hazard profiles can help identify evacuation routes and locations, and their capacity, safety, and viability in different emergency scenarios. These plans inform this plan by helping the Planning Group evaluate the impacts of multiple or cascading hazards, so that evacuees are not relocated into an area that puts them at risk from other hazards. 7.3.6. CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The 2018 plan was posted on the Hazard Mitigation page of the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services (County OES) webpage, and the public has always been encouraged to comment on the plan online. Once approved, this revised plan will be posted on the Hazard Mitigation webpage of the County OES website and participating jurisdictions will have links to the Plan on their websites. SECTION SEVEN | Keep the Plan Current 303 The participating jurisdictions and special districts continue to be dedicated to involving the public directly in the review process and updates of the Plan. A maintenance committee made up of a representative from County OES and a representative from each participating jurisdiction is responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the Plan as described above. During all phases of plan maintenance, the public will have the opportunity to provide feedback. In addition, hard copies of the plan are catalogued and kept by the appropriate agencies in the county. The existence and location of these copies are also posted on the county website. To facilitate public comments, the County OES Hazard Mitigation webpage contains an email address for the public’s use, which is monitored daily by County OES staff. Any questions or comments received on this website are forwarded to the appropriate member(s) of the HMPG for their review and response. County OES also track