Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-06-21 Board Packet
OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING BY TELECONFERENCE 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY October 6, 2021 3:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 AND THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURIS- DICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA This meeting is being held via teleconference. Members of the public may submit their comments on agendized and non-agendized items by either of the following two meth- ods: a) If you wish to provide public comment directly – that is, live during the “Public Par- ticipation” portion of the meeting - please complete and submit a Request to Speak Form via email to BoardSecretary@otaywater.gov before the start of the meeting. Your request to speak will be acknowledged during the “Public Participa- tion” portion of the meeting when the board will hear your comment. When called to speak, please state your Name and the City in which you reside. You will be provided three minutes to speak. The Board is not permitted to enter into a dia- logue with the speaker during this time. OR b) If you wish to have your comment read to the Board during the “Public Participa- tion” portion of the meeting, please email your comment to BoardSecretary@otay- water.gov at least thirty minutes prior to the start of the meeting, and it will be read aloud during the “Public Participation” portion of the meeting. Please provide your Name and the City in which you reside, with your comment. Your comment must not take more than three minutes to read. The Board is not permitted to respond to written public comment during this time. The District’s meeting is live streamed. Information on how to watch and listen to the Dis- trict’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 PARTICU- LAR ITEM: a) AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO JENNETTE COMPANY, INC. FOR THE 1200 PRESSURE ZONE IMPROVEMENTS – PHASE II PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $296,990.00 b) APPROVAL OF FINAL CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 10 IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED A REDUCTION OF ($127,413.00) TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION FOR THE 870-2 PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT ACTION ITEMS 7. BOARD a) DISCUSS THE 2021 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 8. THE FOLLOWING ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PUR- POSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM: a) ANNUAL DIRECTOR’S EXPENSE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 (DILAYRE) b) 2021 LEGISLATIVE SESSION UPDATE (OTERO) c) SOCIAL MEDIA, MOBILE APPLICATION, AND WEBSITE ANALYTICS UPDATE (SALMERON) d) FISCAL YEAR 2021 YEAR-END REPORT ON THE DISTRICT’S FISCAL YEARS 2019-2022 STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE PLAN (KERR) e) 2021 DROUGHT UPDATE (CAREY / OTERO) REPORTS 9. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 10. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE 11. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS 12. PRESIDENT’S REPORT/REQUESTS RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 13. CLOSED SESSION a) DISCUSSION RELATING TO CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) AND PUBLIC SER- VICES [GOVERNMENT CODE §54957] 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 c) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERN- MENT CODE §54956.9] OTAY WATER DISTRICT vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO; CASE NO. 37-2017- 00019348-CU-WM-CTL d) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERN- MENT CODE §54956.9] MARK COZIAHR, ET AL. vs. OTAY WATER DISTRICT, CASE NO. 37-2015- 000-CU-MC-CTL RETURN 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. OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY 15. NO MATTERS TO DISCUSS 16. ADJOURNMENT All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be deliber- ated and may be subject to action by the Board. 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 partici- pate 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 October 1, 2021, 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 October 1, 2021. /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 September 1, 2021 1.The meeting was called to order by President Smith at 3:35 p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Directors Present:Croucher (Arrived at 3:42), Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Staff Present:General Manager Jose Martinez, General Counsel Dan Shinoff, General Counsel Jeanne Blumenfeld, Chief of Engineering Rod Posada, Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Administration Adolfo Segura, Chief of Operations Pedro Porras, 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 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 approve the agenda. 5.APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2021 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 approve the minutes of the regular board meeting of August 4, 2021. 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. CONSENT ITEMS 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 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 to approve the following consent calendar items: a)AWARD A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT TO HAZEN & SAWYER, INC. FOR THE 2022 WATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN AND PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT UPDATE IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $569,785.00 ACTION ITEMS 8.FINANCE a)APPROVE THE REINSTATEMENT TO DISCONNECT WATER SERVICE FOR NON-PAYMENT WHEN EXECUTIVE ORDER N-42-20 EXPIRES, OR WHEN ANY NEW POTENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER EXTENDING THE CURRENT BAN ON DISCONNECTION OF WATER SERVICE EXPIRES (CAREY) Director Croucher arrived at 3:42 p.m. Customer Service Manager Andrea Carey presented an update on customer delinquencies and the District’s efforts to encourage customers to pay their water bills during the pandemic. Please reference the staff report for details of Ms. Carey’s updates. Ms. Carey stated that the State Water Resources Control Board released a state water arrearages survey and a draft guideline for the state water arrearages program. 3 Communications Officer Tenille Otero provided a PowerPoint presentation to the board that included information on the District’s outreach efforts to customers. Andrea Carey indicated that ten other agencies plan to reinstate their disconnection of water service policy when the Executive Order expires. There were additional questions asked by members of the board and responses were provided by staff. A motion was made by Director Lopez, seconded by Director Robak, and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the reinstatement to disconnect water service for non-payment when Executive Order N-42-20 expires, or when any new potential Executive Order extending the currant ban on disconnection of water service expires. BOARD b)DISCUSS THE 2021 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR There were no changes to the board meeting calendar. REPORTS 9.FOURTH QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2021 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGAM REPORT Engineering Manager Michael Long provided an update on the District’s fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Please reference Attachment C to the staff report for details of Mr. Long’s presentation. He indicated that an additional slide was added to the PowerPoint presentation to show the expenditures vs budget for 6 previous years. Mr. Long stated that the Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee held a meeting on August 18, 2021, and inquired about the 25% change order for the design and construction of the 1655-1 Reservoir project (P2083). Subsequent to the meeting, staff researched the Committee’s concern and found that there was no change order for this project. Staff will update the PowerPoint presentation spreadsheet to reflect that there is no change order for this project. This will be reflected in the next CIP Report Update. Staff responded to questions asked by members of the board with regards to the Ralph w. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility Resin Ball Floating Cover System. It was noted that the District saved approximately $20,000 with this type of reservoir floating cover system and that it is easier to maintain. 4 REPORTS 10.GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT General Manager Martinez presented information from his report that included the District’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, ACWA Region 10 Board Ballot, meeting for the Mexico agreement for deliveries, and positive feedback from customers. In addition, he indicated that Chief of Operations Pedro Porras will be retiring on September 30, 2021. Members of the board congratulated and provided comments for Chief of Operations Pedro Porras. Staff responded to several questions from Director Robak with regards to the Weir Construction’s $3.2 million claim for the District’s Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project. 11.SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE President Smith shared information that included CWA’s proposed debt issuance of $170 million in Fiscal Year 2022 and $165 million in Fiscal Year 2029. He also shared the Values Discovery Project where CWA engages staff to cultivate community, promote collaboration, seek different perspectives, foster each other’s success, embrace the challenge, strive for excellence, and create long lasting solutions. President Smith also provided an update on the Colorado River drought declaration. Director Croucher provided an update on CWA’s board retreat and shared that the plans to attend the San Diego Regional Chamber Mission to Washington D.C. trip to meet with some of the legislators is on hold due to the COVID pandemic. He also shared CWA’s plans to meet with MWD. 12.DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS In response to comments from Director Croucher, President Smith indicated that Otay Water District’s board retreat will be held on October 19, 2021. Written reports from Directors Croucher, Keyes, Lopez and Robak was submitted to District Secretary Ramos-Krogman, which will be attached to the minutes for today’s meeting. 13.PRESIDENT’S REPORT President Smith indicated that he shares Otay Water District’s successes with CWA, MWD and other local agencies to try and increase collaboration with all agencies. A written report from President Smith was submitted to District Secretary Ramos- Krogman and will be attached to the minutes for today’s meeting. 5 RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 14.CLOSED SESSION The board recessed to closed session at 5:07 p.m. to discuss the following matter: a)DISCUSSION RELATING TO CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) AND PUBLIC SERVICES [GOVERNMENT CODE §54957] 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 c)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 d)CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERN-MENT CODE §54956.9] MARK COZIAHR, ET AL. vs. OTAY WATE DISTRICT, CASE NO. 37-2015- 00400000-CU-MC-CTL RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 15.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 approximately 6:34 p.m. and General Counsel Dan Shinoff reported that the board took one reportable action in closed session. The board directed general counsel to proceed with filing a writ for Case No. 37-2017-00019348-CU-WM-CTL. OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY 16.NO MATTERS TO DISCUSS There were no items scheduled for discussion for the Otay Water District Financing Authority board. 6 17.ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, President Smith adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. President ATTEST: District Secretary (Director’s Signature) GM Receipt: Date: FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $ OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Pay To: Tim Smith Period Covered: Employee Number: 1845 From: 8/1/21 To: 8/31/21 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES DISCUSSED (Via Teleconference) MILEAGE HOME to OWD OWD to HOME MILEAGE OTHER LOCATIONS 1 08/04/21 OWD Regular Board Meeting Monthly Board Meeting 26 - 2 08/11/21 Directors Quarterly Meeting Met with GM Martinez to discuss District matters - - 3 08/12/21 Committee Agenda Briefing Met with GM Martinez to review items that will be present at the August committee meetings - - 4 08/17/21 Council of Water Utilities Meeting (COWU) Attended Monthly COWU Meeting - - 5 08/18/21 EO&WR Committee Meeting Reviewed items that will be presented at the September Board Meeting - - 6 08/23/21 CWA Matters Meeting Discuss CWA Matters with GM Martinez and Director Croucher - - 7 08/25/21 East County Caucus Discuss East County issues with agencies and CWA - - 8 08/26/21 Agenda Briefing Meeting Met with GM Martinez and GC’s Shinoff and Blumenfeld to review the September Board Meeting Agenda 9 08/27/21 Ad Hoc Salt Creek Golf Course Meeting Met with Director Robak, GM Martinez, GC Blumenfeld and District staff to discuss Salt Creek Golf Course Property Matters 10 Total Meeting Per Diem: $1,368 ($152 per diem) Total Mileage Claimed: 26 miles 08/30/21 (Director’s Signature) GM Receipt: Date: FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $ OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Pay To: Gary Croucher Period Covered: Employee Number: 7011 From: 8/1/21 To: 8/31/21 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES DISCUSSED (Via Teleconference) MILEAGE HOME to OWD OWD to HOME MILEAGE OTHER LOCATIONS 1 08/04/21 Board Regular Monthly Board Meeting - - 2 08/16/21 LAFCO Detachment Sub Committee – Representing OWD/Special District Rainbow/Fallbrook Detachment – Annexation to Riverside Country (Eastern) - - 3 08/18/21 Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee Meeting Review staff reports going to the September Regular Board Meeting - - 4 08/23/21 CWA Matters Meeting Discuss CWA Matters with GM Martinez and President Smith - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 9 10 Total Meeting Per Diem: $ 608 ($152 per diem) Total Mileage Claimed: 0 miles (Director’s Signature) GM Receipt: Date: FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $ OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Pay To: Ryan Keyes Period Covered: Employee Number: 1896 From: 8-1-21 To: 8-31-21 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES DISCUSSED MILEAGE HOME to OWD OWD to HOME MILEAGE OTHER LOCATIONS 1 8-4-21 OWD Regular Board Meeting Monthly Board Meeting - - 2 8-9-21 CSDA Workshop Discussion: Financial Management for Special Districts-1st day - - 3 8-10-21 CSDA Workshop Discussion: Financial Management for Special Districts-2nd day - - 4 8-11-21 WateReuse Discussion on Desalination - Treatments, Research, and the Future - - 5 8-13-21 OWD General Manager Quarterly Meeting Discussed District Matters with GM Jose Martinez - - 6 8-17-21 COWU Meeting Discussion: Pure Water & Technical Services Branch - - 7 8-19-21 ACWA Meeting Discussion: Emerging Water Market in CA - - 8 - - 9 - - 10 -- Total Meeting Per Diem: $1064 ($152 per meeting) Total Mileage Claimed: 0 Miles 08/30/21 (Director’s Signature) GM Receipt: Date: FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $ OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Pay To: Jose Lopez Period Covered: Employee Number: 7010 From: 8/1/21 To: 8/31/21 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES DISCUSSED MILEAGE HOME to OWD OWD to HOME MILEAGE OTHER LOCATIONS 1 08/03/21 South County Economic Development Council Ed Boniske – Employment Law Update - 2 08/04/21 Otay Water District Monthly Regular Board Meeting 17 - 3 08/05/21 Water Conservation Garden Regular WCG Meeting - - 4 08/06/21 CV Chamber of Commerce First Friday Breakfast Meeting (NO CHARGE) - - 5 08/10/21 General Manager Director/GM Quarterly Meeting to discuss District updates - - 6 08/12/21 JPIA Training Sexual Harassment Prevention for Board Members - - 7 08/17/21 Council of Water Utilities John Stufflebean SD Pure Water (NO CHARGE) - - 8 08/17/21 Finance & Administration Committee Monthly Committee Meeting to discuss agenda items going to the September Board meeting 9 08/19/21 CSDA Meeting Quarterly Meeting to discuss Special District matters 39 10 Total Meeting Per Diem: $ 1,064 ($152 per diem) Total Mileage Claimed: 56 miles 09/15/21 9-9-21 9-9-21 1 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BOARD MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OTAY WATER DISTRICT September 27, 2021 1.President Smith called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Directors Present:Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak, and Smith Staff Present:General Manager Jose Martinez, General Counsel Dan Shinoff, General Counsel Jeanne Blumenfeld, Human Resources Manager Kelli Williamson, Communications Officer Tenille Otero, IT Manager Michael Kerr, 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 Lopez, seconded by Director Croucher 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. ACTION ITEM 6.BOARD a)ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4401 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS PURSUANT TO THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT AGENDA ITEM 4 2 General Manager Jose Martinez indicated that the Governor’s Executive Order related to the suspension of certain provisions of the Brown Act expires on September 30, 2021. He provided information on AB 361 (Government Code Section 54953(e)), which allows legislative bodies to continue to meet virtually within certain provisions. AB 361 will take effect starting October 1, 2021. General Counsel Jeanne Blumenfeld noted that Resolution No. 4401 shall take effect October 1, 2021 for 30 days. The board may extend the application of this Resolution by motion and majority vote by up to 30 days at a time, provided that it makes all necessary findings consistent with and pursuant to the requirements of Section 54953(e)(3). General Counsel Jeanne Blumenfeld responded to additional questions from the board. A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by President Smith and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Keyes, Lopez, Robak and Smith Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to adopt Resolution No. 4401 of the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District authorizing remote teleconference board and committee meetings pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act. 7.ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, President Smith adjourned the meeting at 1:11 p.m. President ATTEST: District Secretary STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Marchioro Senior Civil Engineer PROJECT: P2653-001103 DIV. NO. 5 APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract to Jennette Company, Inc. for the 1200 Pressure Zone Improvements – Phase II Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a construction contract to Jennette Company, Inc. (Jennette) and to authorize the General Manager to execute a construction contract with Jennette for the 1200 Pressure Zone Improvements – Phase II Project in an amount not-to-exceed $296,990.00 (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a construction contract with Jennette for the 1200 Pressure Zone Improvements – Phase II Project in an amount not-to-exceed $296,990.00. AGENDA ITEM 6a 2 ANALYSIS: On November 6, 2019, the District awarded a construction contract to Piperin Corporation (Piperin), located in Escondido, California, to complete the first phase of the 1200 Pressure Zone Improvements Project which included Portable Trailer Mounted VFD Trailer Pump connections and existing driveway improvements at the 1200-1 Pump Station/978-1 Reservoir site. The District accepted Phase I of the project on August 3, 2020. After completion of the Phase I project, the District’s Portable Trailer Mounted VFD Pump was deployed at the 1200-1 Pump Station/978-1 Reservoir site and placed into service on April 5, 2021 in support of the 1200-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Project (CIP P2533). Completion of the 1200-1 Reservoir coating project is anticipated October 2021 at which time the trailer pump will be repurposed to support the second phase of the 1200 Pressure Zone Improvements Project (CIP P2653). The second phase of the 1200 Pressure Zone Improvements Project includes the replacement of the existing 1200-1 Pump Station discharge header, pressure relief, suction manifold, and yard piping improvements. The improvements are necessary since a temporary repair, completed by Operations, within the confines of a small vault adjacent to the 1200-1 PS discharge header has a short life expectancy and needs to be replaced. The existing pressure relief bypass has been repaired a few times and has reached the end of its useful life. The suction manifold valves are no longer functional. Staff prepared the bid documents in-house. On Tuesday, August 3, 2021, the Project was publicly advertised for bid using Periscope, an online bid solicitation website. The Project was also advertised in the Daily Transcript and the District’s public website. Periscope provided electronic distribution of the Bid Documents, including specifications, plans, and addendum. A Pre-Bid Meeting was held on August 11, 2021, which was attended by two (2) contractors. Two (2) addenda were sent out to all bidders and plan houses to address questions and clarifications to the contract documents during the bidding period. Staff reached out to twenty-nine (29) contractors directly via email and telephoned several contractors to encourage them to submit a bid. Bids were publicly opened on August 24, 2021, with the following results: 3 CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID AMOUNT 1 Jennette Company, Inc. (San Diego, CA) $296,990.00 2 M-Rae Engineering, Inc. (Descanso, CA) $319,500.00 3 GSE Construction Company Inc. (Livermore, CA) $338,700.00 4 Cora Constructors Inc. (Palm Desert, CA) $340,777.00 5 Piperin Corporation (Escondido, CA) $367,000.00 6 Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. (Alpine, CA) $384,144.00 7 Cass Construction, Inc. dba Cass Arrieta (El Cajon, CA) $452,500.00 8 Blue Pacific Engineering & Construction (San Diego, CA) $529,500.00 The Engineer’s Estimate is $400,000. A review of the bids was performed by District staff for conformance with the contract requirements and determined that Jennette was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Jennette holds a Class A, General Engineering, Contractor’s License in the State of California, which meets the contract document’s requirements, and is valid through 09/30/2023. The reference checks indicated a very good to excellent performance record on similar projects. An internet background search of the company was performed and revealed no outstanding issues with this company. Staff verified that the bid bond provided by Jennette is valid. Staff will also verify that Jennette’s Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond are valid prior to execution of the contract. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2653, as approved in the FY 2022 budget, is $850,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast including this contract, are $766,222. See Attachment B for budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budgets, the Project Manager anticipates that the budget for CIP P2653 is sufficient to support the Project. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 100% of the funding is available from the Betterment Fund. 4 GRANTS/LOANS: Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found none currently available for this Project. 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." LEGAL IMPACT: None. JM/BK:jf https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/P2653 1200 PZ Improvements/Staff Reports/2021 10 06 1200 PZ Phase II Award/BD 10-06-21 Staff Report 1200PZ Phase II.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2653-001103 Award of a Construction Contract to Jennette Company, Inc. for the 1200 Pressure Zone Improvements – Phase II Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 21, 2021 and the following comments were made: • Staff recommended that the Board award a construction contract to Jennette Company, Inc. (Jennette) and to authorize the General Manager to execute a construction contract with Jennette for the 1200 Pressure Zone Improvements – Phase II Project in an amount not-to-exceed $296,990.00. • It was indicated that the second phase includes the replacement of the existing 1200-1 Pump Station discharge header, pressure relief, suction manifold, and yard piping improvements. The items to be replaced have reached the end of their useful life. • Staff discussed the bid process and indicated that bids were publicly opened on August 24, 2021, and the bid analysis, which is shown on page 3 of the staff report, concluded that Jennette submitted the lowest bid, which totaled $296,990. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item. ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2653-001103 Award of a Construction Contract to Jennette Company, Inc. for the 1200 Pressure Zone Improvements – Phase II Project 8/27/2021 Budget 850,000 Planning Consultant Contracts 50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIANStandard Salaries 44,575 44,575 - 44,575 Total Planning 44,625 44,625 - 44,625 Design 001102 Service Contracts 85 85 - 85 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION Standard Salaries 37,334 35,334 2,000 37,334 200 200 200 Public Advertisement 2,000 2,000 2,000 Reprographics Total Design 39,619 35,419 4,200 39,619 Construction Construction Contracts 13,154 13,154 - 13,154 AZTEC FENCE CO II INC 149,523 149,523 - 149,523 PIPERIN CORPORATION Consultant Contracts 11,026 11,026 - 11,026 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Security Services 2,324 2,324 - 2,324 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION Service Contracts 555 555 - 555 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INCStandard Salaries 124,900 24,900 100,000 124,900 29,957 - 29,957 29,957 TechKnowsion, Inc. 296,990 - 296,990 296,990 Jennette Company, Inc. 3,000 - 3,000 3,000 Corrosion Engineer 3,000 - 3,000 3,000 Geotechnical Engineer 3,000 - 3,000 3,000 Laboratory14,850 - 14,850 14,850 Construction Manager 29,699 - 29,699 29,699 Contingency @10% Total Construction 681,978 201,482 480,496 681,978 Grand Total 766,222 281,526 484,696 766,222 Vendor/Comments Otay Water Districtp2653-1200 Pressure Zone Improvements Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost OTAY WATER DISTRICT1200-1 PRESSURE ZONE IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE IILOCATION MAP EXHIBIT A CIP P2653F C: \ O n e D r i v e \ O t a y W a t e r D i s t r i c t \ E N G C I P - D o c u m e n t s \ P 2 6 5 3 1 2 0 0 P Z I m p r o v e m e n t s \ G r a p h i c s \ E x h i b i t s - F i g u r e s \ E x h i b i t A - S t a f f R e p o r t - P h a s e I I . m x d 0 730365 Feet 1200-1 PS/978-1RESERVOIR CANTA LOMAS VI S T A G R A N D E R D PENCE DR V I S T A S I E R R A D R !\ VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ÃÅ54 ÃÅ125 ÃÅ94 ÃÅ905 §¨¦805 CANTA LOMAS VISTA G R A N D E R D F NTS STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Michael J. Long Engineering Manager PROJECT: P2083-001103 P2562-001103 DIV. NO. 2 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Final Contract Change Order No. 10 in an amount not-to-exceed a reduction of ($127,413.00) to the Construction Contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) authorize the General Manager to execute the Final Contract Change Order No. 10 to the existing construction contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation (PHC) in the reduced amount of ($127,413.00) for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project (Project) (see Exhibits A and B for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute the Final Change Order No. 10 to reduce the existing PHC construction contract in an amount not-to-exceed ($127,413.00) for the Project. AGENDA ITEM 6b 2 ANALYSIS: The District’s existing High Head (870-1) and Low Head (571-1) Pump Stations constructed in 1962 and 1966, respectively, have reached the end of their useful lives. The 870-2 Pump Station Project will replace these facilities and includes replacement of existing Reservoir inlet/outlet piping, construction of recirculation system pumps, and a chloramine disinfection booster system. Improvements of the access road and the installation of utilities for electrical, gas, sewer, and communication services are also included. The 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project also includes the replacement of the 571-1 Reservoir (36.7 MG) floating cover and liner. The 571-1 Reservoir was originally built in 1967. In 1993, the District retrofitted the existing Reservoir to install a reservoir liner and floating cover. The existing liner and floating cover were more than 24 years old and nearing the end of their useful lives. As part of the overall Project, the existing Reservoir outlet stub-out piping located beneath the Reservoir was replaced, which allows the new 870-2 Pump Station to simultaneously perform its primary function (pump from the 571-1 Reservoir to the 870-1 Reservoir), recirculate the 571-1 Reservoir, and achieve a future function (pump from the 571-1 Reservoir to the 624 Pressure Zone). The replacement of the cover and liner under this Project mitigates having to take this critical Reservoir out of service a second time within the next few years. The demolition of the Low Head and High Head Pump Stations will be completed later (not part of this Project) when the new 870-2 Pump Station has been brought online and completed its warranty period. At the July 5, 2017 Board Meeting, the Board awarded a construction contract in the amount of $16,925,900.00 to Pacific Hydrotech. Since the award of the construction contract, nine (9) change orders have been approved. Change Order No. 1, which totaled $26,269.83, compensated the contractor for changes associated with the 571-1 Reservoir cover and liner improvements. These changes included provisions for additional cover buoyancy floats; replacement of existing unsalvageable batten bar anchor bolts; contractor reservoir disinfection in lieu of contract specified District disinfection; weather related days; and an adjustment to the contract milestone date for the 571-1 Reservoir. In total, Change Order No. 1 added twenty-seven (27) days to the contract. 3 Change Order No. 2, which totaled $48,698.12, compensated the contractor for changes including the following: modifications to the new electric meter room to accommodate San Diego Gas & Electric accessibility requirements; modifications to provide two (2) 250- gallon aqueous ammonia tanks in lieu of one (1) 550-gallon tank to better serve Station operations; provisions for two (2) 30-inch magnetic flow meters in lieu of ultrasonic flow meters to provide more resiliency and flexibility with anticipated flow conditions; and repairs to an existing rectifier electrical conduit adjacent to the access road. Change Order No. 2 also addressed contract time including weather days. In total, Change Order No. 2 added sixteen (16) days to the contract. Change Order No. 3, which totaled $64,864.00, compensated the contractor for several changes including the following: modifications to the dimensions of the backup generator concrete foundation pad; addition of structural support members for the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment, and emergency generator muffler; revisions to the Stations louvers and associated masonry; installation of door louvers for the compressor room doors; increasing the discharge piping on the 570 zone (recirculation) pumps to 18-inches; revisions to provide a sewn protective thermal insulation jacket with clips for the emergency generator muffler and exhaust piping; modifying the emergency generator exhaust roof penetration to simplify future muffler removal/servicing; and consolidation of exterior lighting controls in a new contactor and control panel. Change Order No. 3 also addressed contract time including weather days. In total, Change Order No. 3 added twenty-five (25) days to the contract. Change Order No. 4, which totaled $49,157.89, compensated the contractor for several changes including the following: surge protection for indoor devices; additional pipe supports; spare engine exhaust catalysts; modification to Victaulic couplings; and relocation of chemical analyzers. Change Order No. 4 also reconciled credits associated with the unused portions of the Environmental/Regulatory Compliance and Reservoir Improvement Allowance items. Change Order No. 4 also addressed contract time including weather days. In total, Change Order No. 4 added forty-four (44) days to the contract. Change Order No. 5, which totaled $95,725.00, compensated the contractor for several changes including the following: profile and alignment revisions to the 66-inch and 30-inch discharge yard piping and suction header elevation; modifications to the Type D emergency batteries and test switch locations; addition of a fuel containment structure; providing position switches at the surge tank isolation valve; modifications to the thermal insulation for the pump engine coolant line piping; fire rated door hardware at door D-12; addition 4 of bollards and a metal protective enclosure at the diesel fuel lines entrance location to the Pump Station; revisions to the suction header platform handrail; revisions to the pump engine natural gas pipe sizes; modifications to the cable tray support; ethernet communications to the pump engines; additional costs associated with dewatering existing vault No. 7; elevation and layout modifications to the suction header walkway and engine platform structures; and credits for unused items. Change Order No. 5 also addressed contract time including weather days. In total, Change Order No. 5 added thirty-eight (38) days to the contract. Change Order No. 6, which totaled $40,125.89, compensated the contractor for several changes including the following: credits associated with revisions to chain link fencing; modifications to the overhead crane electrical feed circuit; installation of flashing around pump engine exhaust canopy roof penetration; handrail and steps at the fuel containment structure; incorporation of handwheels on all suction header valves; Type II gate well frames and lids; additional conduit between CP-100 and the telephone backboard; additional electrical grounding of the gas engines; custom grade adjustment for the oil interceptor; relocation of pump engine batteries; and modifications to the planned hydroseed mix. Change Order No. 6 also addressed contract time including weather days. In total, Change Order No. 6 added twenty-seven (27) days to the contract. Change Order No. 7, which totaled $60,567.00, compensated the contractor for several changes including the following: revisions to the ammonia alarm horn/beacon mounting location; provides for cathodic protection jumper wires at the meter vault and cathodic system retesting; installation of concrete curbs at unpaved access road crossings; additional data communication and programming for chlorine analyzers; revisions to programming for pump emergency stop buttons; installation of additional UPS receptacles; replacement of sodium hypochlorite and ammonia pressure switches; revisions to the trip rating of panel LP-2 main circuit breaker; modifications to the site drainage at the Pump Station entrance; provides custom protective enclosures for fuel piping; provides type II gate well frame/lid to provide tracer wire access. Change Order No. 7 also addressed contract time including weather days. In total, Change Order No. 7 added nine (9) days to the contract. 5 Change Order No. 8, which totaled $59,903.35, compensated the contractor for several changes including the following: an additional valve and piping modifications at the 30-inch piping interconnection; installation of a storm drainpipe to convey stormwater from the new V-ditch to the underground storm drain system; installation of a 1-inch AVAR and relocation of the 66-inch suction header pressure transmitter assembly; additional signage in the pipe galley, chemical rooms, and fuel containment area; drainage modifications to the meter vault; additional V-ditches and concrete curb; delineation posts and rock protection; engine canopy lighting and a meter vault flood alarm switch; north access road grading and paving modifications; credit for unused electrical and control systems allowance; credit for unused specialized equipment electrical connections allowance; credit for unused agency permit fees allowance. Change Order No. 8 also addressed contract time including weather days. In total, Change Order No. 8 added forty-six (46) days to the contract. Change Order No. 9, which totaled $117,045.51, compensated the contractor for several changes including the following: Exterior Gas Engine Driven Pump Systems P102 & P104: remove and re-install modified Victaulic connection spool between butterfly valve and Cla-Val; install Romac ECF400 between pump discharge flange and heat exchanger; reinstall two (2) existing pipe stanchions beneath Cla-Val and install a new pipe support with strap beneath the heat exchanger; apply contractual coating system to all new piping and damaged existing coating materials. Electrical Motor Driven Pump Systems P101 & P105: remove spool between the pump outlet flange and Cla-Val; modify length of spool between pump discharge flange and spool piece; install Romac ECF400 between pump discharge flange and heat exchanger; apply contractual coating system to all new piping and damaged existing coating materials. Final Contract Change Order No. 10, which is the subject of this staff report, reduces the contract amount by ($127,413.00) to a final contract amount of $17,360,843.59 to compensate the District for the unanticipated construction management, staff, and pump expert expenses resulting from the delayed operation of the Pump Station since the substantial completion was achieved on June 29, 2020. As of August 25, 2021, the 870-2 Pump Station has passed the 7-day testing requirement and has been accepted as 100% complete. Since achieving substantial completion on June 29, 2020, all repairs and forensic analysis of pump systems defects are complete and confirm the long-term safety and reliability of the 870-2 Pump Station. 6 FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2083, as approved in the FY 2021 budget, is $19,850,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast are $19,694,695. See Attachment B-1 for the budget detail. The total budget for CIP P2562, as approved in the FY 2021 budget, is $2,900,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments, and forecast, including this contract, are $2,778,410. See Attachment B- 2 for the budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budgets, the Project Manager anticipates that the budget is sufficient to support the Project. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund for CIPs P2083 and P2562. GRANTS/LOANS: Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found none currently available for this Project. 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 District’s Vision, “To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices.” LEGAL IMPACT: None. MJL/RP:jf P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Staff Reports\BD 10-06-21 Pacific Hydrotech Change Order No 10\BD 10-06-21 Staff Report CO No 10 for the 870-2 PS.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B1 – P2083 Budget Detail Attachment B2 - P2562 Budget Detail Exhibit A – 870-2 Pump Station Project Location Exhibit B - 870-2 Pump Station Project Detail Map Exhibit C – Change Order No. 10 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2083-001103 P2562-001103 Approval of Final Contract Change Order No. 10 in an amount not-to-exceed a reduction of ($127,413.00) to the Construction Contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a Committee Meeting held on September 21, 2021, and the following comments were made: • Staff requests that the Board authorize the General Manager to execute a final contract Change Order No. 10 in an amount not-to-exceed a reduction of ($127,413.00) to the Construction Contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project. • As noted in the staff report, on July 5, 2017, the Board awarded a construction contract in the amount of $16,925,900.00 to Pacific Hydrotech. Since the award of the construction contract, there have been nine (9) change orders approved on the project. The details of these change orders are included in the staff report. See pages 2 through 5 of the staff report for details of these change orders. • Staff discussed Change Order No. 10, which is detailed on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report. Exhibit C also provides details of this change order. • In response to a question by the Committee regarding the warranty period before demolition of the existing High Head (870-1) and Low Head (571-1) Pump Stations it was stated by staff that the warranty period ends August 24, 2022. Staff also noted that the demolition project would go out for bid after the 870-1 Reservoir Relining project is complete. • Committee made a request to have the Board do a field trip to tour the new 870-2 Pump Station facility. The GM’s office will schedule the field trip taking into account safety that policies and practices associate with the District’s response to COVID. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item. ATTACHMENT B-1 – P2083 Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2083-001103 P2562-001103 Approval of Final Contract Change Order No. 10 in an amount not-to-exceed a reduction of ($127,413.00) to the Construction Contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project 8/24/2021 Budget 19,850,000 PlanningConsultant Contracts 53,611 53,611 - 53,611 HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL31,005 31,005 - 31,005 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL PLANNING INC17,094 17,094 - 17,094 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC211,296 211,296 - 211,296 ICF JONES & STOKES INCRegulatory Agency Fees 2,109 2,109 - 2,109 CA DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE720 720 - 720 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER1,570 1,570 - 1,570 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTH3,924 3,924 - 3,924 STATE WATER RESOURCESService Contracts 2,260 2,260 - 2,260 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO164 164 - 164 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT505 505 - 505 THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNEStandard Salaries 233,775 233,775 - 233,775 Fixed Asset 580,444 580,444 - 580,444 Total Planning 1,138,478 1,138,478 - 1,138,478 Design 001102 Consultant Contracts 136 136 - 136 THE WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 4,850 4,850 - 4,850 BURKETT & WONG ENGINEERS INC14,068 14,068 - 14,068 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL3,034 3,034 - 3,034 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY4,625 4,625 - 4,625 ROGER B WOODHULL22,149 22,149 - 22,149 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND10,484 10,484 - 10,484 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES6,086 6,086 - 6,086 HDR ENGINEERING INC682,870 682,870 - 682,870 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC7,974 7,974 - 7,974 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INCRegulatory Agency Fees 3,694 3,694 - 3,694 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC18,348 18,348 - 18,348 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGOService Contracts 98 98 - 98 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATIONStandard Salaries 677,054 677,054 - 677,054 Supplier Contracts 5,350 5,350 - 5,350 INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS INC Total Design 1,460,820 1,460,820 - 1,460,820 ConstructionConstruction Contracts 790 790 - 790 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC14,206,343 14,206,343 - 14,206,343 PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION(127,413) (127,413) (127,413) PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION CO No. 1741,845 741,845 - 741,845 PACIFIC WESTERN BANKConsultant Contracts 16,270 16,270 - 16,270 ALYSON CONSULTING437,691 425,389 12,302 437,691 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC1,319 1,319 - 1,319 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND10,240 10,240 - 10,240 NV5 INC83,341 83,341 - 83,341 ON-SITE TECHNICAL SVCS INC 17,623 17,623 - 17,623 RBF CONSULTING 1,038,300 1,038,300 - 1,038,300 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC 438 438 - 438 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL For Ops Only - Contracted Services 1,375 1,375 - 1,375 LYNN'S LOCKSMITH SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT & MA 1,281 1,281 - 1,281 MALLORY SAFETY & SUPPLY LLC OTHER AGENCY FEES 339,493 339,493 - 339,493 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC Parking and Tolls 29 29 - 29 PETTY CASH CUSTODIANProfessional Legal Fees 276 276 - 276 ARTIANO SHINOFF280 280 - 280 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFFRegulatory Agency Fees 11,758 11,758 - 11,758 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGOSecurity Services 41,112 41,112 - 41,112 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATIONService Contracts 3,628 3,628 - 3,628 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC119 119 - 119 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPTStandard Salaries 269,260 269,260 - 269,260 Total Construction 17,095,397 17,210,508 (115,111) 17,095,397 Grand Total 19,694,695 19,809,806 (115,111) 19,694,695 Vendor/Comments Otay Water Districtp2083-PS - 870-2 Pump Station Repl Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost ATTACHMENT B-2 – P2562 Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2083-001103 P2562-001103 Approval of Final Contract Change Order No. 10 in an amount not-to-exceed a reduction of ($127,413.00) to the Construction Contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project 8/24/2021 Budget 2,900,000 Planning Regulatory Agency Fees 50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN Total Planning 50 50 - 50 Design 001102Mileage Reimbursement 14 14 - 14 PETTY CASH CUSTODIANStandard Salaries 51,320 51,320 - 51,320 Total Design 51,333 51,333 - 51,333 Construction Construction Contracts 206 206 - 206 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC 2,414,577 2,414,577 - 2,414,577 PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION 125,493 125,493 - 125,493 PACIFIC WESTERN BANKConsultant Contracts 36,583 36,583 - 36,583 ALYSON CONSULTING129,300 129,300 - 129,300 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INCStandard Salaries 20,869 20,869 - 20,869 Total Construction 2,727,026 2,727,026 - 2,727,026 Grand Total 2,778,410 2,778,410 - 2,778,410 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District p2562-Res - 571-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replac Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost OTAY WATER DISTRICT870-2 PUMP STATIONLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT A CIP P2083F P: \ W O R K I N G \ C I P P 2 0 8 3 8 7 0 - 2 P u m p S t a t i o n R e p l a c e m e n t \ G r a p h i c s \ E x h i b i t s - F i g u r e s \ E x h i b i t A , L o c a t i o n M a p , M a y 2 0 1 6 . m x d ROLLRESERVOIR(571-1) LOW HEADPUMP STATION HIGH HEADPUMPSTATION FOR PROJECT DETAILSEE EXHIBIT B ACCESS FROMALTA RD OWD PROPERTY LINE(APPROX) FirearmsTrainingFacility VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTSDIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 !\ ?ò Aä ?Ë ;&s ?p F 0 250125 Feet OTAY WATER DISTRICT870-2 PUMP STATIONPROJECT DETAIL MAP EXHIBIT B CIP P2083F P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit B, Project Detail Map, May 2016.mxd 0 10050 Feet Legend ExistingEasementOWD ExistingParcelOWD ExistingEasementSDGE ProposedStructure ProposedWater ProposedStormDrain ProposedSewer ProposedGas ProposedSiteCivil ExistingWaterOWD C!r(D OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD, SPRING VALLEY, CA. 91978, (619) 670-2222 CONTRACT/P.O. CHANGE ORDER No. 1 0 PROJECT/ITEM: 870-2 Pump Station Replacement CONTRACTORNENDOR: Pacific Hydrotech Corporation REF.CIP No.: P2083/P2562 APPROVED BY: Board REF. P.O. No: 720067 DESCRIPTION: DATE: 8/27/21 Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides for reimbursement of additional District costs associated with an extended Process Operational Testing Period resulting from multiple pump system failures. REASON: Subsequent to commencing the specified Process Operational Testing Period multiple substantial pump failures occurred. Four of these failures required removal of the pump system for repair and replacement at manufacturer facilities resulting in significant time impacts to the prescribed 7-day testing period and additional District expenditures for staff and consultants including specialists in rotating equipment, vibration and forensic failure analysis to determine probable causes, provide opinions and validate manufacturer repair and replacement work. This Change Order is necessary to allow the District to recover the additional expenditures resulting from the multiple substantial pump failures. CHANGE P.O. TO READ: Revise Contract to deduct $127,413.00 and add O days time for a total Contract amount of $17,360,843.59 with a Contract Duration of 1070 Calendar Days. ORIGINAL CONTRACT/P.O. AMOUNT: ADJUSTED AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE: TOTAL COST OF THIS CHANGE ORDER: NEW CONTRACT/P.O. AMOUNT IS: ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: CONTRACT/P.O. TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE: REVISED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: $ 16,925,900.00 $ 562,356.59 $ (127,413.00) $ 1 t,360,843.59 10/4/19 No 6/30/20 IT IS UNDERSTOOD WITH THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS, THAT THE CONTRACTORNENDOR IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO MAKE THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CHANGES. IT IS ALSO AGREED THAT THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER CONSTITUTES FULL AND COMPLETE COMPENSATION FOR OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT/P.O. ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT/P.O. REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. STAFF APPROVALS: SIGNATURE· � PROJ. MGR: � DATE: S/1/21 NAME: =-Da::.cv=id....:.P..;;.ow.;.;.;e:c.:.r ____________ DIV MGR: ?1/�ZoATE: �,/Cffoo2...,) TITLE: Project Manager DATE: �/yfz/ CHIEF:___________ DATE: ___ _ COMPANY & Pacific Hydrotech Corporal/on ADDRESS: 314 E. 3'" Street DISTRICT APPROVAL: Perris. CA 92570 GEN. MANAGER: __________ DATE: ___ _ COPIES: □ FILE (Orig.), □ CONTRACTORNENDOR. □ CHIEF-ENGINEERING, D CHIEF-FINANCE, □ ENGR. MGR. D ACCTS PAYABLE, D INSPECTION, D PROJ MGR., □ ENGR SECRETARY, □PURCHASING, □ PROJECT BINDER EXHIBIT C P2083 & P2562-001103 C.O. AMOUNT BY DATE DESCRIPTION TYPE C.O. 1 $ 26,269.83 Chief 5/18/2018 Additional buoyancy floats in reservoir; replace existing to be reused anchor bolts, disinfect reservoir for water quality testing and weather days Lump Sum 2 $ 48,698.12 Chief 1/29/2019 Electric service room modifications; ammonia storage modifications; replace ultrasonic flow meters with magnetic type; Relocate existing rectifier power conduit and weather days Lump Sum 3 $ 64,864.00 Board 4/3/2019 Provide bathroom finishes; increase size of generator foundation; provide additional HVAC supports, add pilasters for louver relocation; add compressor room louvers; increase 570-zone discharge piping; emergency generator jacket insulation betterment; exhaust roof penetration detail modification; lighting controls modification and weather days Lump Sum 4 $ 49,157.89 Board 11/7/2019 Cathodic system modifications; HVAC modifications; additional 4-inch irrigation valve; indoor devices surge protection; surge tank concrete foundation modifications; Type G LED exit light fixture mount modifications; chemical resistant coating in chemical rooms; lighting controller modifications; additional pipe supports in the pump room; add EF-4 to pump room; spare exhaust catalyst and add make-up oil storage tanks; increase size of Victaulic couplings; add Type A light fixture to electrical service entrance room; incorporate two new prima roof drains and overflow drains; relocate HVAC ductwork in electric room; reorientation of electrical busway in emergency generator room; relocation of chemical analyzers; add 2-inch pressure reducing valves; add disassembly flanges on pump engine coolant piping; add cove base in restroom; add flexible connection for engine coolant and gas piping to pump engines; add support gussets on aluminum platform above the suction piping; add 1-hour fire labeling at the generator room interior door; weather and bid item quantity adjustments Lump Sum 5 $ 95,725.00 Board 2/6/2020 Suction piping revisions; type D emergency batteries and test switch locations; fuel containment structure; position switches at surge tank isolation valve; thermal insulation for pump engine coolant line piping; door D-12 fire rated door hardware; protective enclosure for diesel fuel lines; suction header platform handrail modifications; natural gas engine piping modifications; cable tray support modification; ethernet communication to pump engines; vault 7 dewatering; AVAR piping connection material changes; suction header platform modifications; weather and bid item quantity adjustments Lump Sum 6 $ 40,125.89 Board 4/1/2020 Fencing revisions; overhead crane electrical feed changes; pump engine exhaust penetration; handrail and steps at fuel containment; suction header valve handwheels; gate well frames/lids; conduit between CP-100 and backboard; gas engine electrical grounding; oil interceptor grade adjustment; relocate pump engine batteries; change hydroseed mix and density Lump Sum 7 $ 60,567.00 Board 6/9/2020 Ammonia Alarm Mounting; Meter Vault Cathodic Revisions; Concrete Curbs; Chlorine Analyzer Data/Comm Mods; Pump Estop Revisions; CP-100 UPS Outlets; Chemical Pressure Switch Revisions; LP-2 Panel Trip Rating Revision; Entrance Drainage Mod; Fuel Pipe Protective Enclosure; Gate Well Frame/Lid for Cathodic Lump Sum 8 $ 59,903.35 Board 10/8/2020 Additional Interconnect Valve; Add 'l Storm Drain Pipe; Relocate Pressure xmiter and AVAR; Add 'l signage & Display Cover; Meter Vault Drainage Mods; Add 'l V-Ditches and curb/gutter; Delineation Posts and Rock Protection; Engine Canopy Lighting, Convenience Outlets, Meter Vault Flood Alarm; North Access Road Grading and Paving Mods, Bid Item Reconciliation Lump Sum 9 $117,045.51 Board 5/11/2021 Install equipment connection fittings on P101, P102, P104, P015 Lump Sum 10 ($127,413.00) Board Reimbursement for additional District costs associated with multiple pump failures during the Process Operational Period.Lump Sum Total C.O.'s To Date: $434,943.59 2.6% Original Contract Amount:$16,925,900.00 Current Contract Amount:$17,360,843.59 Change Order Breakdown for the Month: Month Net C.O.$ Limit Authorization Absolute C.O.$ Absolute C.O. % 9/21 $0.00 $5,000/5% PM/Supervisor $0.00 0.0% $10,000/10% Manager $0.00 0.0% $15,000/20% Chief $0.00 0.0% $50,000/30%GM $0.00 0.0% CHANGE ORDER LOG 870-2 Pump Station (P2083 & P2562) APPROVED STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: October 6, 2021 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 2021 Calendar of Meetings GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: At the request of the Board, the attached Board of Director’s meeting calendar for 2021 is being presented for discussion. PURPOSE: This staff report is being presented to provide the Board the opportunity to review the 2021 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 Meetings for 2021 G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTS\Board Meeting Calendar 10-06-21.doc AGENDA ITEM 7a Board of Directors, Workshops and Committee Meetings (Teleconference) 2021 Regular Board Meetings: Special Board or Committee Meetings (3rd Wednesday of Each Month or as Noted) January 6, 2021 February 3, 2021 March 3, 2021 April 7, 2021 May 5, 2021 June 2, 2021 July 7, 2021 August 4, 2021 September 1, 2021 October 6, 2021 November 3, 2021 December 1, 2021 January 20, 2021 February 17, 2021 March 17, 2021 April 21, 2021 May 19, 2021 June 16, 2021 July 21, 2021 August 18, 2021 September 15, 2021 October 20, 2021 November 17, 2021 December 15, 2021 SPECIAL BOARD MEETINGS: October 19, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.: Board Retreat STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Shiela Dilayre Senior Accountant PROJECT: DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2021 Board of Directors’ Expenses GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To present the Board of Directors’ expenses for Fiscal Year 2021. ANALYSIS: The California Government Code Section 53065.5 requires special districts, at least annually, to disclose any reimbursements paid by a district within the immediately preceding fiscal year. In addition, the District’s Code of Ordinances Policy 8 echoes this requirement. To meet these requirements, staff prepares and presents the Board of Directors’ expenses on an annual basis. The reimbursements and per diems paid by the District for Fiscal Year 2021 are summarized in the table on the following page and detailed in Attachments C-J. AGENDA ITEM 8a 2 The above table displays the expenses by category and Director. The expenses totaled $58,469.33 with $55,328.00, or 94.6%, of the expenses stemming from Director’s Fees. FISCAL IMPACT: None. STRATEGIC GOAL: Prudently manage District funds. LEGAL IMPACT: Compliance with California law and District Code of Ordinance Policy 8. Attachments: Attachment A: Committee Action Attachment B: Directors’ Expenses and Per Diems Attachments C-J: Directors’ Expenses Details Croucher Gastelum Keyes Lopez Robak Smith Thompson Total Business Meetings -$ -$ -$ -$ 30.00$ -$ 40.00$ 70.00$ Director's Fees 11,248.00 2,128.00 3,496.00 5,168.00 16,112.00 11,096.00 6,080.00 55,328.00 Mileage Business 102.90 548.02 - - 14.56 14.95 - 680.43 Mileage Commuting 6.90 - - - - - - 6.90 Conferences and Seminars*375.00 (60.00) 694.00 375.00 1,000.00 - - 2,384.00 Travel - - - - - - - - Community Events - - - - - - - - Total 11,732.80$ 2,616.02$ 4,190.00$ 5,543.00$ 17,156.56$ 11,110.95$ 6,120.00$ 58,469.33$ *The ($60) credit for Director Gastelum was reimbursement for registration paid in FY 2020. OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD EXPENSES July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Fiscal Year 2021 Board of Directors’ Expenses COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance and Administration Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 22, 2021, and the following comments were made: • Staff presented the Board of Directors’ expenses for fiscal year 2021. • In response to an inquiry from the Committee, staff indicated that the total Board of Directors’ expenses for last fiscal year was $83,474. Total Board of Directors’ expenses for fiscal year 2021 was $58,469.33, which is 30% lower than the prior fiscal year. Upon completion of the discussion, the Committee supported presentation to the full board as an informational item. BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ EXPENSES AND PER DIEMS Finance and Administration Committee September 22, 2021 Board of Directors Meeting October 6, 2021 ATTACHMENT B California Government Code Section 53065.5 and Otay Water District’s Code of Ordinances Policy 8 require that staff present the Expenses and Per Diems for the Board of Directors on an annual basis: •Fiscal Year 2021. •The expenses are shown by Board member and expense type. •The information is presented in alphabetical order. ATTACHMENT C Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5214 Business Meetings -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5281 Director's Fees 1,368.00 1,368.00 760.00 1,216.00 912.00 608.00 608.00 912.00 608.00 760.00 1,368.00 760.00 11,248.00 5211 Mileage - Business 6.90 29.00 - 32.00 32.20 - - - 2.80 - - - 102.90 5211 Mileage - Commuting 6.90 - - - - - - - - - - - 6.90 5213 Seminars and Conferences - - - - - - - - - - 375.00 - 375.00 5212 Travel - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5222 Community Events - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 1,381.80$ 1,397.00$ 760.00$ 1,248.00$ 944.20$ 608.00$ 608.00$ 912.00$ 610.80$ 760.00$ 1,743.00$ 760.00$ 11,732.80$ 5214 Business Meetings -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5281 Director's Fees 456.00 760.00 152.00 152.00 456.00 152.00 - - - - - - 2,128.00 5211 Mileage - Business - 548.02 - - - - - - - - - - 548.02 5211 Mileage - Commuting - -- - - - - - - - - - - 5213 Seminars and Conferences (60.00) - - - - - - - - - - - (60.00) 5212 Travel - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5222 Community Events - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 396.00$ 1,308.02$ 152.00$ 152.00$ 456.00$ 152.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,616.02$ 5214 Business Meetings -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5281 Director's Fees - - - - - 152.00 608.00 304.00 608.00 760.00 456.00 608.00 3,496.00 5211 Mileage - Business - - - - - -- - - - - - - 5211 Mileage - Commuting - - - - - -- - - - - - - 5213 Seminars and Conferences - - - - - -- - - 249.00 375.00 70.00 694.00 5212 Travel - - - - - -- - - -- - - 5222 Community Events - - - - - -- - - -- - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 152.00$ 608.00$ 304.00$ 608.00$ 1,009.00$ 831.00$ 678.00$ 4,190.00$ 5214 Business Meetings -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5281 Director's Fees - - - - - - 1,368.00 456.00 456.00 1,064.00 1,064.00 760.00 5,168.00 5211 Mileage - Business - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5211 Mileage - Commuting - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5213 Seminars and Conferences - - - - - - - - - - 375.00 - 375.00 5212 Travel - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5222 Community Events - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,368.00$ 456.00$ 456.00$ 1,064.00$ 1,439.00$ 760.00$ 5,543.00$ 5214 Business Meetings -$ -$ 30.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 30.00$ 5281 Director's Fees 1,368.00 1,368.00 1,216.00 1,368.00 1,064.00 1,064.00 1,368.00 1,520.00 1,368.00 1,520.00 1,520.00 1,368.00 16,112.00 5211 Mileage - Business - - - - - - - - - - - 14.56 14.56 5211 Mileage - Commuting - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5213 Seminars and Conferences - - - - - 375.00 - 55.00 145.00 - 375.00 50.00 1,000.00 5212 Travel - - - - - -- -- - - - - OTAY WATER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES - BOARD JULY 1, 2020 - JUNE 30, 2021 GARY D. CROUCHER (DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT D) RYAN KEYES (DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT F) JOSE LOPEZ (DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT G) HECTOR GASTELUM (DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT E) MARK ROBAK (DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT H) Page 1 of 2 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Total OTAY WATER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES - BOARD JULY 1, 2020 - JUNE 30, 2021 5222 Community Events - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 1,368.00$ 1,368.00$ 1,246.00$ 1,368.00$ 1,064.00$ 1,439.00$ 1,368.00$ 1,575.00$ 1,513.00$ 1,520.00$ 1,895.00$ 1,432.56$ 17,156.56$ 5214 Business Meetings -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5281 Director's Fees 760.00 912.00 608.00 912.00 760.00 304.00 1,064.00 1,368.00 1,064.00 1,064.00 1,368.00 912.00 11,096.00 5211 Mileage - Business 14.95 - - - - - - - - - - - 14.95 5211 Mileage - Commuting - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5213 Seminars and Conferences - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5212 Travel - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5222 Community Events - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 774.95$ 912.00$ 608.00$ 912.00$ 760.00$ 304.00$ 1,064.00$ 1,368.00$ 1,064.00$ 1,064.00$ 1,368.00$ 912.00$ 11,110.95$ 5214 Business Meetings -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 5281 Director's Fees 1,520.00 1,368.00 760.00 1,216.00 912.00 304.00 - - - - - - 6,080.00 5211 Mileage - Business - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5211 Mileage - Commuting - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5213 Seminars and Conferences - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5212 Travel - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5222 Community Events - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 1,520.00$ 1,368.00$ 760.00$ 1,216.00$ 912.00$ 304.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40.00$ 6,120.00$ TOTALS: 5214 Business Meetings -$ -$ 30.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40.00$ 70.00$ 5281 Director's Fees 5,472.00 5,776.00 3,496.00 4,864.00 4,104.00 2,584.00 5,016.00 4,560.00 4,104.00 5,168.00 5,776.00 4,408.00 55,328.00 5211 Mileage - Business 21.85 577.02 - 32.00 32.20 - - - 2.80 - - 14.56 680.43 5211 Mileage - Commuting 6.90 - - - - - - - - - - - 6.90 5213 Seminars and Conferences (60.00) - - - - 375.00 - 55.00 145.00 249.00 1,500.00 120.00 2,384.00 5212 Travel - - - - - - - -- - - - - 5222 Community Events - - - - - - - -- - - - - Total 5,440.75$ 6,353.02$ 3,526.00$ 4,896.00$ 4,136.20$ 2,959.00$ 5,016.00$ 4,615.00$ 4,251.80$ 5,417.00$ 7,276.00$ 4,582.56$ 58,469.33$ MITCHELL THOMPSON (DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT J) TIM SMITH (DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT I) Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT D DIRECTOR'S NAME:CROUCHER, GARY Expense Type Date Descriptions Total $ Conferences and Seminars 5/8/2021 REGISTRATION - ACWA 2021 SPRING VIRTUAL CONFERENCE 375.00 Conferences and Seminars Total 375.00 Director's Fee 7/1/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/6/2020 MEETING WITH THE GM AND GENERAL COUNSEL RE: DISTRICT MATTERS 152.00 7/7/2020 MEETING WITH THE GM AND GENERAL COUNSEL RE: SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/9/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/16/2020 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING FOR THE JULY COMMITTEE MEETINGS 152.00 7/20/2020 EO & WR COMMITTEE BOARD AGENDA REVIEW FOR JULY BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/21/2020 CWA MATTERS MEETING 152.00 7/22/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/29/2020 MEETING WITH THE GM AND GENERAL COUNSEL TO REVIEW JULY BOARD MEETING MATERIALS 152.00 8/4/2020 MEETING WITH THE GM AND GENERAL COUNSEL TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL ISSUES 152.00 8/5/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/12/2020 MEETING WITH THE GM AND GENERAL COUNSEL TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL ISSUES 152.00 8/14/2020 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING FOR THE AUGUST COMMITTEE MEETINGS 152.00 8/17/2020 MEETING WITH THE GM AND GENERAL COUNSEL TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL ISSUES 152.00 8/19/2020 EO & WR COMMITTEE BOARD AGENDA REVIEW FOR SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/21/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/24/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/25/2020 CWA MATTERS MEETING & BOARD AGENDA BRIEFING FOR THE SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING 152.00 9/2/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 9/16/2020 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING FOR THE SEPTEMBER COMMITTEE MEETINGS 152.00 9/21/2020 EO & WR COMMITTEE BOARD AGENDA REVIEW FOR OCTOBER BOARD MEETING 152.00 9/22/2020 CWA MATTERS MEETING 152.00 9/30/2020 MEETING WITH THE GM AND GENERAL COUNSEL TO REVIEW OCTOBER BOARD MEETING AGENDA ITEMS 152.00 10/7/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 10/13/2020 MEETING WITH FALLBROOK PUD RE: FALLBROOK DETACHMENT FROM CWA 152.00 10/14/2020 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 10/16/2020 CWA MATTERS MEETING WITH GM AND DIR SMITH 152.00 10/19/2020 EO & WR COMMITTEE 152.00 10/20/2020 CPRL&L COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 10/22/2020 CWA MATTERS FOLLOW-UP MEETING 152.00 10/28/2020 BOARD AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 11/4/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 11/16/2020 MEETING WITH SWEETWATER AUTHORITY RE: CURRENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 152.00 11/17/2020 MEETING WITH RAINBOW GM AND BOARD VP RE: RAINBOW DETACHMENT FROM CWA 152.00 11/18/2020 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 11/23/2020 CWA MATTERS MEETING 152.00 11/30/2020 EO & WR COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 12/1/2020 QUARTERLY GM MEETING 152.00 12/3/2020 REGIONAL MEETING WITH PRESIDENTS AND GMs 152.00 12/4/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 12/7/2020 LAFCO AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING RE: FALLBROOK, RAINBOR REORG REQUEST 152.00 1/6/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 1/19/2021 ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 1/25/2021 CWA MATTERS MEETING 152.00 1/29/2021 GM/GC AND BOARD PRESIDENT - LAFCO DISCUSSIONS AND IMPACTS 152.00 2/1/2021 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES 152.00 2/3/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 2/17/2021 EO&WR COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 2/18/2021 CSDA - QUARTERLY MEETING 152.00 2/23/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 2/24/2021 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 3/2/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 3/3/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 3/16/2021 EO&WR COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 3/19/2021 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 4/5/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 4/7/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 4/20/2021 EO&WR COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 4/21/2021 EAST COUNTY WATER AGENCIES MEETING 152.00 4/28/2021 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 5/5/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 5/7/2021 CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY MEETING 152.00 5/12/2021 ACWA SPRING CONFERENCE 152.00 5/13/2021 ACWA SPRING CONFERENCE 152.00 5/18/2021 EO&WR COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 5/19/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 5/20/2021 CSDA - QUARTERLY MEETING 152.00 5/26/2021 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 5/28/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 6/30/2021 LAFCO 152.00 6/2/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 6/14/2021 LAFCO DEATTACHMENT SUBCOMMITTEE 152.00 6/16/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 6/23/2021 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 Director's Fee Total 11,248.00 Mileage - Business 7/31/2020 MEETING - JULY 21 6.90 8/31/2020 MILEAGE - AUGUST 2019, SEPTEMBER 2019*29.00 10/31/2020 MEETING - OCTOBER 13 32.00 11/30/2020 MEETING - NOVEMBER 17 32.20 3/2/2021 MEETING - MARCH 2 2.80 Mileage - Business Total 102.90 Mileage - Commuting 7/31/2020 MEETINGS - JULY 6 & 9 6.90 Mileage - Commuting Total 6.90 Grand Total 11,732.80$ *Mileage reimbursements for meeting attendance in August 2019 & September 2019. Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT E DIRECTOR'S NAME:GASTELUM, HECTOR Expense Type Date Descriptions Total $ Conferences and Seminars 7/22/2020 CREDIT FOR BIA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION (60.00) Conferences and Seminars Total (60.00) Director's Fee 7/1/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/9/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/22/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/5/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/13/2020 QUARTERLY GM MEETING 152.00 8/14/2020 BIA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER CONFERENCE 152.00 8/21/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/24/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 9/1/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 10/7/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 11/4/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 11/12/2020 QUARTERLY GM MEETING 152.00 11/17/2020 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES 152.00 12/4/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 Director's Fee Total 2,128.00 Mileage - Business 12/6/2020 ACWA 2019 FALL CONFERENCE*78.88 12/13/2019 COLORADO RIVER WATER USERS 2019 CONFERENCE*393.24 1/28/2020 JANUARY 2020 MILEAGE*75.90 Mileage - Business Total 548.02 Grand Total 2,616.02$ *Mileage reimbursements for attendance in various meetings and conferences in FY 2020. Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT F DIRECTOR'S NAME:KEYES, RYAN Expense Type Date Descriptions Total $ Conferences and Seminars 4/22/2021 EB WATER 101 WORKSHOP REGISTRATION 249.00 5/8/2021 REGISTRATION - ACWA 2021 SPRING VIRTUAL CONFERENCE 375.00 6/30/2021 ZOOMING THROUGH CALIFORNIA REGISTRATION 70.00 Conferences and Seminars Total 694.00 Director's Fee 12/18/2020 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF - JOSE MARTINEZ 152.00 1/6/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 1/8/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER COUNSEL 152.00 1/15/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 1/22/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 2/3/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 2/12/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 3/3/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 3/5/2021 SD COUNTY TAXPAYER SEMINAR 152.00 3/16/2021 CPRL&L COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 3/19/2021 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 4/7/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 4/20/2021 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES MEETING 152.00 4/22/2021 WATER EDUCATION FOUNDATION MEETING 152.00 4/23/2021 WATER EDUCATION FOUNDATION MEETING 152.00 4/28/2021 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 5/5/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 5/13/2021 ACWA SPRING CONFERENCE 152.00 6/30/2021 ACWA WEBINAR 152.00 5/14/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 6/2/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 6/23/2021 ACWA REGIONAL MEETING 152.00 6/29/2021 WATEREUSE CA CONFERENCE 152.00 Director's Fee Total 3,496.00 Grand Total 4,190.00 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT G DIRECTOR'S NAME:LOPEZ, JOSE Expense Type Date Descriptions Total $ Conferences and Seminars 5/8/2021 REGISTRATION - ACWA 2021 SPRING VIRTUAL CONFERENCE 375.00 Conferences and Seminars Total 375.00 Director's Fee 1/6/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 1/12/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 1/13/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 1/14/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 1/19/2021 OWD NEW BOARD MEMBER TRAINING 152.00 1/20/2021 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 1/21/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER COUNSEL 152.00 1/22/2021 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN BOARD MEETING 152.00 1/27/2021 BROWN ACT TRAINING 152.00 2/2/2021 SCEDC MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 2/3/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 2/16/2021 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 3/3/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 3/17/2021 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 3/19/2021 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 4/2/2021 CHULA VISTA CHAMBER MEETING 152.00 4/6/2021 SCEDC MEETING 152.00 4/7/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 4/20/2021 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES MEETING 152.00 4/21/2021 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 4/22/2021 OWD TRAINING 152.00 4/28/2021 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 5/4/2021 SOUTH COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 152.00 5/5/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 5/7/2021 CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 152.00 5/12/2021 ACWA SPRING CONFERENCE 152.00 5/13/2021 ACWA SPRING CONFERENCE 152.00 5/14/2021 ACWA SPRING CONFERENCE 152.00 5/19/2021 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 6/1/2021 SOUTH COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 152.00 6/2/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 6/4/2021 CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 152.00 6/15/2021 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES 152.00 6/16/2021 QUARTERLY GM MEETING 152.00 Director's Fee Total 5,168.00 Grand Total 5,543.00$ Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT H DIRECTOR'S NAME:ROBAK, MARK Expense Type Date Descriptions Total $ Conferences and Seminars 12/22/2020 REGISTRATION - ACWA 2020 FALL VIRTUAL CONFERENCE 375.00 2/22/2021 ACWA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 55.00 3/22/2021 ACWA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 145.00 5/8/2021 REGISTRATION - ACWA 2021 SPRING VIRTUAL CONFERENCE 375.00 6/30/2021 ACWA DROUGHT MESSAGING WEBINAR 50.00 Conferences and Seminars Total 1,000.00 Director's Fee 7/1/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/2/2020 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL CHAMBER SUSTAINABILITY & INDUSTRY COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 7/6/2020 DISCUSSION WITH THE GM, BOARD PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL 152.00 7/7/2020 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOV'T AFFAIRS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 7/9/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/22/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/23/2020 SDCWA MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/27/2020 OTAY POLICY 8 AD-HOC COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 7/28/2020 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/4/2020 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOV'T AFFAIRS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 8/5/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/18/2020 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 8/20/2020 MWD VIRTUAL TOUR OF THE REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER ADVANCED PURIFICATION CENTER 152.00 8/21/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/24/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/25/2020 SPECIAL DISTRICT'S VIRTUAL SUMMIT WEST 2020 152.00 8/27/2020 SDCWA MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/31/2020 OTAY POLICY 8 AD-HOC COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 9/1/2020 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOV'T AFFAIRS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 9/2/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 9/3/2020 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL CHAMBER SUSTAINABILITY & INDUSTRY COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 9/9/2020 DISCUSSION WITH REBECCA ALVAREZ WITH NP STRATEGIES 152.00 9/15/2020 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES MEETING WITH USBR COMMISSIONER 152.00 9/18/2020 LAFCO SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 9/22/2020 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 9/24/2020 SDCWA MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 10/2/2020 SOUTH COUNTY EDC 30TH ANNUAL ECONOMIC SUMMIT 152.00 10/6/2020 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOV'T AFFAIRS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 10/7/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 10/15/2020 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE POLITICS IN PARADISE EVENT 152.00 10/19/2020 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 10/20/2020 CPRL&L COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 10/21/2020 AD HOC POLICY 8 COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 10/22/2020 SDCWA MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 10/27/2020 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN JPA QUARTERLY MEETING 152.00 11/3/2020 SOUTH COUNTY EDC MONTHLY MEETING 152.00 11/4/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 11/10/2020 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOV'T AFFAIRS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 11/12/2020 SOUTHERN CA WATER COALITION 36TH ANNUAL EVENT AND AWARDS 152.00 11/17/2020 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES SAN DIEGO COUNTY MEETING 152.00 11/19/2020 SDCWA MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 11/20/2020 COUNTY OF SD INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION MEETING 152.00 12/1/2020 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 12/2/2020 ACWA SEMI-ANNUAL FALL CONFERENCE 152.00 12/3/2020 ACWA SEMI-ANNUAL FALL CONFERENCE 152.00 12/4/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 12/8/2020 SCEDC ELECTED OFFICIALS WEBINAR 152.00 12/10/2020 SDCWA MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 12/18/2020 LAFCO SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 1/3/2021 AB 1234 REVIEW AND EXAM MANDATORY BIENNIAL TRAINING 152.00 1/4/2021 COUNTY OF SD 2ND DISTRICT SUPERVISOR SWEARING IN 152.00 1/5/2021 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOV'T AFFAIRS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 1/6/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 1/12/2021 SCEDC MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 1/20/2021 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 1/22/2021 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN JPA MEETING 152.00 1/26/2021 SAN DIEGO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUSTAINABILITY & INDUSTRY COMMITTEE 152.00 1/28/2021 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN MEETING 152.00 2/1/2021 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES 152.00 2/2/2021 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOV'T AFFAIRS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 2/3/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 2/4/2021 SAN DIEGO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUSTAINABILITY & INDUSTRY COMMITTEE 152.00 2/5/2021 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - FIRST FRIDAY BREAKFAST 152.00 2/16/2021 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 2/18/2021 CSDA - QUARTERLY MEETING 152.00 2/19/2021 SOUTHERN CA WATER COALITION MEETING 152.00 2/24/2021 ACWA WEBINAR 152.00 2/25/2021 CA LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING 152.00 3/2/2021 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOV'T AFFAIRS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 3/3/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 3/4/2021 SAN DIEGO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUSTAINABILITY & INDUSTRY COMMITTEE 152.00 3/11/2021 ACWA LEGISLATIVE SYMPOSIUM 152.00 3/16/2021 CPRL&L COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 3/17/2021 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 3/19/2021 LAFCO SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 3/24/2021 ACWA WEBINAR 152.00 3/31/2021 ACWA WEBINAR 152.00 Page 1 of 2 Director's Fee 4/1/2021 SAN DIEGO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUSTAINABILITY & INDUSTRY COMMITTEE 152.00 4/6/2021 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOV'T AFFAIRS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 4/7/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 4/15/2021 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 152.00 4/20/2021 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES MEETING 152.00 4/21/2021 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 4/22/2021 P3 WATER SUMMIT 152.00 4/26/2021 SAN DIEGO COUNTY'S CLIMATE FUTURE 152.00 4/28/2021 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 4/29/2021 SOUTHERN CA WATER COALITION MEETING 152.00 5/3/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 5/4/2021 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOV'T AFFAIRS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 5/5/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 5/6/2021 SAN DIEGO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUSTAINABILITY & INDUSTRY COMMITTEE 152.00 5/12/2021 ACWA SPRING CONFERENCE 152.00 5/13/2021 ACWA SPRING CONFERENCE 152.00 5/14/2021 ACWA SPRING CONFERENCE 152.00 5/19/2021 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 5/20/2021 OTAY SALT CREEK GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 5/25/2021 ISRAEL WATER REUSE VIRTUAL TOUR 152.00 6/1/2021 EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOV'T AFFAIRS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 6/2/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 6/3/2021 SAN DIEGO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUSTAINABILITY & INDUSTRY COMMITTEE 152.00 6/4/2021 EAST COUNTY ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION MEETING 152.00 6/9/2021 MEETING WITH OWD STAFF 152.00 6/15/2021 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES 152.00 6/16/2021 EAST COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN COUNCIL 152.00 6/17/2021 SANTEE LAKES CELEBRATION 152.00 6/30/2021 ACWA WEBINAR 152.00 Director's Fee Total 16,112.00 Business meetings 9/17/2020 SAN DIEGO EAST COUNTY BUSINESS MEETING 30.00 Business meetings Total 30.00 Mileage - Business 6/30/2021 MEETING - JUNE 4 14.56 Mileage - Business Total 14.56 Grand Total 17,156.56$ Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT I DIRECTOR'S NAME:SMITH, TIM Expense Type Date Descriptions Total $ Director's Fee 7/1/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/9/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/21/2020 CWA MATTERS MEETING 152.00 7/22/2020 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 7/24/2020 DESALINATION COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 8/5/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/12/2020 QUARTERLY GM MEETING 152.00 8/19/2020 EO & WR COMMITTEE BOARD AGENDA REVIEW FOR SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/24/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/25/2020 CWA MATTERS MEETING 152.00 8/26/2020 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 9/2/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 9/21/2020 EO & WR COMMITTEE BOARD AGENDA REVIEW FOR OCTOBER BOARD MEETING 152.00 9/22/2020 CWA MATTERS MEETING 152.00 9/23/2020 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 10/2/2020 SOUTH COUNTY EDC ECONOMIC SUMMIT 152.00 10/7/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 10/16/2020 CWA MATTERS MEETING 152.00 10/19/2020 EO & WR COMMITTEE 152.00 10/21/2020 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 10/22/2020 CWA MATTERS MEETING #2 152.00 11/4/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 11/16/2020 QUARTERLY GM MEETING 152.00 11/17/2020 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES MEETING 152.00 11/18/2020 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 11/30/2020 EO & WR COMMITTEE 152.00 12/4/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 12/17/2020 BOARD AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 1/6/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 1/13/2021 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 1/19/2021 EO&WR COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 1/25/2021 CWA MATTERS MEETING 152.00 1/26/2021 BOARD AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 1/27/2021 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 1/29/2021 PREPARATION MEETING FOR LAFCO AD HOC COMMITTEE RE: FALLBROOK, RAINBOW REORG REQUEST 152.00 2/1/2021 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES 152.00 2/3/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 2/10/2021 QUARTERLY GM MEETING 152.00 2/11/2021 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 2/17/2021 EO&WR COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 2/18/2021 CSDA - QUARTERLY MEETING 152.00 2/23/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 2/24/2021 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 2/25/2021 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 3/3/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 3/9/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER COUNSEL 152.00 3/10/2021 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 3/15/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 3/16/2021 EO&WR COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 3/19/2021 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 3/24/2021 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 4/1/2021 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 4/7/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 4/15/2021 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 4/20/2021 EO&WR COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 4/21/2021 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 4/27/2021 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 4/28/2021 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 5/3/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 5/7/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 5/17/2021 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 5/18/2021 EO&WR COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 5/19/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 5/20/2021 OTAY SALT CREEK GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 5/24/2021 QUARTERLY GM MEETING 152.00 5/25/2021 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 5/26/2021 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 6/2/2021 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 6/9/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 6/10/2021 COMMITTEE AGENDA BRIEFING 152.00 6/15/2021 EO&WR COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 6/16/2021 MEETING WITH OTAY WATER STAFF 152.00 6/23/2021 EAST COUNTY CAUCUS MEETING 152.00 Director's Fee Total 11,096.00 Mileage - Business 7/31/2020 MEETING - JULY 21 14.95 Mileage - Business Total 14.95 Grand Total 11,110.95 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT J DIRECTOR'S NAME:THOMPSON, MITCHELL Expense Type Date Descriptions Total $ Director's Fee 7/1/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/6/2020 LAFCO MEETING - RAINBOW FALLBROOK EXIT REVIEW 152.00 7/7/2020 SCEDC BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/9/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/22/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/23/2020 AGENDA & CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR WATER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY152.00 7/24/2020 DESALINATION COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 7/27/2020 POLICY 8 AD JHOC COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 7/28/2020 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING 152.00 7/29/2020 CV CHAMBER UTILITY SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 8/4/2020 SCEDC BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/5/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/12/2020 QUARTERLY GM MEETING 152.00 8/14/2020 SCEDC BINATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 8/18/2020 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 8/21/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/24/2020 OWD SPECIAL BOARD MEETING 152.00 8/28/2020 CHULA VISTA CHAMBER PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 8/31/2020 OTAY POLICY 8 AD-HOC COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 9/1/2020 SCEDC BOARD MEETING 152.00 9/2/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 9/8/2020 OWD ENGINEERING GROUP MEETING RE: CAPACITY FEES 152.00 9/22/2020 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 9/28/2020 OWD ENGINEERING GROUP MEETING RE: CAPACITY FEES 152.00 10/6/2020 SCEDC BOARD MEETING 152.00 10/7/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 10/18/2020 SCEDC TRANS & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 152.00 10/19/2020 FA&C COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 10/21/2020 AD HOC POLICY 8 COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 10/22/2020 OTAY MESA CHAMBER ANNUAL AWARDS EVENT 152.00 10/27/2020 WATER CONSERVATION JPA BOARD MEETING 152.00 10/28/2020 CV CHAMBER UTILITY & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 11/3/2020 SCEDC BOARD MEETING 152.00 11/4/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 11/9/2020 QUARTERLY GM MEETING 152.00 11/17/2020 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES MEETING 152.00 11/19/2020 OTAY MESA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING 152.00 11/30/2020 ACWA JPIA BOARD MEETING 152.00 12/1/2020 F&A COMMITTEE MEETING 152.00 12/2/2020 OWD MONTHLY BOARD MEETING 152.00 Director's Fee Total 6,080.00 Business meetings 6/30/2021 COUNCIL OF WATER AUTHORITIES*40.00 Business meetings Total 40.00 Grand Total 6,120.00 *For attendance at the January 21, 2020 Council of Water Utilities Meeting. Page 1 of 1 1 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: October 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Tenille M. Otero PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: 2021 Legislative Session Update GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: See Attachment A. PURPOSE: To present the Board of Directors with an update on the end of the 2021 legislative session including legislative initiatives on important issues that could impact the District and/or other local water agencies. ANALYSIS: The Otay Water District maintains a set of legislative policy guidelines annually and/or as needed to direct staff and its legislative advocates on issues important to the District. In April 2021, the Board adopted the 2021 Legislative Program Policy Guidelines and 2021 Top 10 Legislative Priorities. In general, the guidelines are established 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 due to financial hardships related to COVID-19, water-use efficiency, recycled water, seawater desalination, capital improvement project development, organization-wide safety and security, binational cooperation, climate change, workforce development, and funding, including the equitable distribution of water bond proceeds. These guidelines also demonstrate the District’s AGENDA ITEM 8b 2 strong and collaborative support and efforts to advocate against a “one-size-fits-all” approach and any unfunded mandates by legislation or regulation. During the 2021 legislative session the California Legislature introduced 2,776 bills, resolutions, and constitutional amendments. While many bills failed to make it out of their house of origin, many others go on to be signed by the governor and become law. 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. Approximately 900 passed and just under 700 are currently on the Governor’s desk. More than 1,100 have been placed as two-year and inactive files bills. The legislature had until September 10, 2021 to pass any bills for the 2021 legislative session, and the Governor has until October 10, 2021 to sign or veto legislation sent to him during the final weeks of the session. There have been 410 bills and resolutions signed/adopted thus far and zero vetoes. Throughout the 2021 legislative session, the California legislature has worked to prioritize economic recovery to protect Californians and spur job creation during and even after the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are still many unknowns regarding the state budget, funding sources, and the duration of executive orders, including Governor Gavin Newsom’s water shutoff restriction order. It could expire on September 30, 2021, but that could be extended depending on the state of COVID-19 Delta variant cases and financial issues affecting customers’ water and wastewater arrearages, as well as pending action on SB 155 which would extend the moratorium through December 31, 2021. COVID-19 financial relief for the District and its customers has carried prominence throughout the year. The state budget includes $1 billion for water and wastewater bill debt relief. There are also additional funding sources from federal entities, which the District continues to research and assess. District staff resumes its efforts to work with its legislative consultant, the San Diego County Water Authority, and other water-industry coalitions and associations to shape proposed mechanisms for allocation of financial relief to local water suppliers. As part of the reporting process to update the Board, the District’s legislative consultant, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (BHFS), will provide an end of year update to the Board regarding the status of the 2021 legislative session. Because the session is not yet completed until Oct. 10, BHFS will provide the Board with an update as of Sept. 20, 2021. Some of the key bills that BHFS will provide updates on include the following: 3 •Assembly Bill 1434 (Freidman) – Would have established,beginning January 1, 2023 until January 1, 2025, a standard for indoor residential water use GPCD goal of 48; beginning January1, 2025, a standard of 44 GPCD; and, beginning January 1, 2030,a GPCD of 40. The bill failed to meet its deadline, so it may be acted upon in January 2022. •Senate Bill 222(Dodd) – Water Rate Assistance Program, whichwould establish the Water Rate Assistance Fund in the StateTreasury to help provide water affordability assistance, forboth drinking water and wastewater services, to low-income ratepayers and ratepayers experiencing economic hardship inCalifornia. The bill would require the Department of CommunityServices and Development to develop and administer the WaterRate Assistance Program established by the bill. This bill wasplaced on the inactive file and may be acted upon in 2022. •Senate Bill 223 (Dodd) – Current law requires an urban andcommunity water system to have a written policy ondiscontinuation of residential service for nonpayment, including, among other things, specified options for addressingthe nonpayment. Current law requires an urban and community water system to provide notice of that policy to customers, asprovided. This bill would apply those provisions, on and afterJuly 1, 2022, to a very small community water system, defined asa public water system that supplies water to 200 or fewerservice connections used by yearlong residents. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee on the Suspense Fileand is a 2-year bill, meaning it may be acted upon in January2022. •Senate Bill 323 (Caballero) – Would provide public agency waterand sewer rates the same protections already afforded to fees and charges that fund other essential government services. Thisbill would authorize a local agency or interested person tobring a validation action in a superior court to determine thevalidity of a fee or charge for water and sewer service. Itwould also require an interested party bring a validation action within 120 days after the fee or charge becomes effective. Italso would provide that this bill shall only apply to a fee orcharge for water or sewer service that has been adopted,modified, or amended after January 1, 2022. The bill iscurrently on the Governor’s desk awaiting action. •Senate Bill 155 – A trailer bill that would expand theprohibition of discontinuing water service due to nonpayment toall community water systems regardless of the funding source a community water system receives, for example funding through theCalifornia Water and Wastewater Arrearage Program or other sources, and would also extend the prohibition of discontinuing 4 water service due to nonpayment to December 31, 2021. The bill is currently on the Governor’s desk awaiting action. •Senate Bill 170 - The Budget Act of 2021 made appropriations forthe support of state government for the 2021-22 fiscal year.This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2021 by amending, adding, and repealing items of appropriation and making otherchanges. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill. Of particular interest, thisbudget bill contains additional water resilience, climate, andwildfire funding. The bill is currently on the Governor’s desk awaiting action. Attached is a list of bills that BHFS has been monitoring and tracking (Attachment B). 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. 5 Attachments: A) Committee ActionB) Otay Water District Bill Tracking List (As of Sept. 10, 2021)C) Presentation: End of Legislative Session Update 6 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: 2021 Legislative Session Update COMMITTEE ACTION: The Conservation, Public Relations, Legal and Legislative Committee reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 21, 2021 and the following comments were made: •As indicated in the staff report, in April 2021, the Boardadopted the 2021 Legislative Program Policy Guidelines and 2021 Top 10 Legislative Priorities. Staff stated that aspart of the reporting process to update the Board, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP (BHFS) will provide anend of year update regarding the status of the 2021legislative session. It was noted that because the sessionis not yet completed until October 10, 2021, BHFS willprovide an update as of September 20, 2021. A complete report will be provided to staff after October 10. •BHFS provided a PowerPoint presentation – End of Session Update 2021. See attachment C of the staff report fordetails of BHFS’s presentation. Included in the presentation were: 2021 Recap – District Priority Issues,2021 Recap – Top 10 Issues Revisited, and Next Steps. •BHFS indicated that 457 bills and resolutions have beensigned and/or adopted thus far, with zero vetoes. In addition, a brief summary of AB361 – Brown Act: RemoteMeetings During a State of Emergency was provided. AB361allows agencies to continue teleconference meetings while waiving several Brown Act requirements. •BHFS indicated that their current 3-year contract endsDecember 31, 2021. •BHFS stated that the legislative analysts’ office reportedthat the budget surplus for fiscal year 2022 may be as high 7 as $15 billion. BHFS recommended that the District start looking at budget priorities such as water bill arrearages, support for transitioning fleet vehicles to zero emission vehicles, and other matters that the District will financially need help with. •In response to a question from the committee, BHFS statedthat due to the pandemic both houses of the legislature hadto follow a 12-bill requirement and the legislature is given the ability to introduce 50 bills over a two-yearlegislation. Following the discussion, the committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board as an informational item. 1 Otay Water District Bill Tracking List as of Friday, September 10, 2021 AB 9 (Wood D) Fire safety and prevention: wildfires: fire adapted communities: Office of the State Fire Marshal: community wildfire preparedness and mitigation. Status: 9/9/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: Would establish in the Department of Conservation the Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program to support regional leadership to build local and regional capacity and develop, prioritize, and implement strategies and projects that create fire adapted communities and landscapes by improving ecosystem health, community wildfire preparedness, and fire resilience. The bill would require, among other things, the department to, upon an appropriation by the Legislature, provide block grants to regional entities, as defined, to develop regional strategies that develop governance structures, identify wildfire risks, foster collaboration, and prioritize and implement projects within the region to achieve the goals of the program. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Favor California Special Districts Association - Support AB 11 (Ward D) Climate change: regional climate change authorities. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require the Strategic Growth Council, by January 1, 2023, to establish up to 12 regional climate change authorities to coordinate climate adaptation and mitigation activities in their regions, and coordinate with other regional climate adaptation authorities, state agencies, and other relevant stakeholders. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 50 (Boerner Horvath D) Climate change: Climate Adaptation Center and Regional Support Network: sea level rise. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires the Natural Resources Agency, in collaboration with the Ocean Protection Council, to create, and update biannually, a Planning for Sea Level Rise Database describing steps being taken throughout the state to prepare for, and adapt to, sea level rise. This bill would establish the Climate Adaptation Center and Regional Support Network in the Ocean Protection Council to provide local governments facing sea level rise challenges with information and scientific expertise necessary to proceed with sea level rise mitigation. Position AB 51 (Quirk D) Climate change: adaptation: regional climate adaptation planning groups: regional climate adaptation plans. Attachment B 2 Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require the Strategic Growth Council, by July 1, 2022, to establish guidelines for the formation of regional climate adaptation planning groups. The bill would require the council, by July 1, 2023, and in consultation with certain state entities, to develop criteria for the development of regional climate adaptation plans. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 59 (Gabriel D) Mitigation Fee Act: fees: notice and timelines. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law authorizes any party to protest the imposition of a fee, dedication, reservation, or other exactions imposed on a development project within 90 or 120 days of the imposition of the fee, as applicable, and specifies procedures for those protests and actions. The Mitigation Fee Act imposes the same requirements on a local agency for a new or increased fee for public facilities. Current law, for specified fees, requires any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting a new fee or service charge or modifying an existing fee or service charge to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance, resolution, or motion. Current law also provides that, if an ordinance, resolution, or motion provides for an automatic adjustment in a fee or service charge and the adjustment results in an increase in the fee or service charge, that any action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the increase to be commenced within 120 days of the increase. This bill would increase, for fees and service charges and for fees for specified public facilities, the time for mailing the notice of the time and place of the meeting to at least 45 days before the meeting. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 64 (Quirk D) Electricity: long-term backup electricity supply strategy. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require the PUC, Energy Commission, and State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, in consultation with all balancing authorities, to additionally develop a strategy, by January 1, 2024, that achieves (1) a target of 5 gigawatthours of operational long-term backup electricity, as specified, by December 31, 2030, and (2) a target of at least an additional 5 gigawatthours of operational long-term backup electricity in each subsequent year through 2045. The bill would require the commission, by January 1, 2024, to submit the strategy developed in a report to the Legislature, and by January 1 of each 4th year thereafter, through January 1, 2044, would require the commission to submit a report to the Legislature detailing the progress made toward achieving the targets of the long-term backup electricity supply strategy. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Favor AB 100 (Holden D) Drinking water: endpoint devices: lead content. Status: 9/7/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: The California Safe Drinking Water Act requires the State Water Resources Control Board to administer provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to protect public health. Current law prohibits, with certain exceptions, the use of any pipe, pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, solder, or flux that is not lead free in the installation or repair of any public water system or 3 any plumbing in a facility providing water for human consumption. Current law defines “lead free” for purposes of conveying or dispensing water for human consumption to mean not more than 0.2% lead when used with respect to solder and flux and not more than a weighted average of 0.25% lead when used with respect to the wetted surfaces of pipes and pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2023, prohibit a person from manufacturing, and offering for sale in the state, an endpoint device, as defined, that does not meet a certain lead leaching standard. The bill would, commencing July 1, 2023, prohibit a person from introducing into commerce or offering for sale in the state an endpoint device that does not meet that lead leaching standard. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 107 (Salas D) Licensure: veterans and military spouses. Status: 9/8/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: Current law requires a board within the Department of Consumer Affairs to issue, after appropriate investigation, certain types of temporary licenses to an applicant if the applicant meets specified requirements, including that the applicant supplies evidence satisfactory to the board that the applicant is married to, or in a domestic partnership or other legal union with, an active duty member of the Armed Forces of the United States who is assigned to a duty station in this state under official active duty military orders and the applicant submits an application to the board that includes a signed affidavit attesting to the fact that the applicant meets all of the requirements for a temporary license and that the information submitted in the application is accurate, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge. This bill, on and after January 1, 2023, would expand the requirement to issue temporary licenses to practice a profession or vocation to include licenses issued by any board within the department, except as provided. The bill would require an applicant for a temporary license to provide to the board documentation that the applicant has passed a California law and ethics examination if otherwise required by the board for the profession or vocation for which the applicant seeks licensure. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 119 (Salas D) County auditor: direct levies. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires each county to have certain offices, including the office of auditor who is designated to perform certain duties, including apportioning property tax revenue to each jurisdiction according to tax rate area. Current law defines tax rate areas for the purpose of property tax allocation. This bill would require the county auditor, or other county officer designated by the county, to make publicly available on their internet website information about direct levies, as defined, including the range of combined direct levies assessed on real property. The bill would require a website posting that identifies contact information for each direct levy assessed within their jurisdiction, to also include the range of fees assessed on individual parcels of real property subject to the special district’s assessment. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 125 (Rivas, Robert D) Equitable Economic Recovery, Healthy Food Access, Climate Resilient Farms, and Worker Protection Bond Act of 2022. Status: 4/15/2021-A. NAT. RES. 4 Summary: Would enact the Equitable Economic Recovery, Healthy Food Access, Climate Resilient Farms, and Worker Protection Bond Act of 2022, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $3,302,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, to finance programs related to, among other things, agricultural lands, food and fiber infrastructure, climate resilience, agricultural professionals, including farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers, workforce development and training, air quality, tribes, disadvantaged communities, nutrition, food aid, meat processing facilities, fishing facilities, and fairgrounds. Position AB 148 (Committee on Budget) Public resources. Location: 7/22/2021-A. CHAPTERED Status: Current law, including the General Corporation Law and the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, specifies the formal requirements for filing corporate names and articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State. Current law authorizes the Governor, or the Governor’s designee, to incorporate Golden State Energy as a nonprofit public benefit corporation for the purpose of owning, controlling, operating, or managing electrical and gas services for its ratepayers and for the benefit of all Californians. This bill would prohibit the Secretary of State from reserving a corporate name or filing articles of incorporation using the name Golden State Energy unless those articles are for Golden State Energy, incorporated and operating as specified. Position Watch AB 155 (Committee on Budget) Public resources trailer bill. Status: 9/9/2021-S. INACTIVE FILE Summary: Current law creates the Healthy Stores Refrigeration Grant Program in the Department of Food and Agriculture upon the appropriation of funds. Current law requires the department to administer the program and to award grants to qualified entities, which is defined to include a small business or corner store, a city or county with representative low-income areas that contain small businesses or corner stores, and certain nonprofit entities that meet specified requirements. This bill would change the name of the program to the Healthy Refrigeration Grant Program. The bill would expand the definition of “qualified entity” to include a tribal government or tribal organization under certain circumstances and would revise the criteria required for a city, county, tribal government, tribal organization, or nonprofit entity to qualify to apply for a grant. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 170 (Ting D) Budget Act of 2021. Status: 9/9/2021-S. INACTIVE FILE Summary: The Budget Act of 2021 made appropriations for the support of state government for the 2021–22 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2021 by amending, adding, and repealing items of appropriation and making other changes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 225 (Gray D) Department of Consumer Affairs: boards: veterans: military spouses: licenses. Status: 7/14/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires specified boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs to issue, after appropriate investigation, certain types of temporary licenses to an applicant if the applicant meets specified requirements, including that the applicant supplies evidence satisfactory to the board that the applicant is married to, or in a domestic partnership or other legal union with, an active duty member of the Armed Forces of the United States who is assigned to a duty station 5 in this state under official active duty military orders and the applicant holds a current, active, and unrestricted license that confers upon the applicant the authority to practice, in another state, district, or territory of the United States, the profession or vocation for which the applicant seeks a temporary license from the board. This bill would expand the eligibility for a temporary license to an applicant who meets the specified criteria and who supplies evidence satisfactory to the board that the applicant is a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States within 60 months of separation from active duty under other than dishonorable conditions, a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States within 120 months of separation from active duty under other than dishonorable conditions and a resident of California prior to entering into military service, or an active duty member of the Armed Forces of the United States with official orders for separation within 90 days under other than dishonorable conditions. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 237 (Gray D) Public employment: unfair practices: health protection. Status: 9/7/2021-A. ENROLLED Summary: Under current law, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has the power and duty to investigate an unfair practice charge and to determine whether the charge is justified and the appropriate remedy for the unfair practice. This bill, the Public Employee Health Protection Act, would make it an unfair practice for a covered employer, as defined, to fail or refuse to maintain or pay for continued health care or other medical coverage for an enrolled employee or their enrolled dependents, for the duration of the enrolled employee’s participation in the authorized strike, at the level and under the conditions that coverage would have been provided if the employee had continued to work in their position for the duration of the strike. Position AB 267 (Valladares R) California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: prescribed fire, thinning, and fuel reduction projects. Status: 7/14/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law, until January 1, 2023, exempts from the requirements of CEQA prescribed fire, thinning, or fuel reduction projects undertaken on federal lands to reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire that have been reviewed under the federal National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as provided. Current law requires the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, beginning December 31, 2019, and annually thereafter until January 1, 2023, to report to the relevant policy committees of the Legislature the number of times the exemption was used. This bill would extend the exemption from CEQA and the requirement on the department to report to the relevant policy committees of the Legislature to January 1, 2026. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Favor AB 280 (Rivas, Robert D) Electrical corporations: wildfire mitigation plans. Status: 5/7/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Under current law, the Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over electrical corporations. Current law requires each electrical corporation to annually prepare and submit a wildfire mitigation plan to the Wildfire Safety Division of the commission for review and approval. This bill would require each electrical corporation to also submit its wildfire mitigation plan to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature. Position Watch 6 Association Positions None AB 284 (Rivas, Robert D) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: climate goal: natural and working lands. Status: 9/2/2021-S. INACTIVE FILE Summary: Would require the State Air Resources Board, as part of the next scoping plan update, in collaboration with the Natural Resources Agency and other relevant state agencies and departments and no later than January 1, 2023, to identify a 2045 climate goal, with interim milestones, for the state’s natural and working lands, as defined, and to integrate into the scoping plan update recommendations developed by the Natural Resources Agency and the Department of Food and Agriculture regarding practices, policy and financial incentives, market needs, and potential reductions in barriers that would help achieve the 2045 climate goal, among other recommendations. The bill would require the state board, in collaboration with the Natural Resources Agency and other relevant state agencies and departments, to include this information in each subsequent update to the scoping plan and update that information, as appropriate. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 297 (Gallagher R) Fire prevention. Status: 2/12/2021-A. NAT. RES. Summary: Would continuously appropriate $480,000,000 and $20,000,000 to the Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention and the California Conservation Corps, respectively, for fire prevention activities, as provided. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 339 (Lee D) Local government: open and public meetings. Status: 9/9/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: The Ralph M. Brown Act requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, as those terms are defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. Under existing law, a member of the legislative body who attends a meeting where action is taken in violation of this provision, with the intent to deprive the public of information that the member knows the public is entitled to, is guilty of a crime. This bill would require local agencies to conduct meetings subject to the act consistent with applicable state and federal civil rights laws, as specified. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Watch AB 361 (Rivas, Robert D) Open meetings: state and local agencies: teleconferences. Status: 9/9/2021-S. SECOND READING Summary: Would, until January 1, 2024, authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the 7 health or safety of attendees, and during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, as provided. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Favor California Special Districts Association - Support California Municipal Utilities Association - Support AB 377 (Rivas, Robert D) Water quality: impaired waters. Status: 5/25/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require, by January 1, 2023, the State Water Resources Control Board and regional boards to prioritize enforcement of all water quality standard violations that are causing or contributing to an exceedance of a water quality standard in a surface water of the state. The bill would require the state board and regional boards, by January 1, 2025, to evaluate impaired state surface waters and report to the Legislature a plan to bring all water segments into attainment by January 1, 2050. The bill would require the state board and regional boards to update the report with a progress summary to the Legislature every 5 years. The bill would create the Waterway Recovery Account in the Waste Discharge Permit Fund and would make moneys in the Waterway Recovery Account available for the state board to expend, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to bring impaired water segments into attainment in accordance with the plan. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Oppose AB 385 (Flora R) Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004: Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would prohibit an aggrieved employee from maintaining an action on behalf of themselves or any other aggrieved employee under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 if certain conditions apply, including if the aggrieved employee has brought an action under the act in conjunction with, or in addition to, claims for monetary damages or penalties for violations of the Labor Code arising out of the same period of employment that occurred between March 4, 2020, and the state of emergency termination date, as defined. Position AB 386 (Cooper D) Public Employees’ Retirement Fund: investments: confidentiality. Status: 7/14/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Current law excludes from the disclosure requirement certain records regarding alternative investments in which public investment funds invest. This bill would exempt from disclosure under the act specified records regarding an internally managed private loan made directly by the Public 8 Employees’ Retirement Fund. Under the bill, these records would include quarterly and annual financial statements of the borrower or its constituent owners, unless the information has already been publicly released by the keeper of the information. The bill would prescribe specified exceptions to this exemption from disclosure. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 418 (Valladares R) Emergency services: grant program. Status: 9/3/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: Would establish the Community Power Resiliency Program (program), to be administered by the Office of Emergency Services, to support local governments’ efforts to improve resiliency in response to power outage events, as provided. The bill would require the office to allocate funds, pursuant to an appropriation by the Legislature, to local governments, special districts, and tribes for various purposes relating to power resiliency, and would require certain entities, in order to be eligible for funding, to either describe the portion of their emergency plan that includes power outages or confirm that power outages will be included when the entity revises any portion of their emergency plan. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Favor California Special Districts Association - Support AB 442 (Mayes I) Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975: exemption: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California: master reclamation plan. Status: 9/2/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 prohibits a person, with exceptions, from conducting surface mining operations unless, among other things, a permit is obtained from, a specified reclamation plan is submitted to and approved by, and financial assurances for reclamation have been approved by the lead agency for the operation of the surface mining operation. The act exempts certain activities from the provisions of the act, including, among others, emergency excavations or grading conducted by the Department of Water Resources or the Central Valley Flood Protection Board for the specified purposes; surface mining operations conducted on lands owned or leased, or upon which easements or rights-of-way have been obtained, by the Department of Water Resources for the purpose of the State Water Resources Development System or flood control; and surface mining operations on lands owned or leased, or upon which easements or rights-of-way have been obtained, by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board for the purpose of flood control. This bill would additionally exempt from the provisions of the act emergency excavations or grading conducted by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) for its own operations and infrastructure for specified purposes. Position AB 460 (Mayes I) Fire protection: residential fire sprinklers: fees. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law authorizes any public agency providing water for fire protection purposes to, by ordinance or resolution, fix and collect a charge to pay the costs of operation, installation, capital, maintenance, repair, alteration, or replacement of facilities and equipment related to supplying water for fire protection purposes. Current law authorizes specified local jurisdictions and fire protection districts to make changes or modifications that are more stringent than specified 9 state standards, as provided. Current law neither authorizes nor prohibits a local jurisdiction or a fire protection district from mandating the installation of residential fire sprinkler systems within newly constructed or existing dwelling units. This bill, among other things, would, as provided, prohibit water-related fees imposed on the owner of residential property from being affected by the installation of a residential fire sprinkler system on that residential property, including those residential fire sprinkler systems mandated by a local jurisdiction or a fire protection district. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 464 (Mullin D) Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts: allowable facilities and projects. Status: 6/28/2021-A. CHAPTERED Summary: Current law authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to establish an enhanced infrastructure financing district to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance that provide significant benefits to the district or the surrounding community, including, but not limited to, the acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial structures for private use. This bill would include, in the list of facilities and projects the district may fund, the acquisition, construction, or repair of commercial structures by the small business, as defined, occupant of such structures, if certain conditions are met, and facilities in which nonprofit community organizations provide health, youth, homeless, and social services. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 522 (Fong R) Forestry: Forest Fire Prevention Exemption. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: The Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 prohibits a person from conducting timber operations, as defined, unless a timber harvesting plan prepared by a registered professional forester has been submitted to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The act authorizes the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to exempt from some or all of those provisions of the act a person engaging in specified forest management activities, as prescribed, including the harvesting of trees for the purpose of reducing the rate of fire spread, duration and intensity, fuel ignitability, or ignition of tree crowns, as provided, known as the Forest Fire Prevention Exemption. This bill would extend the operation of the Forest Fire Prevention Exemption indefinitely. The bill would delete the requirement that the tree harvesting area not exceed 300 acres and the requirement that temporary road construction or reconstruction be limited to no more than 2 miles of road per ownership in a planning watershed per any 5-year period. Position AB 564 (Gonzalez, Lorena D) Biodiversity Protection and Restoration Act. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would establish the Biodiversity Protection and Restoration Act and would provide that it is the policy of the state that all state agencies, boards, and commissions shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the biodiversity conservation purposes and goals of certain executive orders. The bill would require all state agencies, boards, and commissions to consider and prioritize the protection of biodiversity in carrying out their statutory mandates. The bill would require strategies related to the goal of the state to conserve at least 30% of California’s land and coastal waters by 2030 to be made available to the public and provided to certain legislative committees by no later than June 30, 2022. Position AB 585 (Rivas, Luz D) Climate change: Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program. Status: 8/27/2021-S. 2 YEAR 10 Summary: Would establish the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program for the purpose of coordinating state efforts and supporting local and regional efforts to mitigate the impacts of, and reduce the public health risks of, extreme heat and the urban heat island effect, and would require the Office of Planning and Research to administer the program through the Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program. Position AB 588 (Garcia, Eduardo D) California Safe Drinking Water Act: compliance. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: The California Safe Drinking Water Act requires the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt primary drinking water standards for contaminants in drinking water. Current law requires the state board to consider specified criteria when it adopts a primary drinking water standard, including the technological and economic feasibility of compliance. This bill would require the state board to identify actions necessary to assist specified water systems to achieve compliance within any compliance period established. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies -Support/Sponsor AB 602 (Grayson D) Development fees: impact fee nexus study. Status: 9/8/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: Current law requires a city, county, or special district that has an internet website to make available on its internet website certain information, as applicable, including its current schedule of fees and exactions. This bill, among other things, would require, on and after January 1, 2022, a local agency that conducts an impact fee nexus study to follow specific standards and practices, including, but not limited to, (1) that prior to the adoption of an associated development fee, an impact fee nexus study be adopted, (2) that the study identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is necessary, and (3) if the study is adopted after July 1, 2022, either calculate a fee levied or imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units, or make specified findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate the fees. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Watch California Special Districts Association - Oppose AB 622 (Friedman D) Washing machines: microfiber filtration. Status: 5/7/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law, to protect public health and water quality, regulates a broad range of consumer products and processes, including water softeners, water treatment devices, and backflow prevention devices, among others. This bill would require, on or before January 1, 2024, that all washing machines sold as new in California contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of 100 microns or smaller. Position 11 AB 678 (Grayson D) Housing development projects: fees and exactions cap. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would prohibit a city or county from imposing a specified fee or exaction if the total dollar amount of the fees and exactions that a city or county would impose on a proposed housing development is greater than 12% of the city’s or county’s median home price unless approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development. The bill would authorize a city or county to seek approval from the department to impose a fee or an exaction that would result in the total dollar amount of fees and exactions exceeding that limitation by making a specified finding and submitting a completed application for a waiver. The bill would require the department to develop a standard form application for a waiver in conjunction with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Position AB 697 (Chau D) Forest resources: national forest lands: Good Neighbor Authority Fund: ecological restoration and fire resiliency projects. Status: 9/2/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: Would reorganize the law relating to the State Treasury the Good Neighbor Authority Fund. The bill would require the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, under an agreement between the state and the federal government, to establish a program for purposes of conducting ecological restoration and fire resiliency projects on national forest lands, with priority given to forest restoration and fuels reduction projects that are landscape scale and are focused on ecological restoration and to community fire protection and protection of water infrastructure and other infrastructure. The bill would require projects to be based on the best available science and emphasize the use of prescribed fire where appropriate. Position AB 703 (Rubio, Blanca D) Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences. Status: 5/7/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law, by Executive Order N-29-20, suspends the Ralph M. Brown Act’s requirements for teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic, provided that notice requirements are met, the ability of the public to observe and comment is preserved, as specified, and that a local agency permitting teleconferencing have a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, as specified. This bill would remove the notice requirements particular to teleconferencing and would revise the requirements of the act to allow for teleconferencing subject to existing provisions regarding the posting of notice of an agenda, provided that the public is allowed to observe the meeting and address the legislative body directly both in person and remotely via a call-in option or internet-based service option, and that a quorum of members participate in person from a singular physical location clearly identified on the agenda that is open to the public and situated within the jurisdiction. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Support AB 736 (Mathis R) Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: internet website information: updates. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: The Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Law of 1997, administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, establishes the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to provide grants or revolving fund loans for the design and construction of projects for public water systems that will enable those systems to meet safe drinking water standards. The law requires the board, at least once every 2 years, to post information on its internet website and send a link of the internet website to the Legislature regarding implementation of the law and expenditures from 12 the fund, as specified. This bill would require the board to post that information and send that link at least annually instead of at least once every 2 years. Position AB 802 (Bloom D) Microfiber pollution. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require the Water Resources Control Board to identify the best available control technology for filtering microfibers from an industrial, institutional, or commercial laundry facility on or before an unspecified date, and would require the state board to consult with owners and operators of laundry facilities on the types of filtration systems currently in use and with universities, scientific organizations, and experts on plastic pollution in identifying the best available control technology. The bill would also require, on or before an unspecified date, any entity that operates an industrial, institutional, or commercial laundry facility to adopt the use of the best available control technology to capture microfibers that are shed during washing. Position AB 818 (Bloom D) Solid waste: premoistened nonwoven disposable wipes. Status: 9/8/2021-A. ENROLLED Summary: Would require, except as provided, certain premoistened nonwoven disposable wipes manufactured on or after July 1, 2022, to be labeled clearly and conspicuously with the phrase “Do Not Flush” and a related symbol, as specified. The bill would prohibit a covered entity, as defined, from making a representation about the flushable attributes, benefits, performance, or efficacy of those premoistened nonwoven disposable wipes, as provided. The bill would establish enforcement provisions, including authorizing a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 per day, up to a maximum of $100,000 per violation, to be imposed on a covered entity who violates those provisions. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Support AB 819 (Levine D) California Environmental Quality Act: notices and documents: electronic filing and posting. Status: 7/16/2021-A. CHAPTERED Summary: CEQA requires, if an environmental impact report is required, the lead agency to mail a notice of determination to each responsible agency, the Office of Planning and Research, and public agencies with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project. CEQA requires the lead agency to provide notice to the public and to organizations and individuals who have requested notices that the lead agency is preparing an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or specified determination. CEQA requires notices for an environmental impact report to be posted in the office of the county clerk of each county in which the project is located. This bill would instead require the lead agency to mail or email those notices, and to post them on the lead agency’s internet website. The bill would also require notices of an environmental impact report to be posted on the internet website of the county clerk of each county in which the project is located. Position AB 836 (Gabriel D) California Building Standards Commission: recycled water: nonpotable water systems. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require, on or before January 1, 2023, the California Building Standards Commission to adopt mandatory building standards requiring that a newly constructed nonresidential building be constructed with dual plumbing to allow the use of recycled water for all applicable nonpotable water demands, as defined, if that building is located within an existing or planned recycled water service area, as specified. This bill would require, on or before January 1, 2023, the commission to adopt mandatory building standards requiring that a newly constructed 13 nonresidential building with a total gross floor area of 100,000 square feet or more be constructed with dual plumbing to allow the use of nonpotable water sources for all applicable nonpotable water demands and provide for the collection, onsite treatment, and reuse of available onsite rainwater, graywater, and foundation drainage. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Not Favor AB 885 (Quirk D) Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act: teleconferencing. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require a state body that elects to conduct a meeting or proceeding by teleconference to make the portion that is required to be open to the public both audibly and visually observable. The bill would require a state body that elects to conduct a meeting or proceeding by teleconference to post an agenda at the designated primary physical meeting location in the notice of the meeting where members of the public may physically attend the meeting and participate. The bill would extend the above requirements of meetings of multimember advisory bodies that are held by teleconference to meetings of all multimember state bodies. The bill would require a multimember state body to provide a means by which the public may both audibly and visually remotely observe a meeting if a member of that body participates remotely. Position AB 897 (Mullin D) Office of Planning and Research: regional climate networks: regional climate adaptation and resilience action plans. Status: 8/27/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires, by July 1, 2017, and every 3 years thereafter, the Natural Resources Agency to update, as prescribed, the state’s climate adaptation strategy, known as the Safeguarding California Plan. Current law establishes the Office of Planning and Research in state government in the Governor’s office. Current law establishes the Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program to be administered by the office to coordinate regional and local efforts with state climate adaptation strategies to adapt to the impacts of climate change, as prescribed. This bill would authorize eligible entities, as defined, to establish and participate in a regional climate network, as defined. The bill would require the office, through the program, to encourage the inclusion of eligible entities with land use planning and hazard mitigation planning authority into regional climate networks. The bill would authorize a regional climate network to engage in activities to address climate change, as specified. Position AB 908 (Frazier D) Natural Resources Agency: statewide natural resources inventory. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require the Natural Resources Agency, to the extent a specified appropriation is made, to prepare a comprehensive, statewide inventory of the natural resources of the state and establish treatment measures necessary to protect those resources, and to post its initial inventory on its internet website on or before January 1, 2023, with annual updates on or before January 1 of each year thereafter. Position AB 927 (Medina D) Public postsecondary education: community colleges: statewide baccalaureate degree program. Status: 9/9/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: Would extend the operation of the statewide baccalaureate degree pilot program indefinitely. The bill would remove the requirements that the program consist of a maximum of 15 community college district programs and for a student to commence a program by the end of the 14 2022–23 academic year. The bill would require a community college district seeking approval to offer a baccalaureate degree program to provide evidence of unmet workforce needs to the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, as provided. Position Support Association Positions None AB 979 (Frazier D) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: projects: sea level rise analysis report. Status: 5/25/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, provides that it is the policy of the state to, among other things, reduce reliance on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in meeting California’s future water supply needs through a statewide strategy of investing in improved regional supplies, conservation, and water use efficiency. Current law establishes the Delta Stewardship Council, which is required to develop, adopt, and commence implementation of a comprehensive management plan, known as the Delta Plan, for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This bill would require any individual or entity that undertakes a project, as defined, within the Delta to complete a report analyzing the impact of sea level rise on the project. Position AB 1021 (Mayes I) Imperial Irrigation District. Status: 9/2/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: Would require the local agency formation commissions for the County of Imperial and the County of Riverside to conduct and publish on their internet websites a joint study of options for providing continued publicly owned and managed electrical service in perpetuity to the Imperial Irrigation District’s electrical service area, as defined, customers and options for alternative governance structures that would extend voting rights to registered voters who reside within the Imperial Irrigation District electrical service area to provide for proportional representation on a governing board that will have primary jurisdiction on all electrical service matters, as specified. The bill would require the study to be published no later than July 1, 2022. By imposing new duties on the specified local agency formation commissions, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Position AB 1058 (Garcia, Cristina D) Large water corporations: bill payment options. Status: 9/8/2021-A. ENROLLED Summary: Current law, until January 1, 2022, authorizes a water corporation with more than 10,000 service connections to seek commission approval, through its general rate case application, to operate a pilot program designed to evaluate customer interest in, and utilization of, bill payment options, including, but not limited to, credit card, debit card, and prepaid card bill payment options, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of, and customer interests served by, customer access to those bill payment options. Current law limits the duration of a pilot program to the duration of the water corporation’s rate case cycle. Current law requires the commission to allow a water corporation to recover the reasonable expenses incurred by the water corporation in providing its customers with these bill payment options, but allows water corporations to not impose a transaction fee on its customers for using these bill payment options. This bill would delete the time-limited pilot program provisions, require the commission to authorize a water corporation with 10,000 or more service connections, unrelated to its rate case cycle, to recover the reasonable expenses incurred by the water corporation in providing bill payment options to its customers, and not require the water corporation to impose a transaction fee on its customers. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 1061 (Lee D) Mobilehome Residency Law: water utility charges. 15 Status: 8/30/2021-A. ENROLLED Summary: Would, if the management of a mobilehome park elects to separately bill water utility service to homeowners, limit charges and fees on homeowners in connection with those services to specified types of charges and fees. The specified charges and fees would be for (1) the homeowner’s volumetric usage based on the homeowner’s proportion of total usage, or, where the water purveyor uses a tiered rate schedule, based on the homeowner’s proportion of the tier’s usage, or based on a mobilehome space rate; (2) any recurring fixed charge, however that charge is designated, for water service that has been billed to management by the water purveyor, determined on the basis of either the homeowner’s proportional share of volumetric use or the total charge divided by the number of mobilehome spaces; and (3) a billing, administrative, or other fee representing the costs of both management and the billing agent combined, not to exceed $4.75 or 25% of the charge for the homeowner’s volumetric usage, whichever is less. The bill would prohibit volumetric usage charges from including water usage by a park’s common area facilities or by any other person or entity other than the homeowner. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Watch AB 1110 (Rivas, Robert D) Zero-emission vehicles: Clean Vehicles Ombudsperson: Climate Catalyst Revolving Loan Fund Program. Status: 9/9/2021-A. INACTIVE FILE Summary: Would establish the Clean Vehicles Ombudsperson, to be appointed by and report directly to the Director of GO-Biz, and would require the ombudsperson to consult with appropriate entities in identifying available programs and incentives offered by the state that can help to reduce costs and increase participation in a statewide contract or leveraged procurement agreement, as specified. The bill would also require the ombudsperson to convene 2 or more workshops of an advisory committee to aid the ombudsperson in identifying and publishing best practices in adopting zero-emission fleet vehicles for public agencies and identifying appropriate candidate vehicles for bulk purchase, leveraged procurement, or other means of widespread adoption by public entities, as specified. The bill would also require the ombudsperson to develop, and recommend that DGS adopt, criteria for evaluating vehicle purchase options or other means of widespread and streamline adoption options, as provided. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Favor California Municipal Utilities Association - Support AB 1164 (Flora R) Dams and reservoirs: exclusions. Status: 7/14/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires the Department of Water Resources to adopt, by regulation, a schedule of fees to cover the department’s costs in carrying out the supervision of dam safety. Current law excludes certain obstructions from being considered a dam, including a barrier that is not across a stream channel, watercourse, or natural drainage area and that has the principal purpose of impounding water for agricultural use. This bill would specify that the exclusion from being considered a dam for a barrier that is not across a stream channel, watercourse, or natural drainage area and that has the principal purpose of impounding water for agricultural use applies only to a barrier owned or operated by a private entity. The bill would provide that a barrier owned or operated by a public entity that is not across a stream channel, watercourse, or natural drainage 16 area and that has the principal purpose of impounding water for agricultural use shall not be considered a dam only if certain criteria are met, including, among other criteria, that the operator provides to the county office of emergency management a structural failure plan. Position AB 1183 (Ramos D) California Desert Conservation Program. Status: 9/7/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: Would establish the California Desert Conservation Program under the administration of the Conservation Board to: (1) protect, preserve, and restore the natural, cultural, and physical resources of the portions of the Mojave and Colorado Deserts region in California through the acquisition, restoration, and management of lands, (2) promote the protection and restoration of the biological diversity of the region, as specified, (3) provide for resilience in the region to climate change, as provided, (4) protect and improve air quality and water resources within the region, and (5) undertake efforts to enhance public use and enjoyment of lands owned by the public, as provided. Position AB 1195 (Garcia, Cristina D) Drinking water. Status: 7/14/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law establishes the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund in the State Treasury to help water systems provide an adequate and affordable supply of safe drinking water in both the near and long terms. Current law authorizes the state board to provide for the deposit into the fund of certain moneys and continuously appropriates the moneys in the fund to the state board for grants, loans, contracts, or services to assist eligible recipients. This bill would prohibit a public water system from transferring or abandoning a water right held by the public water system except upon approval of the state board, as prescribed. Position AB 1250 (Calderon D) Water and sewer system corporations: consolidation of service. Status: 9/7/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: The California Safe Drinking Water Act provides for the operation of public water systems, which include small community water systems, and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board related regulatory responsibilities and duties. Current law authorizes the state board to order consolidation of public water systems where a public water system or state small water system serving a disadvantaged community consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water, as provided. This bill, the Consolidation for Safe Drinking Water Act of 2021, would authorize a water or sewer system corporation to file an application and obtain approval from the Public Utilities Commission through an order authorizing the water or sewer system corporation to consolidate with a small community water system or state small water identified as failing or at risk of failing by the state board. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Favor AB 1255 (Bloom D) Fire prevention: fire risk reduction guidance: local assistance grants. Status: 6/4/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require the Natural Resources Agency, on or before July 1, 2023, and in collaboration with specified state agencies and in consultation with certain other state agencies, to develop a guidance document that describes goals, approaches, opportunities, and best practices in each region of the state for ecologically appropriate, habitat-specific fire risk reduction. The bill would require the guidance document to be developed through a public process, including region-specific public workshops hosted by the agency, and would require the agency to post the document on its internet website. 17 Position Watch Association Positions None AB 1384 (Gabriel D) Resiliency Through Adaptation, Economic Vitality, and Equity Act of 2022. Status: 8/30/2021-S. THIRD READING Summary: Current law requires the Natural Resources Agency to release a draft of the state’s climate adaptation strategy, known as the Safeguarding California Plan, by January 1, 2017, and every 3 years thereafter, to update the plan by July 1, 2017, and every 3 years thereafter, and to coordinate with other state agencies to identify vulnerabilities to climate change by sectors and priority actions needed to reduce the risks in those sectors. Existing law requires, to address the vulnerabilities identified in the plan, state agencies to maximize specified objectives. This bill would instead require the agency to release the draft plan by January 1, 2024, and every 3 years thereafter, and to update the plan by July 1, 2024, and every 3 years thereafter. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 1403 (Levine D) Emergency services. Status: 9/9/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: The California Emergency Services Act authorizes the Governor to proclaim a state of emergency when specified conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property exist, and authorizes the Governor to exercise certain powers in response to that emergency. Current law defines the term “state of emergency” to mean a duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by, among other things, fire, storm, or riot. This bill would additionally include a “deenergization event,” defined as a planned power outage, as specified, within those conditions constituting a state of emergency. Position AB 1428 (Quirk D) Safe Drinking Water Act: applicability. Status: 7/9/2021-A. CHAPTERED Summary: Under current law, a water district, as defined, in existence prior to May 18, 1994, that provides primarily agricultural services through a piped water system with only incidental residential or similar uses is not considered to be a public water system under specified conditions, including the system certifying that it is providing alternative water for residential or similar uses for drinking water and cooking to achieve the equivalent level of public health protection provided by the applicable primary drinking water regulations. This bill would remove the above provision authorizing those water districts to certify that they are providing alternative water for residential or similar uses to achieve the equivalent level of public health protection provided by the applicable primary drinking water regulations. Position AB 1434 (Friedman D) Urban water use objectives: indoor residential water use. Status: 5/25/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would establish, beginning January 1, 2023, until January 1, 2025, the standard for indoor residential water use as 48 gallons per capita daily. The bill would establish, beginning January 1, 2025, the standard as 44 gallons per capita daily and, beginning January 1, 2030, 40 gallons per capita daily. Position Oppose Association Positions 18 Association of California Water Agencies - Oppose California Special Districts – Oppose California Municipal Utilities Association - Oppose AB 1458 (Frazier D) Fish and wildlife protection and conservation: lake and streambed alteration agreements: exemptions Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law prohibits a person, a state or local governmental agency, or a public utility from substantially diverting or obstructing the natural flow of, or substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or depositing or disposing of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, unless prescribed requirements are met, including written notification to the Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding the activity. Current law requires the department to determine whether the activity may substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource and, if so, to provide a draft lake or streambed alteration agreement to the person, agency, or utility. Current law prescribes various requirements for lake and streambed alteration agreements. Current law also establishes various exemptions from these provisions. This bill would additionally exempt from these provisions vegetation management or fuels treatment projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a state or local governmental agency necessary to prevent or mitigate the threat or intensity of a wildfire. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Favor California Municipal Utilities Association - Support AB 1500 (Garcia, Eduardo D) Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparation, Flood Protection, Extreme Heat Mitigation, and Workforce Development Bond Act of 2022. Status: 5/20/2021-A. RLS. Summary: Would enact the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparation, Flood Protection, Extreme Heat Mitigation, and Workforce Development Bond Act of 2022, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $7,080,000,000 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. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - 19 Support if Amended California Municipal Utilities Association - Support AB 1510 (Garcia, Eduardo D) Unauthorized workers: Essential Worker and Economic Stability Act of 2021. Status: 4/30/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current federal law regulates immigration. Current state law establishes the Employment Development Department (department), which is administered by the Director of Employment Development who is vested with certain duties relating to, among other things, job creation and unemployment compensation. This bill would require the department to determine the extent of labor shortages in the state’s essential critical infrastructure workforce sectors and provide that information to specified federal government entities. The bill would require the department to convene a working group to address the issues relating to a work permit program for unauthorized persons who are essential critical infrastructure workforce employees to work and live in the state, and to serve as liaison to the United States Department of Homeland Security and the United States Department of Justice to ensure that state departments are not taking on responsibilities in matters dealing with immigration policy that are the jurisdiction of the federal government. Position AB 1570 (Committee on Natural Resources) Public resources: omnibus bill. Status: 9/7/2021-A. ENROLLMENT Summary: Would require the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to assist local governments in preventing future high-intensity wildland fires and instituting appropriate fuels management by making its wildland fire prevention and vegetation management expertise available to local governments to the extent possible within the department’s budgetary limitations. The bill would explicitly define, for these purposes, “local governments” to include cities, counties, and special districts. The bill would also make changes to related findings and declarations by the Legislature. Position Watch Association Positions None AB 1581 (Committee on Local Government) Local government: omnibus. Status: 6/28/2021-A. CHAPTERED Summary: The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 provides the authority and procedure for the initiation, conduct, and completion of changes of organization, reorganization, and sphere of influence changes for cities and districts, as specified. Current law requires a local agency formation commission to develop and determine the sphere of influence of each city and each special district within the county and enact policies designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within each sphere. Current law requires, when a proposed change of organization or reorganization applies to 2 or more affected counties, that exclusive jurisdiction vest in the commission of the principal county, unless certain things occur. This bill would add the determination of a sphere of influence to the types of proposed changes for which exclusive jurisdiction may or may not vest in a principal county. Position ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry D) Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval. Status: 4/22/2021-A. L. GOV. Summary: The California Constitution prohibits the ad valorem tax rate on real property from exceeding 1% of the full cash value of the property, subject to certain exceptions. This measure 20 would create an additional exception to the 1% limit that would authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, or city and county, as applicable, and the proposition includes specified accountability requirements. Position ACR 17 (Voepel R) Special Districts Week. Status: 6/24/2021-A. CHAPTERED Summary: This measure proclaims the week of May 16, 2021, to May 22, 2021, to be Special Districts Week. Position SB 1 (Atkins D) Coastal resources: sea level rise. Status: 9/9/2021-S. ENROLLED Summary: The California Coastal Act of 1976 establishes the California Coastal Commission and provides for planning and regulation of development in the coastal zone, as defined. The act requires the commission, within 90 days after January 1, 1977, to adopt, after public hearing, procedures for the preparation, submission, approval, appeal, certification, and amendment of a local coastal program, including a common methodology for the preparation of, and the determination of the scope of, the local coastal programs, as provided. This bill would also include, as part of the procedures the commission is required to adopt, recommendations and guidelines for the identification, assessment, minimization, and mitigation of sea level rise within each local coastal program, as provided. The bill would delete the timeframe specified above by which the commission is required to adopt these procedures. Position Watch Association Positions None SB 45 (Portantino D) Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation, and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2022. Status: 6/1/2021-S. INACTIVE FILE Summary: Would enact the Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation, and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2022, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,595,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for a wildfire prevention, safe drinking water, drought preparation, and flood protection program. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Support if Amended California Municipal Utilities Association - Support SB 52 (Dodd D) State of emergency: local emergency: planned power outage. Status: 9/9/2021-S. ENROLLED 21 Summary: Would define a 'deenergization event' as a planned power outage, as specified, and would make a deenergization event one of those conditions constituting a local emergency, with prescribed limitations. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Favor SB 54 (Allen D) Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act. Status: 6/4/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Would establish the Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act, which would prohibit producers of single-use, disposable packaging or single-use, disposable food service ware products from offering for sale, selling, distributing, or importing in or into the state such packaging or products that are manufactured on or after January 1, 2032, unless they are recyclable or compostable. Position SB 63 (Stern D) Fire prevention: vegetation management: public education: grants: defensible space: fire hazard severity zones. Status: 8/31/2021-A. THIRD READING Summary: Would, among other things, require the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas of the state as moderate and high fire hazard severity . The bill would modify the factors the director is required to use to identify areas into fire hazard severity zones, as provided. The bill would require a local agency to make this information available for public review and comment, as provided. By expanding the responsibility of a local agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Position Watch Association Positions None SB 99 (Dodd D) Community Energy Resilience Act of 2021. Status: 8/27/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law establishes within the Natural Resources Agency the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission. Current law assigns the commission various duties, including applying for and accepting grants, contributions, and appropriations, and awarding grants consistent with the goals and objectives of a program or activity the commission is authorized to implement or administer. This bill, the Community Energy Resilience Act of 2021, would require the commission to develop and implement a grant program for local governments to develop community energy resilience plans and expedite permit review of distributed energy resources by local governments. Position Watch Association Positions None SB 129 (Skinner D) Budget Act of 2021 Status: 6/28/2021-S. CHAPTERED Summary: The Budget Act of 2021 made appropriations for the support of state government for the 2021–22 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2021 by amending, adding, and repealing items of appropriation and making other changes. This bill contains other related provisions. 22 Position Watch Association Positions None SB 148 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Public resources. Status: 1/8/2021-A. BUDGET Summary: Current law, including the General Corporation Law and the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, specifies the formal requirements for filing corporate names and articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State. Current law authorizes the Governor, or the Governor’s designee, to incorporate Golden State Energy as a nonprofit public benefit corporation for the purpose of owning, controlling, operating, or managing electrical and gas services for its ratepayers and for the benefit of all Californians. This bill would prohibit the Secretary of State from reserving a corporate name or filing articles of incorporation using the name Golden State Energy unless those articles are for Golden State Energy, incorporated and operating as specified. Position SB 155 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Public resources trailer bill. Status: 9/9/2021-S. ENROLLMENT Summary: Current law creates the Healthy Stores Refrigeration Grant Program in the Department of Food and Agriculture upon the appropriation of funds. Existing law requires the department to administer the program and to award grants to qualified entities, which is defined to include a small business or corner store, a city or county with representative low-income areas that contain small businesses or corner stores, and certain nonprofit entities that meet specified requirements. This bill would change the name of the program to the Healthy Refrigeration Grant Program. The bill would expand the definition of “qualified entity” to include a tribal government or tribal organization under certain circumstances and would revise the criteria required for a city, county, tribal government, tribal organization, or nonprofit entity to qualify to apply for a grant. Position Watch Association Positions None SB 170 (Skinner D) Budget Act of 2021. Status: 9/9/2021-S. ENROLLMENT Summary: The Budget Act of 2021 made appropriations for the support of state government for the 2021-22 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2021 by amending, adding, and repealing items of appropriation and making other changes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill Position Watch Association Positions None SB 222 (Dodd D) Water Rate Assistance Program. Status: 9/3/2021-A. INACTIVE FILE Summary: Would 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. The bill would require the Department of Community Services and Development to develop and administer the Water Rate Assistance Program established by the bill. Position Watch 23 Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Oppose unless Amended SB 223 (Dodd D) Discontinuation of residential water service. Status: 5/25/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires an urban and community water system to have a written policy on discontinuation of residential service for nonpayment, including, among other things, specified options for addressing the nonpayment. Current law requires an urban and community water system to provide notice of that policy to customers, as provided. This bill would apply those provisions, on and after July 1, 2022, to a very small community water system, defined as a public water system that supplies water to 200 or fewer service connections used by yearlong residents. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Oppose SB 230 (Portantino D) State Water Resources Control Board: Constituents of Emerging Concern Program. Status: 5/25/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require the State Water Resources Control Board to establish, maintain, and direct an ongoing, dedicated program called the Constituents of Emerging Concern Program to assess the state of information and recommend areas for further study on, among other things, the occurrence of constituents of emerging concern (CEC) in drinking water sources and treated drinking water. The bill would require the state board to convene, by an unspecified date, the Science Advisory Panel to review and provide recommendations to the state board on CEC for further action, among other duties. The bill would require the state board to provide an annual report to the Legislature on the ongoing work conducted by the panel. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Favor SB 273 (Hertzberg D) Water quality: municipal wastewater agencies. Status: 9/3/2021-S. ENROLLED Summary: Would authorize a municipal wastewater agency, as defined, to enter into agreements with entities responsible for stormwater management for the purpose of managing stormwater and dry weather runoff, as defined, to acquire, construct, expand, operate, maintain, and provide facilities for specified purposes relating to managing stormwater and dry weather runoff, and to levy taxes, fees, and charges consistent with the municipal wastewater agency’s existing authority in order to fund projects undertaken pursuant to the bill. The bill would require the exercise of any new authority granted under the bill to comply with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. The bill would require a municipal wastewater agency that enters into or amends one of these agreements after January 1, 2022, to file a copy of the agreement or amendment with the local agency formation commission in each county where any part of the municipal wastewater agency’s territory is located, but would exempt those agreements and amendments from local agency formation commission approval except as required by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Position 24 Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies – Favor California Special Districts Association – Support California Municipal Utilities Association – Support SB 274 (Wieckowski D) Local government meetings: agenda and documents. Status: 8/30/2021-S. ENROLLED Summary: The Ralph M. Brown Act requires meetings of the legislative body of a local agency to be open and public and also requires regular and special meetings of the legislative body to be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, with specified exceptions. Current law authorizes a person to request that a copy of an agenda, or a copy of all the documents constituting the agenda packet, of any meeting of a legislative body be mailed to that person. This bill would require a local agency with an internet website, or its designee, to email a copy of, or website link to, the agenda or a copy of all the documents constituting the agenda packet if the person requests that the items be delivered by email. If a local agency determines it to be technologically infeasible to send a copy of the documents or a link to a website that contains the documents by email or by other electronic means, the bill would require the legislative body or its designee to send by mail a copy of the agenda or a website link to the agenda and to mail a copy of all other documents constituting the agenda packet, as specified. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Favor California Municipal Utilities Association - Support SB 323 (Caballero D) Local government: water or sewer service: legal actions. Status: 9/9/2021-S. CONCURRENCE Summary: Current law prohibits a local agency from imposing fees for specified purposes, including fees for water or sewer connections, as defined, that exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless voter approval is obtained. Existing law provides that a local agency levying a new water or sewer connection fee or increasing a fee must do so by ordinance or resolution. Current law requires, for specified fees, including water or sewer connection fees, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting a new fee or service charge or modifying an existing fee or service charge to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance, resolution, or motion according to specified procedures for validation proceedings. Except as provided, this bill would require any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, validate, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting, modifying, or amending water or sewer service fees or charges adopted after January 1, 2022, to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date or the date of final passage, adoption, or approval of the ordinance, resolution, or motion, whichever is later. 25 Position Support Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Sponsor/Support California Special Districts Association – Support California Municipal Utilities Association - Support SB 351 (Caballero D) Water Innovation Act of 2021. Status: 5/25/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law establishes the State Water Resources Control Board for the purposes of providing for the orderly and efficient administration of the water resources of the state. This bill, the Water Innovation Act of 2021, would create the Office of Water Innovation at the California Water Commission for the furtherance of new technologies and other innovative approaches in the water sector. The bill would require the office, by December 31, 2023, to take specified measures to advance innovation in the water sector. The bill would make findings and declarations regarding the need for water innovation. Position SB 403 (Gonzalez D) Drinking water: consolidation. Status: 9/9/2021-S. ENROLLED Summary: The California Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water or where a disadvantaged community is substantially reliant on domestic wells that consistently fail to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. This bill would revise those consolidation provisions, including, among other revisions, authorizing the state board to also order consolidation where a water system serving a disadvantaged community is an at-risk water system, as defined, or where a disadvantaged community is substantially reliant on at-risk domestic wells, as defined. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Watch California Special Districts Association – Oppose SB 426 (Rubio D) Municipal separate storm sewer systems: financial capability analysis. Status: 6/4/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require the State Water Resources Control Board, by July 1, 2022, to establish financial capability assessment guidelines for municipal separate storm sewer system permittees that are adequate and consistent when considering the costs to local jurisdictions. The bill would require the state board and the regional boards to continue using available regulatory tools and 26 other approaches to foster collaboration with permittees to implement permit requirements in light of the costs of implementation. Position SB 427 (Eggman D) Water theft: enhanced penalties. Status: 7/23/2021-S. CHAPTERED Summary: Would authorize the legislative body of a local agency, as defined, that provides water service to adopt an ordinance that prohibits water theft, as defined, subject to an administrative fine or penalty in excess of the limitations above, as specified. The bill would require the local agency to adopt an ordinance that sets forth the administrative procedures governing the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review of the administrative fines or penalties for water theft and to establish a process for granting a hardship waiver to reduce the amount of the fine, as specified. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Favor SB 456 (Laird D) Fire prevention: wildfire and forest resilience: action plan: reports. Status: 9/9/2021-S. ENROLLED Summary: Current law establishes in the Natural Resources Agency the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and requires the department to be responsible for, among other things, fire protection and prevention, as provided. The former Governor, Edmund G. Brown Jr., issued an executive order relating to, among other subjects, the streamlining of permitting for landowner- initiated projects for the improvement of forest health and the reduction of forest fire fuels on their properties. Pursuant to this executive order, a Forest Management Task Force involving specified state agencies was convened and an action plan was created. This bill would rename the task force the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force and require the task force, including the agency and the department, on January 1, 2022, to develop a comprehensive implementation strategy to track and ensure the achievement of the goals and key actions identified in the action plan, as provided. The bill would require the implementation strategy to address specified actions, including increasing the pace and scale of wildfire and forest resilience activities, as provided. Position SB 463 (Dahle R) Water: landowner right to modify, repair, or replace jointly used conduits. Status: 7/14/2021-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law declares that the general welfare requires that the water sources of the state be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of water is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use of water in the interest of the people and for the public welfare. Current law provides for contribution of expenses of, and proceedings for declaration of rights in, jointly used wells, pumping plants, or conduits used by 2 or more persons. This bill would authorize a landowner to, where a conduit is constructed across or buried beneath the lands of 2 or more landowners, and the conduit is not under the control or management of any public agency or authority, modify, repair, or replace, as defined, the conduit on or beneath their land if the modification, repair, or replacement is made in a manner that does not impede the flow of the water to any other property receiving a benefit of the conduit or, otherwise injure any person using or interested in the conduit. Position SB 480 (Stern D) Metropolitan Water District of Southern California: rules: inappropriate conduct. Status: 8/19/2021-A. INACTIVE FILE Summary: The Metropolitan Water District Act provides for the creation of metropolitan water districts and specifies the powers and purposes of a district. The act requires the Metropolitan 27 Water District of Southern California to establish and operate an Office of Ethics and adopt rules relating to internal disclosure, lobbying, conflicts of interest, contracts, campaign contributions, and ethics for application to its board members, officers, and employees. This bill would require the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to adopt rules relating to inappropriate conduct, as defined, by board members, officers, and employees. Position SB 482 (Hueso D) Salton Sea: long-term strategy. Status: 4/30/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law, including the Salton Sea Restoration Act , specifies various sources of funding for Salton Sea restoration and mitigation projects, and provides for the allocation of various responsibilities among state agencies and regional water agencies for implementation and administration of those projects. This bill would require the secretary to work with local stakeholders to develop a long-term strategy for the Salton Sea. The bill would require the long- term strategy to, among other things, assess the environmental impacts and economic viability of the Salton Sea, identify challenges to enacting a long-term strategy, and provide recommendations for addressing the identified challenges. Position SB 526 (Min D) Community water systems: lead user service lines. Status: 4/30/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires, by July 1, 2020, a community water system with known lead user service lines in use in its distribution system to provide a timeline for replacement of those lines to the State Water Resources Control Board. Current law requires the state board to review and approve an established timeline, and requires, if the state board fails to act within 30 days of the submission of the timeline, the timeline to be deemed approved. Current law authorizes the state board to enforce these requirements, as specified, and a violation is considered a violation of the California Safe Drinking Water Act, subjecting the violator to specified civil and criminal penalties. This bill would, until January 1, 2025, require a community water system to remove or replace the full lead user service line, if the community water system disturbs, removes, or replaces a portion thereof. The bill would apply the above-described enforcement provisions to a violation of the requirements of the bill, thereby creating a state-mandated local program by expanding the scope of crimes under the California Safe Drinking Water Act. Position Watch Association Positions Association of California Water Agencies - Watch SB 527 (Melendez R) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: high-speed rail: Salton Sea restoration. Status: 4/30/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Would eliminate the continuous appropriation of 25% of the annual proceeds of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to the High-Speed Rail Authority on June 30, 2022. The bill, beginning with the 2022–23 fiscal year, would annually transfer 25% of the annual proceeds of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to the Salton Sea Restoration Fund. This bill contains other existing laws. Position SB 533 (Stern D) Electrical corporations: wildfire mitigation plans: deenergization events. Status: 9/9/2021-S. CONCURRENCE Summary: Would require that an electrical corporation’s wildfire mitigation plan identify circuits that have frequently been deenergized to mitigate the risk of wildfire and the measures taken, or planned to be taken, by the electrical corporation to reduce the need for, and impact of, future deenergization of those circuits, including the estimated annual decline in circuit deenergization 28 and deenergization impact on customers, and replacing, hardening, or undergrounding any portion of the circuit or of upstream transmission or distribution lines. Position SB 552 (Hertzberg D) Drought planning: small water suppliers: nontransient noncommunity water systems. Status: 9/9/2021-S. ENROLLMENT Summary: Current law required the Department of Water Resources, in consultation with the State Water Resources Control Board, to propose to the Governor and the Legislature, by January 1, 2020, recommendations and guidance relating to the development and implementation of countywide drought and water shortage contingency plans to address the planning needs of small water suppliers and rural communities, as provided. This bill would require small water suppliers, as defined, serving 1,000 to 2,999 service connections, inclusive, and nontransient noncommunity water systems that are schools, no later than July 1, 2023, to develop and maintain an abridged Water Shortage Contingency Plan that includes specified drought-planning elements. Position SB 559 (Hurtado D) Department of Water Resources: water conveyance systems: Water Conveyance Restoration Fund. Status: 9/8/2021-A. INACTIVE FILE Summary: Would establish the Water Conveyance Restoration Fund in the State Treasury to be administered by the Department of Water Resources in consultation with the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The bill would require all moneys deposited in the fund to be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, in support of subsidence repair costs, including environmental planning, permitting, design, and construction and necessary road and bridge upgrades required to accommodate capacity improvements. The bill would require the Director of Water Resources to apportion money appropriated from the fund, subject to specified requirements, for the Friant-Kern Canal, Delta-Mendota Canal, San Luis Field Division of the California Aqueduct, and San Joaquin Division of the California Aqueduct. Position SB 594 (Glazer D) Elections: redistricting. Status: 9/9/2021-S. ENROLLED Summary: The California Constitution establishes the Citizens Redistricting Commission for the purpose of drawing district lines for the election of Members of the State Senate, Assembly, Congress, and the State Board of Equalization, and requires the commission to do so by August 15 in each year ending in the number one thereafter. For redistricting occurring in 2021, the Supreme Court of California, by peremptory writ of mandate in Legislature of State of California v. Padilla (2020) 9 Cal.5th 867, extended that deadline to December 15, 2021, or to a later date if specified conditions are met, due to a delay in the release of federal census data caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This bill would, for the June 7, 2022, statewide direct primary election, make various changes, as specified, to existing law relating to candidate nominations and compilation of registered voter data in order to accommodate the extended state redistricting deadline. Position SB 626 (Dodd D) Department of Water Resources: Procurement Methods. Status: 9/9/2021-S. ENROLLED Summary: Current law authorizes the Department of Transportation, regional transportation agencies, and the San Diego Association of Governments to engage in a Construction Manager/General Contractor project delivery method (CM/GC method) for specified public work projects. This bill would, until January 1, 2033, authorize the Department of Water Resources to utilize the CM/GC method, as specified, for no more than 7 projects for elements of State Water Facilities, as defined. The bill would require the Department of Water Resources, on all projects delivered by the department, to use department employees or consultants under contract with the department to perform all project design and engineering services related to design, and construction inspection services, required for the CM/GC method consistent with specified existing law. 29 Position SB 683 (Ochoa Bogh R) Water quality: regional municipal separate storm sewer system permits. Status: 4/30/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require, to the extent permitted by federal law, a regional board that issues a municipal separate storm sewer system permit pursuant to the federal national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit program to a region rather than to an individual discharger to include specified elements in the permit and to meet and collaborate with the permittees before or during the permit writing process. Position SB 708 (Melendez R) Water shortage emergencies: declarations: deenergization events. Status: 7/9/2021-S. CHAPTERED Summary: Would authorize the governing body of a public water supplier to declare a water shortage emergency condition without holding a public hearing in the event of a deenergization event, as defined. Position SB 716 (McGuire D) Land use: habitat restoration and enhancement: mitigation lands. Status: 9/9/2021-S. ENROLLMENT Summary: The Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Act authorizes a project proponent to submit a habitat restoration or enhancement project to the Director of Fish and Wildlife for approval. This bill would extend the operation of the act until January 1, 2027, and would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to submit a report on the implementation of the act to the Legislature no later than December 31, 2025. Position SB 776 (Gonzalez D) Safe drinking water and water quality. Status: 9/9/2021-S. ENROLLED Summary: The California Safe Drinking Water Act requires the State Water Resources Control Board to administer provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to protect public health. Current law provides that the California Safe Drinking Water Act does not apply to small state water systems, except as specified. This bill would expand the application of the act to small state water systems, as specified. Position SB 789 (Rubio D) Low-Income Water Rate Assistance Program. Status: 4/30/2021-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires the State Water Resources Control Board, by January 1, 2018, and in collaboration with specified entities, to develop a plan for the funding and implementation of the Low-Income Water Rate Assistance Program. Current law authorizes the board to consider existing rate assistance programs authorized by the Public Utilities Commission in developing the plan and authorizes the plan to include recommendations for other cost-effective methods of offering assistance to low-income water customers. This bill would require the board to administer the program, upon appropriation by the Legislature. The bill would limit eligibility for the program to a person that is both a low-income water customer and financially affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Position Watch Association Positions None 30 SB 821 (Committee on Natural Resources and Water) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: Delta Independent Science Board. Status: 9/3/2021-S. ENROLLED Summary: Current law establishes the Delta Independent Science Board and sets forth the composition of the board, including requiring the board to consist of no more than 10 members appointed by the Delta Stewardship Council. Current law requires the board to provide oversight of the scientific research, monitoring, and assessment programs that support adaptive management of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta through periodic reviews of each of those programs, as specified. Current law requires the board to submit to the council a report on the results of each review, including recommendations for any changes in the programs reviewed by the board. This bill would require the council to contract for the services of the members of the board, as specified. The bill would exempt these contracts from specified provisions of law governing public contracting. The bill would require the council to establish procedures for contracting for the services that are subject to these contracts. Position Teresa Cooke Policy Director Gianna SetoudehPolicy Advisor Otay Water District PRL&L Committee Meeting Presentation Presented By September 21, 2021 Attachment C bhfs.com | Teresa Cooke Gianna Setoudeh Introductions © 2020 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 2 bhfs.com | End of Session Update 2021 © 2020 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 3 bhfs.com | 2021 Recap –Legislation •Legislature adjourned for Interim Recess on September 10 and will reconvene in January 2022 •Legislature introduced 2,776 bills, resolutions andconstitutional amendments in 2021 •Approximately 900 passed; just under 700 currently on Governor’s desk •Over 1,100 2-year and inactive file bills •410 bills & resolutions signed and/or adopted thus far;0 vetoes © 2020 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 4 bhfs.com | 2021 Recap –District Priority Issues •AB 1434 (Friedman)related to indoor residential water use; Position –Oppose; Status– 2-year bill •SB 222 (Dodd) related to water rate assistance; Position –Watch; Status –Inactive File •SB 223 (Dodd)related to discontinuation of residential water service; Position –Watch;Status – 2-year bill •SB 323 (Caballero) related to statute of limitations for water and sewer rates; Position–Watch; Status –On Governor’s Desk •SB 155 (Budget and Fiscal Review) budget trailer bill related to discontinuation ofwater service extension through December 31, 2021, among other provisions. Position–Watch; Status –on Governor’s Desk •SB 170 (Budget and Fiscal Review)budget bill jr. including funding for water resilience,climate and wildfires among other provisions; Position –Watch; Status –on Governor’sDesk © 2020 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 5 bhfs.com | 2021 Recap –District Priority Issues •COVID-19 Water and Wastewater Arrearage Funding in State Budget; Position: Support $1B for arrearages; Status –$1B funding provided in 2021-22 state budgetand program being implemented now •Advanced Clean Fleet Rule; Position –Seek exemption for emergency service vehicles, provide comment letter and meet with appropriate staff; Status –Comments onproposed draft language due September 27, anticipaterelease of final regulatory text in mid-2022 © 2020 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 6 bhfs.com | 2021 Recap –Top 10 Issues Revisited •COVID-19 Related Financial Assistance for the District and for its customers •Water Quality •Water Use and Efficiency •Recycled Water •Veteran Advocacy in the Water Industry •Wildfires and Climate Change •Climate Resiliency/Water Bonds •Voluntary Agreements/Bay-Delta •Delta Conveyance/State Water Project •Water Resilience Portfolio © 2020 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 7 bhfs.com | Next Steps •Governor has until October 10 to sign/veto all bills – continue to monitor for Governor’s final actions •Monitor for 2022 Legislative Calendar –includes keylegislative deadlines •Monitor for informational hearings of interest and regulatory issues over fall •Continue efforts on Advanced Clean Fleet Rule •Continue introductory meetings with members of theOtay Water District Delegation © 2020 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 8 bhfs.com | Next Steps •BHFS Engagement –Current 3-year contract ends December 31, 2021 •Potential 2022 Issues –water use and efficiencylegislation/regulatory issues; water affordabilitylegislation; discontinuation of water service; COVID-19 recovery legislation; water conservation and drought legislation/executive orders; Advanced Clean FleetsFinal Rulemaking and regulation © 2020 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 9 bhfs.com | Questions? © 2020 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 10 1 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: October 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Eileen Salmeron, Communications Assistant PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Tenille Otero, Communications Officer Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Social Media, Mobile Application, and Website Analytics Update GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: See Attachment B. PURPOSE: To provide the Board with an update on the Otay Water District’s social media, mobile application, and website analytics. ANALYSIS: District communications staff provides news to its customers and the public using online information-sharing services such as social media and its website. Social media engagement enhances the interaction between the public and public agencies, allowing staff to provide timely and up-to-date information regarding the District’s programs, events, and local- and state-wide news. It also increases the reach to demographics that do not regularly consume traditional media. Staff manages and monitors the District’s social media and online presence daily and stays current with evolving social media and web trends. Staff also manages the District’s “Make Every Drop Count” mobile application. AGENDA ITEM 8c 2 In November 2020, staff provided the Board with the District’s social media and otaywater.gov website analytics for fiscal year 2020. Included in Attachment B are the analytics for fiscal year 2021. Social Media Through the District’s social media presence, its online audience and stakeholder engagement has increased steadily each year. Staff continues its online reach to promote programs, such as education, conservation, operational efficiencies, and capital improvement projects. Staff increases its social media followers and engagement by creating visual content, frequently using hashtags, publishing posts in English and Spanish, and partnering with other water agencies and organizations to launch water-related campaigns and programs. The District uses the following social media platforms: •YouTube – Joined November 2010 •Twitter – Joined February 2011 •Facebook – Joined November 2011 •Nextdoor – Joined July 2016 •LinkedIn – Joined August 2017 •Instagram – Joined November 2018 The social media analytics report in Attachment B shows a comparison of the cumulative number of followers the District has gained in the last two fiscal years. Twitter: From June 30, 2020 to June 30, 2021, the number of Twitter followers increased by 5%, from 2,070 to 2,166. Compared to other retail water agencies in the San Diego region, the District continues to be number one with the most Twitter followers. Instagram: From June 30, 2020 to June 30, 2021, the number of Instagram followers increased by 34%, from 691 to 927. Compared to other retail water agencies in the San Diego region, the District is number one with the most Instagram followers. LinkedIn: From June 30, 2020 to June 30, 2021, the number of LinkedIn followers increased by 19%, from 586 to 696. Compared to other retail water agencies in the San Diego region, the District is in the top two with the most LinkedIn followers. Facebook: From June 30, 2020 to June 30, 2021, the number of Facebook followers increased by 8%, from 445 to 480. Compared to other retail water agencies in the San Diego region, the District is in the top six with the most Facebook followers. 3 YouTube: From June 30, 2020 to June 30, 2021, the number of channel subscribers increased by 20%, from 96 to 115. Also, YouTube video views increased by 15%, from 101,516 to 117,075. Compared to other retail water agencies in the San Diego region, the District is number one with the most subscribers. Nextdoor: Nextdoor is unlike the other social media platforms regarding followers. Nextdoor followers, or rather members, are based on the number of residents within the District’s service area who have joined the platform. If they are in the District’s service area, then they are automatically subscribed to receive the District’s posts. Since all the District’s followers are customers, staff uses the platform to geo-target specific neighborhoods within its service area to share messaging and communicate with the residents. From June 30, 2020 to June 30, 2021, the number of Nextdoor members in the District’s service area increased by 4%, from 48,463 to 50,172. Use of Social Media During COVID-19: During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media has become an essential tool for communicating with customers. Throughout the pandemic, staff has continued to post weekly or as necessary to address financial assistance, the safety of water supplies, and other District-related services. Attachment B includes examples of COVID-19-related posts published to all District social media platforms. Communications staff will continue to assess its current use of social media platforms, including paid social media advertising, and their effectiveness. Mobile App In 2020, IT and communications staff collaborated to enhance the District’s “Make Every Drop Count” mobile application. Staff implemented a soft launch of the app for iOS and Android users in December 2020. The District first launched the app in August 2015. To keep up with the changing technology, encourage water-use efficiency, and ensure customer satisfaction, staff made enhancements to the app’s design and features, including utility bill payment, water waste reports, programs and resources, water-saving tips, water-use restrictions, contact information, and social media interaction. As of Sept. 13, 2021, there have been 5,024 iOS downloads and 130 Android downloads. Staff plans to officially launch the improved application later in 2021 through a news release, the website, the newsletter, bill inserts, social media, and other marketing tools. After the official launch, staff will monitor the downloads and report those to the board in 2022. 4 Website Staff also manages and maintains the District’s website, otaywater.gov. The goal is to better serve customers by enhancing the District’s web presence and user-friendliness, communicating the most current information, and visually conveying that it is using state-of-the-art technologies and is a forward-thinking agency. Attachment B includes the District’s website analytics. During fiscal year 2021, its top 20 most viewed website pages were the following: 1) Home Page 2) Payment Options3) Customer Service4) Billing Information5) Employment6) Start or Terminate Service 7) Contact Us8) COVID-199) Update Your Account 10) Start or Terminate Service Form11) Engineering Bids 12) Board Agenda and Minutes13) About Otay 14) Otay Employees15) Water Services16) Board of Directors 17) Public Services18) Rebates 19) Water Agency Search Results20) Outages In fiscal year 2021, its web page views decreased by 9% compared to fiscal year 2020. Fiscal years 2020 and 2021 comparison charts (Attachment B - slide 15) are very similar in views and users with some increases and decreases at certain points in time. Web page views and users during fiscal years 2020 and 2021 seem to be lower than previous years. Although staff cannot specifically confirm the reason but believes that this could be due to the public’s focus on COVID-19-related issues more than anything else during those two years. As shown in the charts comparing fiscal years 2019 and 2020, (Attachment B - slide 16), staff found that the decline in views began during the COVID-19 outbreak in April 2020. Although, there was a decline in page views, staff noticed that the top eight pages viewed during fiscal year 2021 were related to COVID-19 impacts, for example billing and financial information, customer service, employment, and COVID-19 information. 5 About 85% of its website users were new, and about 15% were returning. Attachment B shows how users arrived to the website and which URLs are considered the top 10 referral sources. To address the Spanish-speaking population and ratepayers in the District’s service area, its website includes functionality that displays most of the web pages in Spanish. Staff works with a consultant to have the English content translated to Spanish. As part of its strategic plan, staff assesses and implements ways to improve the website. That includes enhancing its functionality and navigational structure, crafting content aligned with key messaging, conveying information searched by visitors in English and Spanish, and publishing content more frequently to keep pages attractive and engaging. Critical to owning, maintaining, and cultivating an integrated communications, outreach, and marketing strategy, staff will continue to explore best practices for cross-promoting messaging through social media, its website, and other outreach tools. It will post new content to social media platforms, including videos, photos, graphics, and other material as necessary depending on the topic, resources available, and value added. It will also continue to work closely with IT staff to evaluate best practices for websites and monitor online trends to effectively reach customers. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. STRATEGIC GOAL: Execute and deliver services that meet or exceed customer expectations, and increase customer engagement in order to improve District Services. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: A) Committee Action B) Presentation: Social Media, Mobile Application, and WebsiteAnalytics 6 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Social Media, Mobile Application, and Website Analytics Update COMMITTEE ACTION: Staff presented a PowerPoint presentation to the Conservation, Public Relations, Legal and Legislative Committee on September 21, 2021. Please see Attachment B of the staff report for details of staff’s presentation. Following the presentation, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board as an Informational Item. Social Media, Mobile Application, and Website Analytics Conservation, Public Relations, Legal, and Legislative CommitteeSeptember 21, 2021 Otay Water District Attachment B 48,463 50,172 NEXTDOOR 2,070 691 586 445 96 2,166 927 696 480 115 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 As of June 30, 2020 As of June 30, 2021 34%19%5%8%20% Growth in Followers SOCIAL MEDIA ANALYTICS 4% Water Agency Comparison FACEBOOK Agency Followers SDCWA 9,834 Vallecitos 2,300 Sweetwater 1,177 Padre 686 Helix 578 Olivenhain 516 Otay 486 INSTAGRAM Agency Followers SDCWA 2,603 Otay 947 Padre 846 LINKEDIN Agency Followers SDCWA 6,191 Sweetwater 1,169 Otay 707 YOUTUBE Agency Subscribers SDCWA 953 Otay 117 Olivenhain 112 -Stats as of July 27, 2021.-Nextdoor does not provide access to view other agency pages or analytics.-SDCWA is a wholesale agency. Therefore, Otay is the retail agency with the most followers for most platforms.-Cities/municipalities are not included in this comparison since they provide additional services other thanwater and sewer. TWITTER Agency Followers SDCWA 5,842 Otay 2,167 Sweetwater 2,062 Twitter Highlights for FY 21 HIGHEST ENGAGEMENTSHIGHEST IMPRESSIONS ImpressionsEngagements Impressions: 3,127 |Engagements: 28 Impressions: 2,403 |Engagements: 60 Instagram Highlights for FY 2021 HIGHEST ENGAGEMENTSHIGHEST IMPRESSIONS ImpressionsEngagements Impressions: 314 |Engagements: 22 Impressions: 236 |Engagements: 37 LinkedIn Highlights for FY 21 HIGHEST ENGAGEMENTSHIGHEST IMPRESSIONS Impressions: 421 |Engagements: 16 Impressions: 283 |Engagements: 38 TOP INDUSTRIES FOLLOWING OTAY: UTILITIESGOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION CONSTRUCTIONCIVIL ENGINEERINGENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 4.77% 5.35%6.36%10.26% 21.97% Facebook Highlights for FY 21 ORGANIC POSTPAID POST ImpressionsEngagements Impressions: 18,574 |Engagements: 835 Impressions: 580 |Engagements: 3,455 YouTube Highlights for FY 21 MOST VIEWED VIDEO IN FY 21 CHANNEL VIDEO VIEWS FISCAL YEAR VIEWS RECEIVEDDURING FY TOTAL VIEWS 2021 15,559 117,075 2020 14,659 101,516 6%15% 137 5742,6873,268 14,022External Suggested Videos YouTube SearchDirect or UnknownBrowse Features Views in FY 21: 3,424 Views since published: 20,493 TRAFFIC SOURCES (SINCE PUBLISHED) Nextdoor Highlights for FY 21 HIGHEST IMPRESSIONS & ENGAGEMENTS ImpressionsEngagements Impressions: 36,529 |Engagements: 34 OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 1 EASTLAKE GREENS ROLLING HILLS RANCH RANCHO SAN DIEGO EASTLAKE SAN MIGUEL RANCH EASTLAKE TRAILS EASTLAKE VISTAS SPRING VALLEY VILLAGE OF MONTECITO TOP NEIGHBORHOODS FOLLOWING OTAY: 11971257 1288 1393 1580160 1933 2298 2495 3479 Posted Aug. 11, 2020 COVID-19 Posts for FY 21 SUPPORT VIRTUAL FOOD DRIVE RENT & UTILITY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS LATE PENALTIES REINSTATED WHAT NOT TO FLUSHSUPPORT THE GARDENWORLD WATER DAY MOBILE APP ANALYTICS SOFT LAUNCH: December 2020 iOS DOWNLOADS: 5,024 ANDROID DOWNLOADS: 130 WEBSITE ANALYTICS PAGE VIEWS PAGE VIEWS 1. Home Page 42.99%11. Engineering Bids 1.16% 2. Payment Options 9.22%12. Board Agenda and Minutes 1.09% 3. Customer Service 4.17%13. About Otay 1.04% 4. Billing Information 3.47%14. Otay Employees .98% 5. Employment 3.44%15. Water Services .90% 6. Start or Terminate Service 2.22%16. Board of Directors .88% 7. Contact Us 1.87%17. Public Services .86% 8. COVID-19 1.57%18. Rebates .82% 9. Update Your Account 1.41%19. Water Agency Search Results .82% 10. Start or Terminate Service Form 1.37%20. Outages .67% Most Viewed Pages Total Page Views in FY 2021: 373,178 Comparison of Total Page Views 449,179 410,260 373,178 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 PAGE VIEWS As of June 30, 2019 As of June 30, 2020 As of June 30, 2021 9%9% Comparison of Total Users 163,942 158,857 129,924 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 USERS As of June 30, 2019 As of June 30, 2020 As of June 30, 2021 3%18% Year Comparison Year Comparison –Last year’s charts New Users vs. Returning Users New Users, 84.90% Returning Users, 15.10% Total Users in FY 2021: 129,924 How Users Arrived to otaywater.gov Direct 56.10%Organic Search 40.80% Referral 2.50%Social Media 0.60% Total Users in FY 2021: 129,924 Referral Sources Total Referrals in FY 2021: 4,119 1.sdcwa.org –San Diego County Water Authority website 2. m.facebook.com –Facebook mobile 3. duckduckgo.com –Search engine 4. governmentjobs.com –Government job search site 5. com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox –Android Google search app 6. baidu.com –Chinese multinational technology company (search engine) 7. facebook.com –Facebook mobile 8. sharepoint2016.otay.local –Otay Water District SharePoint 9. t.co –Shortened links from Twitter 10. com.google.android.gm –Gmail Android app Top 10 Cities 0.82% 0.88% 1.52% 1.62% 3.58% 5.77% 6.60% 12.19% 21.79% 34.46%CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO SPRING VALLEY FALLBROOK LOS ANGELES EL CAJON SANTEE LA MESA SAN JOSE IRVINE Total Users in FY 2021: 129,924 2.14% 1.92% 4.52% 19.02% 34.39% 38.01% 1.00% 20.73% 78.27%iOS ANDROID WINDOWS Top 5 Computer Browsers Top Mobile Operating Systems Total Mobile Users in FY 2021: 44,547Total Users in FY 2021: 129,924 CHROME SAFARI INTERNET EXPLORER EDGE FIREFOX Questions? Otay Water District otaywater.gov (619) 670-2222 Email: info@otaywater.gov Social Media 1 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 6, 2021 PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL SUBMITTED BY: Michael Kerr, Information Technology Manager APPROVED BY: Adolfo Segura, Chief of Administrative Services Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: FY21 YEAR-END REPORT FOR THE DISTRICT’S FY19-22 STRATEGIC PLAN GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see “Attachment A”. PURPOSE: To provide a year-end report of the District’s FY19-22 Strategic Performance Plan for FY21. ANALYSIS: Summary The current Otay Water District Strategic Plan is a four-year plan ranging from the start of FY19 through the end of FY22. This report details the year-end results for the third year of our four-year program. Objectives – Target 90% Strategic Plan objectives are designed to ensure the District executes mission-developed strategies and makes appropriate changes necessary to guide the agency, meet new challenges, and positively adapt to change. FY21 year-end results are below target at 86%, with 44 of 51 active items completed or on schedule, one (1) objective is behind, and six (6) objectives are on hold. AGENDA ITEM 8d 2 Objective Behind (1) CUSTOMER Strategy #2: Assess and enhance communications tools and increase online presence and social media exposure. Objective: Assess communication tools (social media presence). Staff is finalizing two (2) surveys to assist in analyzing the District's website. The first survey asks other agencies what technologies they use for their websites, and the second is to gather feedback from the public on the District’s current website. Staff was unable to launch these surveys in the third and fourth quarters because staff focused on COVID-19-related legislation and relief, but will distribute the surveys in the first quarter of FY22. Objectives on Hold (6): CUSTOMER Strategy #1: Enhance and build awareness and engagement among the District’s customers and stakeholders, and within the San Diego Region of the District’s strategies, policies, projects, programs, and legislative/regulatory issues. Objective: Ensure consistency of branding and representation across the District, using consistent logos, colors, messaging, communications tools, and other collaterals through enhancement of internal and external marketing materials. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 44 1 6 1 On Schedule/Completed Behind On Hold Not Started 44 of 51 Active Objectives are On Target (86%) 3 COVID-19-related outreach was a priority for staff. Unfortunately, due to budget cuts, the objective was placed on hold and assuming budget availability, this objective will resume in FY22 or FY23. Staff will continue to ensure the District is using essential branding consistently, wherever possible. FINANCIAL Strategy #3: Enhancement of business systems. Objective: Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) This objective was placed on hold in the first quarter due to COVID- 19. The project is scheduled to resume in FY22. Objective: Evaluate enhancements to, or replacement, of the rate model program. Due to the District's current litigation, this goal has been put on hold. INTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESSES Strategy #2: Enhance customer experience (collaboration between Customer Service and Communications). Objective: Customer Information System (CIS)/Customer Relationship Management (CRM) validation and replacement evaluation. This objective was placed on hold in the first quarter due to COVID- 19. The project is scheduled to resume in FY22. Strategy #9: Enhancement of the Confined Space Program. Objective: Automate confined space regulatory and work forms (electronic conversion), add confined space data layer in the District’s enterprise Geographic Information System (GIS), and use data to electronically automate the District’s confined space inventory. Pending the hire of a new Safety and Security Specialist, this objective was placed on hold in the third quarter. The position was filled in June 2021, and the objective will resume in FY22. Strategy #10: Optimize District’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) and Confined Space Rescue Team. Objective: Certify program at Industry State Level and under the Incident Command System, streamline chlorine gas and confined space rescue 4 training, operations, and response, and convert inventory lists and equipment logs to electronic form. Pending the hire of a new Safety and Security Specialist, this objective was placed on hold in the third quarter. The position was filled in June 2021 and the objective will resume in FY22. Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) – Target 75% KPI’s are designed to track the District’s day-to-day performance. These indicators measure the effectiveness and efficiency of essential operational services. The District’s overall goal of 75% is considered “on target”. For FY21, year-end results are above target at 90%, with 38 of 42 items achieving the desired level or better. KPI’s are based on established AWWA performance benchmarks, water agency standards, and historical trends. Seven (7) measures are reported at year’s end: • Water Debt Coverage • Sewer Debt Coverage • Reserve Level • Accounts Per FTE • Leak Detection Program • Injury Incident Rate • Enterprise Technology Services 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 38 4 On Target Not on Target 38 of 42 Key Performance Indicators are On Target (90%) 5 KPI’s Not on Target (4): Overtime Percentage Target: Less than 100% of the budgeted overtime per quarter Year-to-date overtime amounted to $167,889 vs. the budgeted amount of $158,500. Fourth-quarter results were below target ($39,235 actuals vs. $43,400 budgeted); however, the year-to-date overtime variance was primarily driven by main breaks in the first and third quarters. Planned Recycled Water Maintenance Ratio in $ Target: 70% of all labor dollars spent on preventative maintenance per quarter. Year-to-date, 55% of labor dollars were spent on preventative maintenance. However, the target was not met due to unplanned repairs at the Treatment Plant in the third quarter (internal coolant leak on effluent pump #1) and repairs associated with the 20-inch recycled main break in the fourth quarter. Direct Cost of Treatment per MGD Target: No more than $1,050 per million gallons spent on wastewater. Year-to-date expenditures on wastewater treatment per million gallons was $1,374.69 vs. the annual target of $1,050. Fourth-quarter results were on target ($895.37 actual vs. $900 target); however, the year-to- date target was not met. The Treatment Plant facility was off-line for planned CIP work (Force Main Air-Vac repairs and Filter Storage Tank re- coating) from November 2020 through February 2021. Sewer Overflow Rate (AWWA) Target & AWWA: Zero (0) overflows per quarter. The year-to-date target was not met due to one sewage overflow in the first quarter caused by root intrusion on top of a manhole upstream of MH-354-074. The collection system in this area was inspected with CCTV and flushed to ensure that all debris was located and removed. Next Steps Staff will continue to execute the plan’s objectives and key performance indicators and track emerging trends. Committee Reports – Slideshow The Strategic Plan results are presented to both the Finance & 6 Administration, and the Engineering, Operations, & Water Resources Committee with a specific focus on the most relevant information for each Committee (see “Attachment B”). Strategic Plan is available on the Board VPN The Strategic Plan results and associated details are provided in a real- time, interactive web-based application available to the Board via secured remote access, VPN (Virtual Private Network). The District Secretary can facilitate any password or access issues. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer Informational item only; no fiscal impact. STRATEGIC GOAL: Strategic Plan and Performance Measure reporting is a critical element in providing performance reporting to the Board and staff. LEGAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Committee Action Report Attachment B – PowerPoint Presentation 7 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: FY21 YEAR-END REPORT FOR THE DISTRICT’S FY19-22 STRATEGIC PLAN COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations & Water Resources and Finance & Administration Committees reviewed this item at meetings held on September 21 and 22, 2021, respectively and the following comments were made: • Staff presented the year-end results of the District’s fiscal year 2021 (FY 2021) Strategic Plan. • Staff indicated that workshops and interviews with District staff are currently being conducted in preparation for the next iteration of the District’s Strategic Plan which will begin next year at the start of FY 2023. • Staff stated that the Ensure consistency of branding and representation across the District, using consistent logos, colors, messaging, communication tools, and other collaterals through enhancement of internal and external marketing materials objective had been put on hold due to COVID-19 and budget constraints but has since resumed. • Staff mentioned a notable accomplishment in the Internal Process Objective, the Pilot Cloud-Based Human Capital Performance Management System. Staff completed this new on-line automated appraisal paperless process. This new solution was implemented for capturing and processing staff’s annual evaluation to include productivity, rating, staff’s annual goals, effectiveness, and objectives. • In response to an inquiry from the Committee as to why the key performance indicator, Planned Recycled Water Maintenance Ratio in $ was not on target, staff acknowledged that unplanned repairs at the Treatment Plant and repairs associated with the 20” recycled main break on Olympic Parkway diverted some maintenance dollars to address current needs. Staff clarified that because these were one- time incidents there would be no negative affect to the maintenance 8 plan as the prospect of these incidents is built into our daily operations. • Committee noted the increasing percent of customers paying bills electronically and inquired how many of those electronic payments are automatic payments as that method is ideal. Staff noted that autopay payments account for approximately 45% of electronic payments and 35% of total payments per month. • There was discussion regarding incentives for customers to sign up for autopay. According to staff there are no incentives at the District or other agencies other than ensuring payments are received and on-time, removing the possibility of late penalties. Staff indicated that the District does have a high percentage of customers signed up for autopay as compared to other agencies. This is accredited to the District creating an easy process for customers to sign up for autopay on the District website and the prompt to sign up is prominently displayed. The Committee noted that it would be beneficial to push out communication to customers promoting autopay. Staff informed the Committee that the District has done so in the past and can plan to do so again this fall. • The Committee inquired how often staff reviews certain AWWA benchmarks, specifically noted was Gallons per Capita per Day, to determine if District targets could be improved. Staff responded that the AWWA benchmarks are always reviewed once the report is available, and staff is constantly evaluating what new KPI’s can be added or revised. Factors such as level of support for agencies and metric consistency throughout a Strategic Plan are also considered prior to adding or revising KPI’s. • A question by the Committee was, “What do we do with the Strategic Goals or KPI’s that were not met?” Staff responded that if we do not meet a target, whether it be a quarterly target or an end-of- year target, it causes the management team to meet and discuss along with everyone that is responsible for the measure to understand why and determine if additional actions should be taken. Upon completion of the discussion, the Committees supported presentation to the full board as an informational item. FY21 Year-End Report OTAY WATER DISTRICT FY19-22 STRATEGIC PLAN ATTACHMENT B Contoso Pharmaceuticals Employee growth/ RetentionFinancial Results and Growth Increase Customer Satisfaction/Engagement Improve Operational Efficiency CUSTOMER FINANCIAL INTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESS LEARNING & GROWTH 2 86% 44 Objectives TRENDS ON TARGET/COMPLETED OVERALL TARGET 90% TOTAL OBJECTIVES52 NOT ON TARGET OBJECTIVES ON HOLD 2% 1 Objectives 12% 6 Objectives 75% 85% 95% FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 NOT STARTED1 RESULT TARGET ACTIVE LEARNING AND GROWTH CUSTOMER FINANCIAL INTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESSES 51 44/51 = 86%6/51 = 12% 3 1/51 = 2% C01. Enhance and build awareness and engagement among the District’s customers and stakeholders and within the San Diego Region of the District’s strategies, policies, projects, programs, and legislative/regulatory issues Continue implementation of and enhance the District’s community and business outreach, media, and government relations programs *Ensure consistency of branding and representation across the District, using consistent logos, colors, messaging, communications tools, and other collaterals through enhancement of internal and external marketing materials Evaluate and enhance the District’s water conservation programs CUSTOMER | 4 C02. Assess and enhance communications tools and increase online presence and social media exposure *Assess communication tools (social media presence) *Objective placed on hold due to COVID-19 4 Steve Beppler Sr. Civil Engineer ON TARGET NOT ON TARGET ON HOLD COMPLETED NOT STARTED *Objective not on target due to COVID-19 F01. Integrated resource planning and facility optimization Recycled water long-term business plan South District Potable Water Supply Alternatives to San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) Pipeline 4 Supply Interruption (catastrophic event) Treatment Plant long-term business plan (sewer portion) F02. Evaluation of key system alternatives and financial impact Conduct desalination (Rosarito) financial analysis In support of the Engineering Department, conduct recycled water and sewer business financial analysis FINANCIAL | 19 5 Luis Enriquez Pump Mechanic II ON TARGET NOT ON TARGET ON HOLD COMPLETED NOT STARTED F03. Enhancement of business systems *Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) validation and replacement evaluation Evaluate, and if beneficial, implement cloud-based payroll service Evaluate enhancements to, or replacement, of the rate model program Implement Paperless Account Payable (AP) solution Re-evaluate prior payroll solutions and identify any new cloud-based payroll solutions Complete a sewer cost of service study and recommend a rate structure that will provide for more stable sewer revenues Evaluate the Capacity and New Water Supply Fees, including an update of applicable costs, and, if possible, recommend a fee structure that is more efficient and effective than the current structure *Objective has been placed on hold due to COVID-19. FINANCIAL | 19 (cont’d) 6 Jeff GoinDisinfection Technician ON TARGET NOT ON TARGET ON HOLD COMPLETED NOT STARTED F04. Enhancement of the Asset Management (AM) and Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) Enhancement of the framework for systematic development, validation, and implementation of new CIPs Enhancements of the AM Program Financial activity-based cost cross-training In support of the Engineering Department, enhance financial impact forecasting and analysis of future CIPs F05. Develop alternative Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) financing strategy to fund ahead of PERS schedule Optimize funding and liability schedule FINANCIAL | 19 (cont’d) F06. Negotiate and implement a new labor agreement and optimize employee benefit programs Negotiate and implement new labor agreement Review Deferred Compensation Program for reduced fees and streamlined approach and ensure offerings are fully utilized 7 Lisa Coburn-BoydEnvironmental Compliance Specialist ON TARGET NOT ON TARGET ON HOLD COMPLETED NOT STARTED I01. Optimize meter activity operations Evaluation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) technology Explore web-based options for meter reading and backflow test entry Optimize Global Positioning System (GPS) fleet assignment and routing operation I02. Enhance customer experience (collaboration between Customer Service and Communications) Customer electronic communication and outreach *Customer Information System (CIS)/ CustomerRelationship Management (CRM) validation andreplacement evaluation 8 *Objective has been placed on hold due to COVID-19. Shannon Coffin Meter Services Supervisor ON TARGET NOT ON TARGET ON HOLD COMPLETED NOT STARTED INTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESS | 27 (cont’d) I03. Evaluate and leverage the use of available Human Resources self-service and capital management technology solutions Evaluate on-boarding programs and implement, if determined necessary Implement Human Resource Information System (HRIS) in coordination with payroll conversion Pilot cloud-based human capital performance management system and implement, if determined necessary I04. Maintain a reliable, scalable, secure, and high-performing technology infrastructure to support current and future service needs Adopt National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) cyber security framework and enhance disaster recovery planning Advance business processes and operational efficiencies through effective implementation of information technology Create framework to evaluate cost efficiency of new technology services and cloud vs. on-premise selection Deploy next generation storage services and communication architecture 9 ON TARGET NOT ON TARGET ON HOLD COMPLETED NOT STARTED Theresa KreinbringBusiness Systems Analyst INTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESS | 27 (cont’d) I05. Enhance SCADA system services via SCADA roadmap project Prioritize fourteen strategic project/initiatives, recently developed I06. Enhancement of enterprise geographic data Deploy ArcGIS Pro for 3D analysis Evaluate the use of Drone2Map technology for asset, field inspections, and condition assessment Migrate Geographic Information System (GIS) data structure from geometric network to utility dashboard Standardization of District asset data and collection processINTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESS | 27 (cont’d) 10 Alex Schultz GIS Technician ON TARGET NOT ON TARGET ON HOLD COMPLETED NOT STARTED I07. Enhancement of maintenance and program standards Analyze electric energy-saving programs as they become available Evaluate the effectiveness of various methods to reduce nitrification events Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the District’s valve exercise preventative maintenance including proposed recommendations Evaluate the impacts as a result of recent and upcoming regulatory changes including, but not limited to, Air Pollution Control District (APCD), State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), etc. Establish an access and defensible space vegetation mitigation program with maintenance schedules for District remote facilities, access roads, and off-road appurtenances I08. Enhancement of contracting and facility services Enhance Customer and Public Service security in public lobby areas Evaluate feasibility of incorporating electric and hybrid vehicles into District fleet Streamline contract and purchase order (contract) management and lifecycle 11 Tyrese Powell-Slotterbeck Reclamation Plant Operator II ON TARGET NOT ON TARGET ON HOLD COMPLETED NOT STARTED INTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESS | 27 (cont’d) I09. Enhancement of the Confined Space Program Automate confined space regulatory and work forms (electronic conversion), add confined space data layer in the District’s enterprise Geographic Information System (GIS), and use data to electronically automate the District’s confined space inventory I10. Optimize District’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Confined Space Rescue Team Certify program at Industry State Level and under the Incident Command System, streamline chlorine gas and confined space rescue training, operations, and response and convert inventory lists and equipment logs to electronic form 12 Leonel Torres GIS Analyst ON TARGET NOT ON TARGET ON HOLD COMPLETED NOT STARTED INTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESS | 27 (cont’d) L01. Enhance Leadership and employee training programs, and knowledge transfer process Continue development of leadership and District-wide training programs Review and enhance knowledge transfer process to ensure retention of District knowledge (FY22 Q1) LEARNING AND GROWTH | 2 13 Rosemary DriesSr. Human Resources Analyst ON TARGET NOT ON TARGET ON HOLD COMPLETED NOT STARTED 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 LEARNING AND GROWTH CUSTOMERTRENDS ON TARGET KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FINANCIAL OVERALL TARGET INTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESSES 75% TOTAL KPIs 42 REPORTED QUARTERLY 35 REPORTED ANNUALLY7 10% 4 KPIs NOT ON TARGET 90%38 KPIs RESULT TARGET 4/42 = 10%38/42= 90% 14 98.38%98.43%98.55% 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T ANSWER RATE Target: 97% average answer rate per quarter annually Calculation: Number of all calls answered/Number of all calls received 15 TARGET Kris Holden, Customer Service Rep II, answering a customer call. 3.55 3.51 4.50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TECHNICAL QUALITY COMPLAINT (AWWA) (Customer Service) Target & AWWA: No more than 7.1 complaints per 1000 customer accounts annually 75th Percentile for population served between 100,001-500,000 (combined utilities) Calculation: Number of technical quality complaints per year/Number of active customer accounts per reporting period Peter Grable, Water Systems Operator I,at the 850-2 Pump Station testing water for chlorine and calibrating analyzers based on the result. 16 TARGET & AWWA BENCHMARK 100%100%100% 90% 95% 100% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T POTABLE WATER COMPLIANCE RATE (AWWA) (Water Operations) Target & AWWA: 100% of all health-related drinking water standards per quarter annually 75th Percentile for population served between 100,001-500,000 (water) Calculation: Number of days the primary health regulations are met/Number of days in the reporting period 17 TARGET & AWWA BENCHMARK 104.8% 87.3% 111.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET CIP PROJECT EXPENDITURES VS. BUDGET Target: 95% of budget but not to exceed 100% annually Calculation: Actual Expenditures/Annual budget 18 850-1 Reservoir Completed Exterior Coating 3.1% 5.6% 4.4% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER INCIDENCE Target: No more than 5% annually Calculation: Total cost of Change Orders (not including allowances)/Total original construction contract amount (not including allowances) Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Perimeter Fence Installation 19 TARGET $548.00 $545.00 $545.00 $530 $535 $540 $545 $550 $555 $560 $565 $570 $575 $580 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T O&M COST PER ACCOUNT Target: Less than $575.00 per account annually (based on Operating budget) Calculation: Total operations O&M costs/Number of accounts Allan Raymundo, Lead Customer Service Field Representative, collecting meter reads for a residential neighborhood in Spring Valley. TARGET 20 BILLING ACCURACY (Customer Service) Target: 99.8% billing accuracy per quarter annually Calculation: Number of correct bills/Total number of bills during the reporting period 21 Dana Gutierrez, Customer Service Rep II, reviewing integrity checks to ensure billing accuracy. 99.94%99.99%99.99% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 101% 2019 2020 2021 TARGET YE A R -EN D R E S U L T 129% 72% 106% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120% 125% 130% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T OVERTIME PERCENTAGE Target: Less than 100% of budgeted overtime per quarter annually (based on Operating budget and historical trends; FY21 Overtime budget is $182,300) Calculation: Actual overtime costs (including comp time)/Budgeted overtime costs Utility Maintenance staff completing a service replacement (left to right: German Garcia and Silas Hess). 22 TARGET 3 5 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T SEWER RATE RANKING Calculation: Ranking for the average monthly sewer bill Amy Pinion,Accountant,reviewing sewer rate ranking information. Target: Bottom 50th percentile for the 28 sewer service providers in San Diego (Otay ranks 5th out of 28 sewer service providers) 23 TARGET 3 5 5 0 5 10 15 20 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T WATER RATE RANKING Calculation: Ranking for the average monthly water bill among CWA member agencies Target: Bottom 50th percentile for the 22 member agencies in San Diego (Otay ranks 5th out of 22 member agencies) Hannah Tamjidi, Finance Department Assistant, preparing the budget book. 24 TARGET 165% 188% 272% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% 220% 240% 260% 280% 300% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T WATER DEBT COVERAGE RATIO Target: 150% excluding growth revenue annually TARGET 25 Calculation: Qualified net operating revenues/Debt service requirements 458-2 Reservoir Tank 1241% 371% 50% 250% 450% 650% 850% 1050% 1250% 1450% 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T SEWER DEBT COVERAGE RATIO Target: 150% excluding growth revenue annually TARGET 26 Calculation: Qualified net operating revenues/Debt service requirements Brandon Perry, Senior Utility Worker/Equipment Operator,holding a CCTV camera, which is used to inspect the District’s collection system. RESERVE LEVEL 100%100% 85% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T Target: No less than 85% annually (Otay Water District has 7 reserve funds) TARGET 27 Calculation: Number of reserve funds that meet or exceed fund target levels/Total number of reserve funds Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer, discussing budget with staff. ACCOUNTS PER FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE (FTE) Annual Measure: 407 accounts per FTE annually Calculation: Potable + Recycled + Sewer Accounts/Number of FTEs Raisa Arias, Permit Technician, reviewing mylars for a project. 410 410 408 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T 28 *Annual measure 78.67%80.47%82.71% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T PERCENT OF CUSTOMERS PAYING BILLS ELECTRONICALLY Target: No less than 75% per quarter annually Calculation: Number of customers paying bills electronically/Total number of customers District customer making an online bill payment. 29 TARGET 3.6%3.8%3.9% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOSS Target: Less than 5%of unaccounted water annually 30 TARGET Calculation: Volume purchased from CWA, City of San Diego & RWCTP Production –volume sold to customers + volume used by District/Volume purchased from CWA, City of San Diego & RWCTP Production Stephen Martinez, Lead Meter Maintenance/Cross Connection Worker, testing a large water meter to ensure accuracy. 74% 77% 66% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T PLANNED POTABLE WATER MAINTENANCE RATIO IN $ Target: 66% of all labor costs spent on preventative maintenance per quarter annually Calculation: Total Planned Maintenance Cost/Total Maintenance Cost 31 TARGET Silas Hess, Sr. Utility Worker/Equipment Operator,connecting a customer’s meter after pulling a new copper service. 74% 70% 55% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T PLANNED RECYCLED WATER MAINTENANCE RATIO IN $ Target: 70% of all labor costs spent on preventative maintenance per quarter annually 32 TARGET Calculation: Total Planned Maintenance Cost/Total Maintenance Cost 680/944 Recycled Pump Station 84% 92%93% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T PLANNED WASTEWATER MAINTENANCE RATIO IN $ Target: 77% of all labor costs spent on preventative maintenance per quarter annually Calculation: Total Planned Maintenance Cost/Total Maintenance Cost Aerial view of the Ralph W. Chapman Recycling Plant 33 TARGET $1,071.66 $996.29 $1,374.69 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T DIRECT COST OF TREATMENT PER MGD Calculation: Total O&M costs directly attributable to sewer treatment/Total volume in MG for one quarter 34 Target: No more than $1,050 per MGD spent on wastewater treatment annually TARGET Rob Leigh, Lead Reclamation Plant Operator, checking clarity and particulates of a final effluent sample. LEAK DETECTION PROGRAM Target: 20% of system surveyed for leaks annually 20%20%20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T Calculation: Miles of potable pipe surveyed/Total miles of potable pipe The District’s contractor lowering a See Snake to begin assessment on a 14” main above Sweetwater Lake. TARGET 35 INJURY INCIDENT RATE Target: No more than 4.1 injury incidents per 200,000 hours worked annually (based on Department of Labor average for similar-size water agencies) 4.4 2.9 2.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET 36 Calculation: (Number of recordable injuries/illnesses x 200,000 average hours worked)/total hours employees worked Utility Maintenance staff entering an excavation to complete a service replacement (left to right: David Rocha and Silas Hess). ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES AVAILABILITY Target: No less than 99.5% availability 99.5%99.5%99.5% 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T Calculation: 3.60 hours of downtime per month/ 1.83 days per year TARGET 37 Michael Christensen, Network Engineer, monitoring servers in the District’s data center. 99.96%100.00%100.00% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T MARK-OUT ACCURACY Target: 100% mark-out accuracy per quarter annually Calculation: Number of mark-outs performed without an at-fault hit, which is damage to a District facility that results from a missing or erroneous mark-out/Total number of mark-outs Gus Gracia, Sr. Utility Locator, conducting a mark-out. 38 TARGET 37.0 37.3 32.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T PROJECT CLOSEOUT TIME Target: 45-day average annually Calculation: Number of days between NOSC and NOC for all construction projects within the quarter/ Number of construction projects within the quarter 39 TARGET Ralph W. Chapman Reclamation Facility Recycled Water Storage Tank 100.00%100.00%100.00% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T ANNUAL RECYCLED WATER SITE INSPECTIONS Target: 100% of recycled sites inspected annually (125 recycled water sites scheduled for FY21) Calculation: Cumulative percentage of recycled water sites inspected per quarter of those required by DEH 40 TARGET Juan Tamayo, Recycled Water Program Supervisor, at a recycled water site in Chula Vista. 100% 96% 100% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T Calculation: Cumulative percentage of recycled site shutdown tests performed per year compared to those scheduled RECYCLED WATER SHUTDOWN TESTING Target: 90% of recycled site shutdown tests performed annually (61 recycled water sites scheduled for shutdown in FY21, 90% = 55 sites) 41 Tanya Ayala-Mason, Recycled Water Specialist, conducting a shutdown test at Veterans Elementary in Chula Vista. TARGET 129% 188% 111% 50% 70% 90% 110% 130% 150% 170% 190% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T EASEMENT EVALUATION AND FIELD INSPECTION Target: 100% assigned easements, evaluated via desktop tools, and inspected annually (100 easements were assigned for FY21) 42 TARGET Calculation: Number of easements evaluated and inspected/Total easements assigned for the period Aaron Hazard, Construction Inspector II, conducting an easement evaluation. 99% 96% 99% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T PERCENT OF PM’S COMPLETED –FLEET MAINTENANCE Target: 90% of scheduled preventative maintenance completed per quarter annually 43 TARGET Calculation: Number of PM’s completed/Number of PM’s scheduled Abraham Yanez, Equipment Mechanic II, performing maintenance on an air relief valve for a vactor truck. 98% 100%100% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T PERCENT OF PM’S COMPLETED –RECLAMATION PLANT Target: 90% of scheduled preventative maintenance completed each quarter annually Calculation: Number of PM’s completed/Number of PM’s scheduled 44 TARGET Tyrese Powell-Slotterbeck, Reclamation Plant Operator II, moving chlorine gas containers after a delivery. 100%100%100% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T PERCENT OF PM’S COMPLETED –PUMP/ELECTRIC SECTION Target: 90% of scheduled preventative maintenance completed per quarter annually Calculation: Number of PM’s completed/Number of PM’s scheduled Motor Control Center at the 803-1 Pump Station 45 TARGET 3298 3319 4723 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T SYSTEM VALVE EXERCISING PROGRAM Target: 3,080 valves exercised annually Calculation: Total number of valves exercised per year 46 TARGET The District’s valve exercising truck 8.44 7.61 15.16 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2019 2020 2021 AWWA BENCHMARK YE A R -EN D R E S U L T POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM INTEGRITY (Water Operations) Target: No more than 16 leaks and breaks per 100 miles of distribution system annually AWWA: 16.1 leaks and breaks per 100 miles of distribution system (50th percentile Potable Water System Integrity: Leaks and Breaks for population served between 100,000-500,000) Calculation: [100 (annual total number of leaks + annual total number of breaks)] /total miles of distribution piping Lawrence Garcia, Water Systems Operator III, at the 850-2 Pump Station. 47 TARGET 4.45 0.96 3.80 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM INTEGRITY Target: No more than 6.6 leaks and breaks per 100 miles of recycled distribution system annually 48 TARGET Calculation: (100 x Number of leaks and breaks)/Number of miles of recycled distribution system 680/944 Recycled Pump Station 1.14 1.14 1.14 0 1 2 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T SEWER OVERFLOW RATE (AWWA) (Wastewater Operations) Target & AWWA: 0 overflows per quarter 75th Percentile for Sewer Overflow rate for population served between 0-50,000 Calculation: 100 x Total number of sewer overflows during the reporting period/Total miles of pipe in the sewage collection system Brandon Perry, Senior Utility Worker/Equipment Operator,operating and documenting the condition of the collection system. 49 TARGET & AWWA BENCHMARK is 0 94% 72% 100% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T EMERGENCY FACILITY POWER TESTING Target: Test 100% of all facilities scheduled per quarter to have all emergency facilities tested annually (36 powered ready facilities) Calculation: Number of facilities tested/Total number of facilities Emergency standby genset at the Cottonwood Sewer Lift Station 50 TARGET 7 11 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T POTABLE TANK INSPECTION AND CLEANING Target: 8 potable water storage tanks and/or reservoirs cleaned annually Calculation: Total number of tanks cleaned and inspected annually 1485-2 Reservoir Tank 51 TARGET 216 429 580 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T MAIN FLUSHING AND HYDRANT MAINTENANCE Target: 215 mains flushed and fire hydrants maintained annually Calculation: Total number of mains flushed and fire hydrants maintained per year Vince Brown, Utility Worker II, exercising a hydrant valve and flushing a hydrant at the same time. 52 TARGET 631 631 631 5 105 205 305 405 505 605 705 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T CRITICAL VALVE EXERCISING Target: 631 critical valves exercised annually Calculation: Total number of critical valves exercised in a year Luis Zavala, Utility Worker I, exercising a District valve. 53 TARGET 3.77% 2.19%2.16% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T EMPLOYEE VOLUNTARY TURNOVER RATE (Organizational Development) 54 TARGET Target: Less than 5% turnover annually Calculation: Number of voluntary terminations (not including retirements)/Average number of employees Engineering staff at an employee appreciation lunch (left to right: Aaron Hazard, Gus Gracia, Joanna Galvan, and Jeff Edwards). 26.84 59.90 16.49 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TRAINING HOURS PER EMPLOYEE (Organizational Development) Calculation: Total qualified training hours for all employees/Average number of FTEs 55 TARGET Target: 12 hours per employee annually Eileen Salmeron, Communications Assistant, completing an online cybersecurity awareness training. 35.44 79.04 28.40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 2019 2020 2021 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T SAFETY TRAINING PROGRAM Target: 24 hours per field employee annually Calculation: Total qualified safety training hours for field employees/Average number of field employees Steven Farr, Equipment Mechanic II, at a CPR training held at the District. 56 TARGET QUESTIONS? https://otaywater.gov/about-otay/news-and-documents/strategic-plan/ STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Andrea Carey, Customer Service Manager Tenille Otero, Communications Officer PROJECT: DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: 2021 Drought Update GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: This is an information item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: N/A PURPOSE: To update the Board on the current drought situation in California and previous actions taken during the last drought. ANALYSIS: On April 21,2021, Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a drought emergency covering the Russian River Watershed of Sonoma and Mendocino counties. On May 10,2021, Governor Newsom expanded the drought emergency to include the Klamath River, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and Tulare Lake Watershed. On July 8, 2021, the Governor expanded his drought emergency proclamation to nine additional counties, not including San Diego County. Currently, 50 of California’s 58 counties are under a drought emergency declaration. Also, on July 8, Governor Newsom called on all Californians to voluntarily reduce water use by 15%. AGENDA ITEM 8e 2 2014-2016 Drought Response In January 2014, then Governor Jerry Brown declared a drought emergency in California. On July 15, 2014, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) set emergency conservation regulations implementing water restrictions for all Californians and mandating all urban suppliers implement their water shortage plans at a level that triggers mandatory restrictions on outdoor water use. On August 6, 2014, the District declared a Water Shortage Response Level 2, which called for the following mandatory conservation measures: •Irrigate landscape before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. •Do not wash down paved surfaces. •Prevent water runoff or overspray. •Use of hand-held hose only if fitted with a positive shut-off nozzle. •Wash vehicles using a bucket and held-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or at a commercial site that reclaims water onsite. •Use only fountains that recirculate water. •Limit residential and commercial irrigation to three days per week, 15 minutes per watering station. Properties using water efficient irrigation products are exempt. •Use recycled or non-potable water for construction purposes when available. In 2015, for the first time in its history, mandatory conservation of potable urban water use was put into place throughout the state. Although the San Diego region had spent years building a drought- resilient water supply and had sufficient water supplies, the state assigned the District a mandatory conservation target of 20% over 2013 usage levels. In response to the state mandate, staff implemented the following outreach methods: •Phone calls and emails to all District customers notifying them of the state’s mandate •Letters to the District’s top 10% of residential users •Letters to all potable commercial irrigation customers •Conservation message on the outside of the bill envelopes •Conservation messages in the Pipeline newsletter, social media, the website, and other materials 3 •Bill inserts communicating drought updates and conservation messaging •Online target usage tracker •Leak alarm notifications •Water waste tracking app and door hangers for individuals violating conservation regulations •Outreach events at the Water Conservation Garden •Discussions with numerous homeowners and commercial customers on watering restrictions and rebate programs •Hired a San Diego County Water Authority (CWA) intern to assist with outreach and develop updated educational materials •Coordinated consistent drought messaging with CWA staff In addition, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and CWA expanded conservation rebate programs, especially for turf rebate programs. Throughout the drought period, the District discussed implementing a variety of additional ideas to encourage conservation such as drought rates, penalties for water waste, and changes to the customer bill with individual conservation targets. However, customer response to drought messaging from the District, county, and state was sufficient and overall customer conservation surpassed conservation goals. The total conservation rate was 17% from January 2015 through June 2016 compared to 2013 usage. By May 2016, the SWRCB replaced its state mandated conservation target method with a supply-based approach. CWA was allowed to certify supply sufficiency for all member agencies that it had enough supply for at least another three dry years. On July 6, 2016, the District ended its Water Shortage Response Level 2 and approved changes to Section 39, Drought Response Conservation Program, to create certain permanent conservation measures as required by the state. At all times, the following practices shall be in effect: •Prevent water waste resulting from inefficient irrigation, such as runoff or overspray. Similarly, stop water flows onto non- targeted areas, such as adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, hardscapes, roadways, and structures. •Serve and refill water in restaurants and other food service establishments only upon request. •Offer guests in hotels, motels, and other commercial lodging establishments the option of not laundering towels and linens daily. •Use only recirculated water in fountains or other decorative water features. 4 •Wash automobiles with a hose equipped only with a positive shut- off nozzle. •Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians only with recycled water. •Repair all water leaks within forty-eight (48) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the General Manager or designee. •Irrigation is not allowed during a rainstorm or for forty-eight (48) hours after one-quarter inch or more of rainfall is measured at Lindbergh Field. •No washing down of paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or patios, except when it is necessary to alleviate safety or sanitation hazards. Current Drought Updates In response to the extreme drought conditions impacting Southern California, on August 17, 2021, MWD’s board declared a Water Supply Alert, calling for consumers and businesses to voluntarily reduce their water use and help preserve the region’s storage reserves. The declaration came a day after the Bureau of Reclamation declared a first-ever shortage on the Colorado River, which typically provides about 25% of Southern California’s water needs. A Water Supply Alert is the third of four conditions in MWD’s framework indicating the urgency of Southern California’s need to save water. The action calls for water agencies to reduce their water demand through public awareness campaigns and by adopting measures tailored to their own local conditions. MWD’s declaration seeks to avoid the need for more severe actions, including moving to the fourth and final stage in its framework, a Water Supply Allocation, through which it would implement higher rates for increased use among its member agencies. In late August, MWD launched a multilingual conservation advertising campaign, which includes radio spots in English and Spanish, digital billboards, transit shelters, and social media. The campaign was originally set to run through mid-October, but MWD staff will request more funds from its board to run the campaign through the spring. CWA continues to monitor local conditions in San Diego County but has not yet declared any levels from its Water Shortage Contingency Plan. San Diego precipitation is 49% of normal and local reservoir storage is at 46% of capacity. Temperature tends to drive water use. San Diego temperatures have been above normal for 22 of the last 23 months. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 5 Administration (NOAA), the three-month seasonal precipitation outlook for Southern California as of September 16, 2021, is 33-40% below normal. The seasonal temperature outlook shows Southern California as 33-44% hotter than normal for the next three months. CWA continues to encourage voluntary conservation and is planning for Level 1 enhanced outreach of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan if necessary. CWA is providing numerous tools to its water agencies to enhance water sustainability, including free water-use check-ups for homes and businesses, along with rebates for WaterSmart upgrades. CWA is also running social and digital conservation-related ads throughout the fall. CWA recently provided member agencies with a “Top 10 Ways to Live WaterSmart” tip sheet and content for social media posts. District staff has leveraged CWA’s programs and resources and continues to promote its conservation and rebate programs to District customers through the Pipeline newsletter, the website, social media, bill inserts, and other promotional materials. CWA continues its drought advocacy, meeting with top administration officials handling the state’s drought response and preparedness. CWA staff remains optimistic that through its education and outreach efforts, the SWRCB will consider using something other than the 2020 baseline as 2020 was a wetter than average year. CWA is also encouraging the SWRCB to consider factors like bounce back from the last drought, gallons per capita per day (GPCD), demand hardening, people spending more time at home due to COVID-19, as well as other considerations. The District’s updated Water Shortage Contingency Plan, approved by the Board in June 2021, includes six standard stages, which corresponds to the CWA’s six stages, allowing agencies like the District to align their response actions with the CWA. The District’s six standard water shortage levels correspond to progressively increasing estimated shortage conditions: •Level 1 up to 10% - Voluntary Measures •Level 2 up to 20% - Mandatory Measures •Level 3 up to 30% - Mandatory Measures •Level 4 up to 40% - Mandatory Measures •Level 5 up to 50% - Mandatory Measures •Level 6 >50% - Emergency Shortage Measures Level 1 may be declared by the District’s General Manager. The existence of Level 2, 3, 4, or 5 conditions may be declared by resolution of the District Board. These stages can be triggered when there is water deficiency caused by limitations on supply or by limitations on the District’s delivery system. 6 From February through August 2021, the District’s average usage was 9.6% lower than 2013 usage. In January 2021, due to an unusually hot and dry month, usage was 10% higher than January 2013 usage. As drought conditions continue to change weekly, staff will continue to monitor the current drought situation at the state and the local levels. FISCAL IMPACT: Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer None as this report is informational only. STRATEGIC GOAL: Actively manage water supply and demand. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: Attachment A – Water Shortage Contingency Plan Attachment B – PowerPoint Presentation Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan Prepared by WSC Inc. & Otay Water District 6/30/2021 Attachment A i Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 Water Supply Reliability Analysis ...................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures ........................................................... 2 2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.2.2 Water Supply ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.2.3 Unconstrained Customer Demand ........................................................................................... 2 2.2.4 Planned Water Use for Current Year Considering Dry Subsequent Year ................................. 3 2.2.5 Infrastructure Considerations ................................................................................................... 3 2.2.6 Other Factors ............................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 Six Standard Water Shortage Stages ................................................................................................. 3 4.0 Shortage Response Actions ............................................................................................................... 4 5.0 Communication Protocols ............................................................................................................... 10 6.0 Compliance and Enforcement ......................................................................................................... 12 7.0 Legal Authorities ............................................................................................................................. 12 8.0 Financial Consequences of WSCP ................................................................................................... 13 9.0 Monitoring and Reporting .............................................................................................................. 14 10.0 WSCP Refinement Procedures ........................................................................................................ 14 11.0 Special Water Feature Distinction .................................................................................................. 14 12.0 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability ..................................................................................... 15 ii List of Tables Table 1. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels (DWR Table 8-1R) ......................................................... 4 Table 2. Supply Augmentation Actions (DWR Table 8-3) ............................................................................. 6 Table 3. Demand Reduction Actions (DWR Table 8-2) ................................................................................ 7 Table 4. Communication Plan Outline ....................................................................................................... 11 Table 5. City and County Coordination on Proclamation of Emergencies ................................................. 12 Abbreviation or Acronym Meaning Cal-Am California American Water District Otay Water District DMM Demand Management Measure DWR California Department of Water Resources ECRTWIP East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program ERP Emergency Response Plan ESP Emergency Storage Project mgd Million gallons per day MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquistion UWMP Urban Water Management Plan Water Authority San Diego County Water Authority WD Water District WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan WTP Water Treatment Plant Appendix 1 District Ordinance Section 39 Appendix 2 Board Resolution Adopting the WSCP Appendix 3 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 1 In 1988, the Otay Water District (WD) Board of Directors established a comprehensive water conservation program pursuant to California Water Code Sections 375 et seq., based upon the need to conserve water supplies and to avoid or minimize the effects of any future water supply shortage. The District’s water conservation ordinance specified that the conditions prevailing in the San Diego County area require that the available water resources be put to maximum beneficial use to the extent to which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use, of water be prevented. This document represents the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) adopted by the Otay Water District (District). The document follows the structure recommended in guidance documents prepared by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The numbering of Sections 1 through 12 corresponds with the numbered sections in the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Guidebook. In 2018, new legislation expanded the required elements of a WSCP. The District has prepared this updated WSCP to meet these requirements and is adopting it alongside its 2020 UWMP. The WSCP is a separate document from the UWMP. The District will continue to monitor the effectiveness of this WSCP, and if the need arises to modify this plan, the District will follow the update procedures described in Section 12. This section provides a summary of the supply reliability analysis presented in the UWMP and highlights key issues that could create a shortage condition. The District’s supplies have a high degree of reliability. The District obtains 100 percent of its potable water supplies from the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority). The availability of sufficient imported and regional potable water supplies to serve existing and planned uses within the District is demonstrated in the UWMPs for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and the Water Authority. The County Water Authority Act, Section 5 subdivision 11, states that the Water Authority “as far as practicable, shall provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of water to meet their expanding and increasing needs.” The Water Authority and its member agencies continue to make great strides to develop a more drought-resilient mix of water resources, thereby increasing the region’s ability to manage and avoid shortage situations. The Water Authority has evaluated the reliability of its supplies and found that it will be able to meet projected demands during normal years, dry years, or multiple dry years. Chapter 7 of the District’s UWMP presents a supply reliability analysis for a five-year dry period. This analysis shows that the District could continue to meet demands with water supplied by the Water Authority. Although that analysis demonstrates that the District’s urban water supply is reliable, there are potential issues that could create a shortage condition. These include: •An extended drought more severe than historic events, possibly impacted by climate change. •An extended and wide-spread power outage caused by a natural disaster or malevolent acts. •Regulatory mandates to reduce water use. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2 Water shortage contingency planning provides a way to plan for these risks and anticipate actions that should be implemented to manage the impacts. This plan describes how the District intends to respond to such shortage events. The District will be required to prepare an Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment, referred to by DWR as the Annual Assessment, and submit it to DWR each year, beginning July 1, 2022. The Annual Assessment is intended to meet requirements of Water Code Section 10632.1 and present an assessment of the likelihood of a water shortage occurring during the next 12 months. This section of the WSCP outlines the procedures that the District will use to prepare the Annual Assessment. The procedures defined in this section will allow the District to follow a consistent annual procedure for making the determination of whether to activate the WSCP. Decision Making Process The District will coordinate its efforts with the Water Authority, which will also prepare an Annual Assessment each year. The District will use the following procedures in preparing the Annual Assessment. 1.In April of each year, District staff will coordinate with Water Authority staff to gather the necessary information to complete the assessment. This information will include the status of imported water supplies and recent demand data. 2.In May of each year, District staff will determine whether adoption of a shortage response level should be presented to the District’s Board of Directors for consideration. 3.In June of each year, District staff will complete the Annual Assessment and submit it to DWR. This timeline is preliminary and may be modified as new information becomes available. Data and Methodologies This section describes the data and methodologies that will be used by the District to evaluate water system reliability for the coming year, while considering that the year to follow could be dry. 2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria The District will rely on locally applicable criteria for each Annual Assessment. These criteria will primarily be based on coordination with the Water Authority and its assessment of water supply availability. 2.2.2 Water Supply The District’s anticipated supplies will be quantified for the near-term future, and descriptive text will be used to note any anticipated reductions in supply. 2.2.3 Unconstrained Customer Demand The District will prepare an estimate of unconstrained demand (as the term is used in Water Code Section 10632(a)(2)(B)(i)). The estimated demand will be calculated using the demand projection approach described in the UWMP, in combination with updated data for connections, climate, changes in land use, and recent water usage history. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 3 2.2.4 Planned Water Use for Current Year Considering Dry Subsequent Year The District will describe the anticipated use of water supplies for the coming year, with the anticipation that the following year will be dry. The supplies will be characterized in a manner consistent with the UWMP, in combination with updated data for climate and recent observations. 2.2.5 Infrastructure Considerations The District will describe any potential infrastructure constraints on the ability to deliver adequate supplies to meet expected customer demands in the coming year. The District will show that its system of pipelines, pump stations, and storage tanks have adequate capacity to deliver the anticipated demands. The District will describe any anticipated capital projects that are intended to address constraints in production, treatment, or distribution. 2.2.6 Other Factors The District will describe any specific locally applicable factors that could influence or disrupt supplies. The District will also describe unique local considerations that are considered as part of the annual assessment. Since the preparation of the 2015 UWMP, the Water Code has been amended to define six standard shortage levels. The six standard water shortage levels correspond to progressively increasing estimated shortage conditions (up to 10-, 20-, 30-, 40-, 50- percent, and greater than 50-percent shortage compared to the normal reliability condition). If an agency elects to retain an existing set of shortage levels from its previous WSCP, then the document must provide a crosswalk to relate the existing stages to the six standard stages. The District has elected to update its WSCP to include the six standard stages. The Water Authority’s 2020 WSCP also uses the six standard stages, allowing the agencies to align their response actions. All normal water efficiency programs and water conservation regulations shall remain in force during any stage unless the Board directs otherwise. Wholesale Shortage Levels The District is not a wholesale supplier, and therefore this section is not applicable. Retail Shortage Levels The District’s shortage levels are identified in Table 1. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 4 Table 1. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels (DWR Table 8-1R) Submittal Table 8-1: Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels Shortage Level Percent Shortage Range Shortage Response Actions 1 Up to 10% Voluntary measures described in Table 3 2 Up to 20% Mandatory measures described in Table 3 3 Up to 30% Mandatory measures described in Table 3 4 Up to 40% Mandatory measures described in Table 3 5 Up to 50% Mandatory measures described in Table 3 6 > 50%Emergency shortage measures described in Table 3 The existence of Level 1 may be declared by the District’s General Manager. The existence of Level 2, 3, 4, or 5 conditions may be declared by resolution of the District Board of Directors. These stages can be triggered when there is water deficiency caused by limitations on supply or by limitations on the District’s delivery system. The plan shall be implemented in case of a long or short- term water deficiency, or in case of an emergency water shortage. Higher stages will be implemented as shortages continue and/or if customer response does not bring about desired water savings. Each level represents an anticipated reduction in the supplies that would normally be available to the agency. These supply reductions could be the result of a variety of potential causes including natural forces, system component failure or interruption, regulatory actions, contamination, or any combination thereof. The stages involve voluntary and mandatory conservation measures and restrictions, depending on the causes, severity, and anticipated duration of the water supply shortage. The locally appropriate shortage response actions that would be taken at each level to address the resulting gap between supplies and demands are described in the following section. This section describes the shortage response actions that would be taken by the District at each shortage level. These actions have been grouped into categories including: •Supply Augmentation Actions •Demand Reduction Actions and Mandatory Use Restrictions •Operational Changes Supply Augmentation For long-range planning, the District continues to evaluate opportunities to increase supply reliability. These programs are described in detail in the water supply section of the UWMP. The District continues to pursue diversification of its water supply resources to increase reliability and flexibility. The District also continues to plan, design, and construct potable water system facilities to obtain these supplies and to distribute potable water to meet customer demands. The District has Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 5 successfully negotiated two water supply diversification agreements that enhance reliability and flexibility, which are briefly described as follows. •The District entered into an agreement with the City of San Diego, known as the Otay Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Agreement. The Otay WTP Agreement provides for raw water purchase from the Water Authority and treatment by the City of San Diego at their Otay WTP for delivery to Otay WD. The supply system link to implement the Otay WTP Agreement to access the regions raw water supply system and the local water treatment plant became fully operational in August 2005 and was improved in 2021. This supply link consists of the typical storage, transmission, pumping, flow measurement, and appurtenances to receive and transport the treated water to the District’s system. The City of San Diego obligation to supply 10 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated water under the Otay WTP Agreement is contingent upon there being available 10 mgd of surplus treatment capacity in the Otay WTP until such time as District pays the City of San Diego to expand the Otay WTP to meet the Otay WD future needs. In the event that the City of San Diego’s surplus is projected to be less than 10 mgd the City of San Diego will consider and not unreasonably refuse the expansion of the Otay WTP to meet the Otay WD future needs. The Otay WTP existing rated capacity is 40 mgd with an actual effective capacity of approximately 34 mgd. The City of San Diego’s typical demand for treated water from the Otay WTP is approximately 20 mgd. It is at the City of San Diego’s discretion to utilize either imported raw water delivered by the Water Authority Pipeline No. 3 or local water stored in Lower Otay Reservoir for treatment to supply the District’s demand. •The District entered into an agreement with the Water Authority, known as the East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program (ECRTWIP Agreement). The ECRTWIP Agreement provides for transmission of raw water to the Helix WD R. M. Levy WTP for treatment and delivery to the District. The supply system link to implement the ECRTWIP Agreement is complete allowing access to the region’s raw water supply system and the local water treatment plant. This supply link consists of the typical transmission, pumping, storage, flow control, and appurtenances to receive and transport the potable water from the R. M. Levy WTP to the District. The District has also invested in emergency storage capacity. The District has established a goal to sustain a 10‐day outage of supply from the Water at any time of the year without a reduction in service level. The District seeks to obtain this level of supply reliability through the development of alternative water supplies, through agreements with neighboring water districts, and through treated water storage. For emergency events longer than the 10‐day aqueduct shutdowns noted previously, the District will utilize emergency supplies developed by Water Authority’s Emergency Storage Project (ESP). The ESP is designed to provide treated water service to all Water Authority member agencies during a two‐month interruption in service of imported water deliveries into San Diego County. The ESP is sized to deliver up to 75 percent of each agency’s peak two‐month summer demand. The key facilities of the ESP include the Olivenhain Dam and Conveyance System, the Lake Hodges Interconnect, the San Vicente‐Miramar Pipeline, the San Vicente Pump Station, and the expansion of San Vicente Reservoir capacity. Another supply diversification approach is interconnections with neighboring agencies. There are several existing emergency interconnections with neighboring agency systems that can provide relatively small quantities of water to benefit the District, the other agency or both. These connections are typically used when performing shutdowns within specific localized pressure zones for planned Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 6 operational circumstances or in the event of an emergency within an agency unrelated to Water Authority’s system operations. In many cases, the interconnections are at different operating pressures requiring the District to install temporary pumping facilities to fully utilize. The District has eight existing minor interconnections with the Helix WD, all eight of which are capable of supplying the District with water. The District has eight existing minor interconnection with Sweetwater Authority, one of which is capable of supplying the District with water. The District has one existing minor interconnection with Cal‐American (Cal‐Am) that is capable of supplying this private water company with water. The District has seven existing minor interconnections with the City of San Diego, six of which are capable of supplying the District with water. The supply augmentation actions are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Supply Augmentation Actions (DWR Table 8-3) Submittal Table 8-3: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions Shortage Level Supply Augmentation Methods and Other Actions by Water Supplier How much is this going to reduce the shortage gap? Additional Explanation or Reference All Other purchases Medium Water purchase from City of San Diego All Stored emergency supply Medium Otay WD storage and Water Authority ESP Demand Reduction Actions and Mandatory Use Restrictions The District offers various rebates and programs to encourage conservation. These measures are described in detail in Chapter 9 of the District’s UWMP, which describes Demand Management Measures (DMMs). The demand reduction actions that will be implemented at each shortage level are shown in Table 3. The format of Table 3 is based on the standard submittal table defined by DWR. The column titled, “Penalty, Charge, or Enforcement” is a Yes/No field to characterize whether there is a penalty, charge, or enforcement action associated with implementing the demand reduction action. This field is a required field in the standard submittal table defined by DWR. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 7 Table 3. Demand Reduction Actions (DWR Table 8-2) Submittal Table 8-2: Demand Reduction Actions Shortage Level Demand Reduction Actions How much is this going to reduce the shortage gap? Additional Explanation or Reference Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement? All Landscape - Restrict or prohibit runoff from landscape irrigation N/A Prevent water waste resulting from inefficient irrigation, such as runoff or overspray. Similarly, stop water flows onto non-targeted areas, such as adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, hardscapes, roadways, or structures. Yes All CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon request N/A Serve and refill water in restaurants and other food service establishments only upon request. Yes All CII - Lodging establishment must offer opt out of linen service N/A Offer guests in hotels, motels, and other commercial lodging establishments the option of not laundering towels and linens daily. Yes All Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains N/A Use only re-circulated water in fountains or other decorative water features. Yes All Other - Require automatic shut of hoses N/A Wash automobiles with a hose equipped only with a positive shut-off nozzle. Yes All Landscape - Prohibit certain types of landscape irrigation N/A Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians only with recycled water if available. Yes All Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner N/A Repair all water leaks within forty-eight (48) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the General Manager or designee. Yes All Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition N/A Irrigation is not allowed during a rainstorm or for forty-eight (48) hours after one-quarter inch or more of rainfall is measured at Lindbergh Field. Yes All Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard surfaces N/A No washing down of paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or patios, except when it is necessary to alleviate safety or sanitation hazards. Yes 1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Medium Irrigate residential and commercial landscape before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Customers are to water no more than three days a week using the suggested watering schedule as found on the District’s web page. New plantings and newly seeded areas are exempt for 30 days. No 1 Other - Require automatic shut of hoses Low Use a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle or bucket to water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties that are not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system. No 1 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Medium Irrigate nursery and commercial grower’s products before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Watering is permitted at any time with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a bucket, or when a drip/micro-irrigation system/equipment is used. Irrigation of nursery propagation beds is permitted at any time. Watering of livestock is permitted at any time. No 1 Other Low Wash vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, farm equipment, trailers, boats and boat engines and motorhomes using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system, or at a commercial site that re-circulates (reclaims) water on-site. Vehicle washing is limited to once per week. No 1 Other Medium Use recycled or non-potable water for construction purposes when available. No 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Medium Irrigate residential and commercial landscape before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Customers are to water no more than three days a week using the suggested watering schedule as found on the District’s web page. New plantings and newly seeded areas are exempt for 30 days. Yes 2 Other - Require automatic shut of hoses Low Use a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle or bucket to water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties that are not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system. Yes 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific times Medium Irrigate nursery and commercial grower’s products before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Watering is permitted at any time with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a bucket, or when a drip/micro-irrigation system/equipment is used. Irrigation of nursery propagation beds is permitted at any time. Watering of livestock is permitted at any time. Yes 2 Other Low Wash vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, farm equipment, trailers, boats and boat engines and motorhomes using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system, or at a commercial site that re-circulates (reclaims) water on-site. Vehicle washing is limited to once per week. Yes 2 Other Medium Use recycled or non-potable water for construction purposes when available. Yes Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 8 Submittal Table 8-2: Demand Reduction Actions Shortage Level Demand Reduction Actions How much is this going to reduce the shortage gap? Additional Explanation or Reference Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement? 2 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific days Medium Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than three (3) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. Yes 2 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium Limit lawn watering and landscape irrigation using sprinklers to no more than ten (10) minutes per watering station per day. Yes 2 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above by using a bucket, hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. Yes 2 Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains Low Stop operating fountains or similar decorative water features unless recycled water is used. Yes 3 Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific days Medium Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than two (2) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. Yes 3 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. Yes 3 Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or recirculating water Low Stop washing vehicles except at commercial carwashes that re-circulate water. Yes 3 Moratorium or Net Zero Demand Increase on New Connections Medium The District will suspend consideration of annexations to its service area. Yes 3 Implement or Modify Drought Rate Structure or Surcharge High The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District. Yes 4 Water Features - Restrict water use for decorative water features, such as fountains Low Stop filling or re-filling ornamental lakes or ponds, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life. Yes 5 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Medium Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries, subject to some exceptions specified in the ordinance. Yes 5 Other - Customers must repair leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in a timely manner Medium Repair all water leaks within twenty-four (24) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the District. Yes 5 Moratorium or Net Zero Demand Increase on New Connections Medium No new potable water service shall be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters shall be provided and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as, will serve letters, certificates, or letters of availability) shall be issued, except under certain circumstances. Yes 6 Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition High Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries, subject to some exceptions specified in the ordinance. Yes Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 9 Operational Changes The District has identified operational changes that could be made to help address a short-term gap between demands and available supplies. These include: •Improved monitoring and analysis of customer water usage. •Reductions in flushing of hydrants and dead-end lines. •Increased leak detection throughout the distribution system. •Expediting planned system improvement projects that include reduction in water loss (e.g., replacement of water mains that are experiencing higher rates of leaks and breaks). Additional Mandatory Restrictions The District has identified a series of restrictions that will be implemented at different shortage levels. These prohibitions are identified in Ordinance Section 39 and are included in the demand reduction actions in Table 3. Emergency Response Plan The Water Code requires that an agency’s WSCP address catastrophic water shortages and plans to address them. This information can be addressed in the agency’s Emergency Response Plan (ERP). Each agency’s ERP can contain sensitive information related to potential vulnerabilities or impacts of natural disasters or malevolent acts. Therefore, these documents are not typically made publicly available. Major hazards that can degrade the quality and/ or impact the quantity of water available to the District’s water system include: regional power outages, earthquakes, chemical spills, and terrorist acts. Some of these hazards could also adversely impact the distribution systems, such as the major transmission mains or reservoirs. Interruptions to water supplies from any of the above-mentioned hazards may be limited to days or even months. The District’s ERP outlines measures to respond to such disasters. It could be activated whenever any of the following conditions exist: •Natural disasters such as earthquake, flood, etc. •Major loss of power •Loss of water transmission lines, main breaks, or other major facilities •Water quality issues involving a "boil water" order or other major public relations/communication issues •Emergency curtailment •Disturbance affecting nearby utilities •Hazardous spills •Terrorist activities The ERP will guide damage assessment, record keeping, prioritization of repairs, and coordination with other agencies. The goal is returning to normal operations as soon as practicable. The District has also established minor emergency interconnections with neighboring water agencies for use during short‐term outages. The District has eight minor interconnections with Helix Water District, eight with Sweetwater Authority, and five with the City of San Diego that are capable of supplying the District with water. These minor interconnections are intended primarily for short‐term repairs or Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 10 emergencies. During an extended outage or water shortage, these neighboring agencies may not have sufficient supply at these minor interconnections to share significant amounts with the District. Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan Water Code Section 10632.5 requires agencies to assess seismic risk to water supplies as part of their WSCP. The code also requires a mitigation plan for managing seismic risks. In lieu of conducting their own seismic risk assessment, suppliers can comply with the Water Code requirement by submitting the relevant local hazard mitigation plan or multi-hazard mitigation plan. The District participated in the development of the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which addressed seismic risk. A copy of the plan is included as an appendix to this WSCP. Shortage Response Action Effectiveness The District has estimated the effectiveness of shortage response actions in terms of reducing the gap between expected supplies and demands. These estimates were developed using industry resources and observations from recent operating history at the agency. These estimates have been included in Table 3. To determine the specific actions that should be taken at each level, the District and the Water Authority and its member agencies will evaluate conditions specific to the timing, supply availability, and cost, along with other pertinent variables. Timely and effective communication is a key element of WSCP implementation. The District will need to inform customers, the general public, and other government entities of WSCP actions taken during a water shortage (either one derived from the Annual Assessment, or an emergency or catastrophic event). The District will coordinate its communication efforts with the Water Authority and its 24 member agencies as detailed in Section 9 Communication Plan in the Water Authority’s WSCP. The communication protocols that could be used by the District at each shortage level are summarized in Table 4. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 11 Table 4. Communication Plan Outline Normal Conditions Level 1 Up to 10% Voluntary Conservation Level 2 Up to 20% Mandatory Conservation Levels 3 and 4 Up to 30% or 40% Mandatory Conservation Levels 5 and 6 Up to 50% or Over 50% Mandatory Conservation Standard outreach efforts in effect (media relations, social media, website) Update message platform to reflect conditions, District response, and needed actions from public Update campaign and messages to generate immediate actions/behaviors by public Update campaign and messages to raise awareness for more severe water-saving actions/behaviors by public Update campaign and messages to reflect extreme or emergency condition and likely need to focus water use on health/safety needs Promote ongoing WUE programs and tools and partnerships designed to achieve long-term water management goals Announce status change to key stakeholders, general public (News release, social media, etc.) Announce status change to key stakeholders, general public (News release, social media, etc.) Announce status change to key stakeholders, general public (News release, social media, etc.) Announce status change to key stakeholders, general public (News release, social media, etc.) Standard coordination with Water Authority Include increased conservation messages on website and in standard outreach efforts; provide regular condition updates to stakeholders/media Supplement Level 1 activities with additional tactics as needed; provide regular condition updates to stakeholders/media Supplement Level 2 outreach with additional tactics as needed; provide regular updates to stakeholders/media on conditions Supplement Level 3-4 outreach with additional tactics as needed; provide regular condition updates to stakeholders/media on conditions Quarterly Board reports on public communication and water-use efficiency outreach activities Enhance promotion of ongoing WUE programs/tools; deploy targeted advertising Conduct issue briefings with elected officials, other key civic and business leaders Conduct specialized outreach to reduce discretionary outdoor use while minimizing landscape damage Suspend promotion of long-term WUE programs/ tools to focus on imminent needs Initiate regular Board reports on campaign efforts Continue promotion of ongoing WUE programs/tools Promote available water assistance resources for vulnerable populations; specialized outreach to impacted industries Continue enhanced coordination with member agencies as needed (daily or weekly briefings or email updates, etc.) Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 12 The District will enforce mandatory reduction programs as necessary to decrease consumption during a water shortage. The criminal, civil, and administrative penalties and remedies are specified in Section 72 of the District’s ordinance. Administrative fines may be levied for each violation. Violation of a provision of the ordinance is subject to enforcement through installation of a flow-restricting device in the meter. Each violation of the ordinance may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30) days or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both. Willful violations of the mandatory conservation measures and water use restrictions applicable during a Drought Response Level 6 condition may be enforced by discontinuing service to the property at which the violation occurs. Appeals and Exemption Process This section describes the appeals and exemption processes. Where feasible, specific exemptions can be identified and defined. Where not feasible, the process to appeal or obtain an exemption should be detailed. The District’s ordinance Section 39 includes details of granting a Hardship Variance in certain circumstances. This section describes the legal authorities that the agency relies upon to implement the shortage response actions and the associated enforcement actions. The District’s Code of Ordinance Section 39 provides the District with authority to implement and enforce restrictions. A copy of the revised Section 39 is included as Appendix 1. In accordance with Water Code Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 350) of Division 1 general provisions regarding water shortage emergencies, the District shall declare a water shortage emergency in the event of a catastrophic interruption in supply. The District shall coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water supply services for the possible proclamation of a local emergency under California Government Code, California Emergency Services Act (Article 2, Section 8558). Including a list of and contacts for all cities or counties for which the Supplier provides service in the WSCP, along with developed coordination protocols, can facilitate compliance with this section of the Water Code in the event of a local emergency as defined in subpart (c) of Government Code Section 8558. The cities and counties in the District’s service area are shown in Table 5. Table 5. City and County Coordination on Proclamation of Emergencies City or County Contact San Diego County Office of Emergency Services, County of San Diego City of Chula Vista Office of Emergency Services, City of Chula Vista City of San Diego Office of Emergency Services, City of San Diego, and Director of Public Utilities Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 13 This section describes the anticipated financial consequences to the District of implementing the WSCP. The description includes potential reductions in revenue due to lower water sales and increased expenses associated with implementing the shortage response actions. Potential financial impacts could include: •Reduced revenue from reduced water use. •Reduced revenue from suspending new service connections and annexations. •Increased staff costs for tracking, reporting, patrolling, and enforcing restrictions. •Economic impacts associated with water-dependent businesses in the service area. Potential mitigation measures may include: •Using financial reserves. •Reducing operation and maintenance expenses. •Deferring capital improvement projects. •Reducing future projected operation and maintenance expenses. •Increasing fixed readiness-to-serve charge. •Increasing commodity charge and water adjustment rates to cover revenue shortfalls. •Other financial management mechanisms. An extended water shortage would reduce the amount of water sold by the District to its customers. Since water bills are based on water consumption, the revenue received by the District would also be reduced. Some of the District’s costs might be increased, such as additional staff time for monitoring water use, or enforcing conservation policies. However, these efforts will be achieved by temporarily re‐directing staff from other tasks. These changes in operation are not expected to cause a significant increase in the District’s total expenditures. If the reduction was due to a short‐term situation, the District could absorb a portion of the shortfall by drawing on its general fund reserves, which are maintained at a target or minimum level defined by the Board. After conditions returned to normal, the District would replenish its reserves. The District’s response would be more complex if the 50 percent reduction in consumption was expected to be permanent. The District could eventually need to raise rates. Two factors would mitigate the need for more immediate increases. First, the District’s general fund reserves could be used to temporarily fill the gap between expenditures and revenues. Second, the shortfall includes a significant portion that would go to the Water Authority as it raises its rates, assuming the reduction was occurring across the region. To the extent the Water Authority’s rate stabilization fund was adequate they would likely spread their rate increases over several years, allowing the District to do the same. A permanent 50 percent reduction in water consumption might allow the District to achieve cost savings in some areas. The need for additional pumping, storage, and pipeline capacity might be reduced. The District might not require as much equipment or staff to maintain its infrastructure. However, the District might see higher expenditures in other areas, such as water use monitoring or answering questions from customers. Overall, these changes are not expected to have a significant impact on District expenditures. Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 14 This section describes how the agency will monitor and report on implementation of the WSCP. Mechanisms to determine reductions in water use include Water Authority water purchase invoices and records, which show prior use for comparison with District customer billing showing 36‐month prior consumption history for each customer, and its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The District has a SCADA system to control, monitor, and collect data regarding the operation of the water system. The major facilities that have SCADA capabilities are the water supply sources, transmission network, pumping stations, and water storage reservoirs. The SCADA system allows for many and varied useful functions. Some of these functions provide for operating personnel to monitor the water supply source flow rates and reservoir levels, as well as turn pumps on or off. The SCADA system aids in the prevention of water reservoir overflow events and increases energy efficiency. The SCADA system can be used to monitor demands and evaluate the effectiveness of conservation measures. The District’s mechanisms for monitoring water use are summarized below: •Daily production and distribution records will provide data on system‐wide changes in demand. •Customer billing data will provide data on month‐to‐month changes in water use, and year‐to‐ year changes for key customers. •SCADA system will provide data on short‐term changes in pumping, flow rates, or reservoir levels showing increased water use. The District will monitor the implementation of this plan to evaluate its effectiveness as an adaptive management tool. The monitoring and reporting program described in Section 9 will provide information on the effectiveness of the shortage response actions during any shortage levels that may be invoked. If the District determines that the shortage response actions are not effective in producing the desired results, it will initiate a process to refine the WSCP. The District will consider the addition of new shortage response actions or changes to the levels when shortage response actions are implemented. Suggestions for refinements will be collected from agency staff, customers, industry experts, and the general public. The District will work with the Water Authority to share data and suggestions for refinement to identify opportunities to increase the effectiveness of the WSCP while maintaining alignment with other agencies in the region when possible. The District will review the WSCP’s description of procedures for the Annual Assessment each year while preparing the Annual Assessment and make adjustments as needed. The District has distinguished swimming pools and spas as recreational water features, while non-pool and non-spa water features are considered decorative water features. This distinction is used in the shortage response actions because decorative water features have the potential to use recycled water, Otay Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan 15 while pools and spas (recreational water features) must use potable water for health and safety considerations. The District adopted this WSCP with the 2020 UWMP. The UWMP and WSCP were made available for public review during May of 2021. A public hearing was held on June 2, 2021 to allow public input on the draft UWMP and the WSCP. The District’s Board of Directors adopted the UWMP and the WSCP at a meeting on June 2, 2021. The resolution of adoption is included as an appendix. This WSCP was submitted to DWR through the WUEData portal before the deadline of July 1, 2021. This WSCP will be available to the public on the agency’s web site. Notice was provided to cities and counties in the service area that the WSCP is available on the agency’s web site. If the District identifies the need to amend this WSCP, it will follow the same procedures for notification to cities, counties and the public as used for the UWMP and for initial adoption of the WSCP. The draft amended WSCP will be made available for public review, and the District’s governing board will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the draft amended WSCP. Once the District’s governing board adopts the amended WSCP, the amended plan will be submitted to DWR and the California State Library, and it will be made available to the public and the cities and counties in the service area through placement on the District’s web site. Appendix 1 District Ordinance Section 39 39-1 SECTION 39. DROUGHT RESPONSE CONSERVATION PROGRAM 39.01 DECLARATION OF NECESSITY AND INTENT (a)This Section establishes water management requirements that are in addition to any permanent water waste prohibitions and are necessary to conserve water, enable effective water supply planning, assure reasonable and beneficial use of water, prevent waste of water, prevent unreasonable use of water, prevent unreasonable method of use of water within the District in order to assure adequate supplies of water to meet the needs of the public, and further the public health, safety, and welfare, recognizing that water is a scarce natural resource that requires careful management not only in times of a water shortage, but at all times. (b)This Section establishes regulations to be implemented during times of declared water shortages or declared water shortage emergencies. It establishes six levels of drought response actions to be implemented in times of shortage, with increasing restrictions on water use in response to worsening drought conditions and decreasing available supplies. (c)The Level 1 condition drought response measures are voluntary and will be reinforced through local and regional public education and awareness measures that may be funded in part by the District. Beginning at the level 2 Water Shortage Response Condition, the District may implement water shortage pricing. During drought response condition Levels 2 through 6, all conservation measures and water-use restrictions become mandatory and become increasingly restrictive in order to attain escalating conservation goals. (d)During a Drought Response Level 2 condition or higher, the water conservation measures, and water use restrictions established by this ordinance are mandatory and violations are subject to criminal, civil, and administrative penalties and remedies specified in Section 72 of this ordinance. 39-2 39.02 DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROGRAM (a)The following words and phrases whenever used in this Section shall have the meaning defined in this sub- section: 1.“Grower” refers to those engaged in the growing or raising, in conformity with recognized practices of husbandry, for the purpose of commerce, trade, or industry, or for use by public educational or correctional institutions, of agricultural, horticultural or floricultural products, and produced: (1) for human consumption or for the market, or (2) for the feeding of fowl or livestock produced for human consumption or for the market, or (3) for the feeding of fowl or livestock for the purpose of obtaining their products for human consumption or for the market. “Grower” does not refer to customers who purchase water subject to the Water Authority’s Permanent Special Agricultural Water Rate programs. 2.“Water Authority” means the San Diego County Water Authority. 3.“Metropolitan” means the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 4.“Permanent water use efficiency measures” means any permanent water use efficiency measure adopted by the District Board of Directors. 5.“Person” means any natural person, corporation, public or private entity, public or private association, public or private agency, government agency or institution, school district, college, university, or any other user of water provided by the District. 6.“WSCP” means the Water Authority’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan or the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, as specified, in existence on the effective date of this ordinance and as readopted or amended from time to time, or an equivalent plan of the Water Authority to manage or allocate supplies during shortages. 39-3 39.03 APPLICATION (a)The provisions of this Section apply to any person in the use of any water provided by the District. (b)This Section is intended solely to further the conservation of water. It is not intended to implement any provision of federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations relating to protection of water quality or control of drainage or runoff. Refer to the local jurisdiction or Regional Water Quality Control Board for information on any storm water ordinances and storm water management plans. (c)Nothing in this Section is intended to affect or limit the ability of the District to declare and respond to an emergency including an emergency that affects the ability of the District to supply water. (d)The provisions of this Section do not apply to use of water from private wells or to recycled water. (e)Nothing in this Section shall apply to use of water that is subject to a special supply program, such as the Water Authority Permanent Special Agricultural Water Rate programs. Violations of the conditions of special supply programs are subject to the penalties established under the applicable program. A person using water subject to a special supply program and other water provided by the District is subject to this Section in the use of the other water. At all times, the following practices shall be in effect: 1.Prevent water waste resulting from inefficient irrigation, such as runoff or overspray. Similarly, stop water flows onto non-targeted areas, such as adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, hardscapes, roadways, or structures; 2.Serve and refill water in restaurants and other food service establishments only upon request; 39-4 3.Offer guests in hotels, motels, and other commercial lodging establishments the option of not laundering towels and linens daily; 4.Use only re-circulated water in fountains or other decorative water features; 5.Wash automobiles with a hose equipped only with a positive shut-off nozzle; 6.Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians only with recycled water; 7.Repair all water leaks within forty-eight (48)hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the General Manager or designee; 8.Irrigation is not allowed during a rainstorm or for forty-eight (48) hours after one-quarter inch or more of rainfall is measured at Lindbergh Field; 9.No washing down of paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or patios, except when it is necessary to alleviate safety or sanitation hazards. 39.04 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 1 (a)A Drought Response Level 1 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to drought or other supply reductions, there is a reasonable probability there will be supply shortages and that a consumer demand reduction of up to ten (10) percent is required in order to ensure that sufficient supplies will be available to meet anticipated demands. The General Manager shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 1 and take action to implement the Level 1 conservation practices identified in this Section. (b)During a Drought Response Level 1 condition, the District will increase its public education and outreach efforts to emphasize increased public awareness of the need to implement the water conservation practices noted above and the following water conservation practices. The same water conservation practices become mandatory if the District declares a Level 2 Drought Alert condition: 39-5 1. Irrigate residential and commercial landscape before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Customers are to water no more than three days a week using the suggested watering schedule as found on the District’s web page. New plantings and newly seeded areas are exempt for thirty (30) days. 2. Use a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle or bucket to water landscaped areas including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties that are not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system. 3. Irrigate nursery and commercial grower’s products before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. only. Watering is permitted at any time with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle, a bucket, or when a drip/micro-irrigation system/equipment is used. Irrigation of nursery propagation beds is permitted at any time. Watering of livestock is permitted at any time. 4. Wash vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, farm equipment, trailers, boats and boat engines and motorhomes using a bucket and a hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system, or at a commercial site that re-circulates (reclaims) water on-site. Vehicle washing is limited to once per week. 5. Use recycled or non-potable water for construction purposes when available. 39.05 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 2 (a) A Drought Response Level 2 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction in supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to twenty (20) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 2 condition and implement the mandatory Level 2 conservation measures identified in this Section of the ordinance. 39-6 (b)All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1 water conservation practices during a Drought Response Level 2 condition, and shall also comply with the following additional conservation measures: 1.Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than three (3) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. This section shall not apply to commercial growers or nurseries. 2.Limit lawn watering and landscape irrigation using sprinklers to no more than ten (10) minutes per watering station per day. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation systems using water efficient devices, including but not limited to weather-based controllers, drip/micro-irrigation systems, and stream rotor sprinklers. 3.Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. 4.Stop operating fountains or similar decorative water features unless recycled water is used. 39.06 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 3 – DROUGHT CRITICAL CONDITION (a)A Drought Response Level 3 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to thirty (30)percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 3 condition and implement the Level 3 conservation measures identified in this Section. (b)All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1 and Level 2 water conservation practices 39-7 during a Drought Response Level 3 condition and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1.Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than two (2) assigned days per week on a schedule established by the General Manager or designee and posted by the District. This section shall not apply to commercial growers or nurseries. 2.Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs located on residential and commercial properties, and not irrigated by a landscape irrigation system on the same schedule set forth above, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation. 3.Stop washing vehicles except at commercial carwashes that re-circulate water, or by high pressure/low volume wash systems. If a commercial car wash cannot accommodate the vehicle because of the vehicle size or type, such as RVs, horse trailers, boats, and commercial vehicles, customers will be allowed to wash vehicles using a bucket and a hand- held hose with positive shut-off nozzle, mobile high pressure/low volume wash system. (c)Upon the declaration of a Drought Response Level 3 condition, the District will suspend consideration of annexations to its service area. (d)The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District using a method that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water 39-8 usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of this Section. 39.07 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 4 (a)A Drought Response Level 4 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to forty (40)percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 4 condition and implement the Level 4 conservation measures identified in this Section. (b)All persons using District water shall comply with Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 water conservation practices during a Drought Response Level 4 condition and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: Stop filling or re-filling ornamental lakes or ponds, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life, provided that such animals are of significant value and have been actively managed within the water feature prior to declaration of a water shortage response level under this Section. (c)The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District using a method that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of this Section. 39-9 39.08 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 5 (a) A Drought Response Level 5 condition applies when the Water Authority notifies its member agencies that due to increasing cutbacks caused by drought or other reduction of supplies, a consumer demand reduction of up to fifty (50) percent is required in order to have sufficient supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District Board of Directors shall declare the existence of a Drought Response Level 5 condition and implement the Level 5 conservation measures identified in this ordinance. (b) All persons using District water shall comply with conservation measures required during Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 conditions and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1. Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries. This restriction shall not apply to the following categories of use unless the District has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use. A. Maintenance of trees and shrubs that are watered on the same schedule as noted above, by using a bucket, hand-held hose with a positive shut-off nozzle, or low-volume non-spray irrigation; B. Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection as specified by the Fire Marshal of the local fire protection agency having jurisdiction over the property to be irrigated; C. Maintenance of existing landscaping for erosion control; D. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well- being of rare animals; E. Maintenance of landscaping within active public parks and playing fields, day care 39-10 centers, school grounds, cemeteries, and golf course greens, provided that such irrigation does not exceed two (2) days per week according to the schedule established under the District’s Level 3 Condition; F.Watering of livestock; and G.Public works projects and actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. 2.Repair all water leaks within twenty-four (24) hours of notification by the District unless other arrangements are made with the District. (c)The District may establish a water allocation for property served by the District that does not penalize persons for the implementation of conservation methods or the installation of water saving devices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on-going water service. Following the effective date of the water allocation as established by the District, any person that uses water in excess of the allocation shall be subject to a penalty for each billing unit of water in excess of the allocation. The penalty for excess water usage shall be cumulative to any other remedy or penalty that may be imposed for violation of any provision of this Section. (d)Upon the declaration of a Level 5 condition, no new potable water service shall be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters shall be provided and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as, will serve letters, certificates, or letters of availability) shall be issued, except under the following circumstances: 1.A valid, unexpired building permit has been issued for the project; or 2.The project is necessary to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare; or 39-11 3.The applicant provides substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will be offset prior to the provision of a new water meter(s) to the satisfaction of the District. This provision shall not be construed to preclude the resetting or turn-on of meters to provide continuation of water service or to restore service that has been interrupted for a period of one (1) year or less. 39.09 DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL 6 (a)A Drought Response Level 6 condition applies when the Water Authority Board of Directors declare a water shortage emergency pursuant to California Water Code Section 350 and notifies its member agencies that Level 6 requires a demand reduction of more than fifty (50) percent in order for the District to have maximum supplies available to meet anticipated demands. The District shall declare a Drought Emergency in the manner and on the grounds provided in California Water Code Section 350. (b)All persons using District water shall comply with conservation measures required during Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, and Level 5 conditions and shall also comply with the following additional mandatory conservation measures: 1.Stop all landscape irrigation, except crops and landscape products of commercial growers and nurseries. This restriction shall not apply to the following categories of use unless the District has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use. A.Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection as specified by the Fire Marshal of the local fire protection agency having jurisdiction over the property to be irrigated; B.Maintenance of existing landscaping for erosion control; 39-12 C.Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well- being of rare animals; D.Watering of livestock; and E.Public works projects and actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects. 39.10 PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION AND NOTIFICATION OF DROUGHT RESPONSE LEVEL (a)The existence of a Drought Response Level 1 condition may be declared by the General Manager upon a written determination of the existence of the facts and circumstances supporting the determination. A copy of the written determination shall be filed with the Clerk or Secretary of the District and provided to the District Board of Directors. The General Manager may publish a notice of the determination of existence of Drought Response Level 1 condition in one or more newspapers including a newspaper of general circulation within the District. The District will also post notice of the condition on their website. (b)The existence of Drought Response Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 conditions may be declared by resolution of the District Board of Directors adopted at a regular or special public meeting held in accordance with State law. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Drought Response Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 conditions shall take effect on the tenth (10) day after the date the response level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the response level, the District shall publish a copy of the resolution in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. If the District establishes a water allocation, it shall provide notice of the allocation by including it in the regular billing statement for the fee or charge or by any other mailing to the address to which the District customarily mails the billing statement for fees or charges for on- going water service. Water allocation shall be effective on the fifth (5) day following the date of mailing or at such later date as specified in the notice. 39-13 (c)The existence of a Drought Response Level 6 condition may be declared in accordance with the procedures specified in California Water Code Sections 351 to 352. The mandatory conservation measures applicable to Drought Response Level 6 conditions shall take effect on the tenth (10) day after the date the response level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the response level, the District shall publish a copy of the resolution in a newspaper used for publication of official notices. (d)The District Board of Directors may declare an end to a Drought Response Level by the adoption of a resolution at any regular or special meeting held in accordance with State law. 39.11 HARDSHIP VARIANCE (a)If, due to unique circumstances, a specific requirement of this ordinance would result in undue hardship to a person using agency water or to property upon which agency water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to District water users generally or to similar property or classes of water uses, then the person may apply for a variance to the requirements as provided in this Section. (b)The variance may be granted or conditionally granted, only upon a written finding of the existence of facts demonstrating an undue hardship to a person using agency water or to property upon with agency water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to District water users generally or to similar property or classes of water use due to specific and unique circumstances of the user or the user’s property. 1.Application. Application for a variance shall be a form prescribed by the District and shall be accompanied by a non-refundable processing fee in an amount set by resolution of the District Board of Directors. 2.Supporting Documentation. The application shall be accompanied by photographs, maps, drawings, and other information including a written statement of the applicant. 39-14 3.Required Findings for Variance. An application for a variance shall be denied unless the approving authority finds, based on the information provided in the application, supporting documents, or such additional information as may be requested, and on water use information for the property as shown by the records of the District, all of the following: A.That the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other District customers; B.That because of special circumstances applicable to the property or its use, the strict application of this ordinance would have a disproportionate impact on the property or use that exceeds the impacts to customers generally; C.That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties and will not materially affect the ability of the District to effectuate the purpose of this chapter and will not be detrimental to the public interest; D.That the condition or situation of the subject property or the intended use of the property for which the variance is sought is not common, recurrent, or general in nature. 4. Approval Authority. The General Manager shall exercise approval authority and act upon any completed application no later than ten (10) days after submittal and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the variance. The applicant requesting the variance shall be promptly notified in writing of any action taken. Unless specified otherwise at the time a variance is approved, the variance applies to the subject property during the term of the mandatory drought response. 5.Appeals to District Board of Directors. An applicant may appeal a decision or condition of the General Manager on a variance application to the District Board of Directors within ten (10) days of the decision upon written request for a hearing. The 39-15 request shall state the grounds for the appeal. At a public meeting, the District Board of Directors shall act as the approval authority and review the appeal de novo by following the regular variance procedure. The decision of the District Board of Directors is final. 39.12 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES (a)Any person, who uses, causes to be used, or permits the use of water in violation of this ordinance is guilty of an offense punishable as provided herein; (b)Each day that a violation of this ordinance occurs is a separate offense; (c)Administrative fines may be levied for each violation of a provision of this ordinance as identified in Section 72 of this code; (d)Violation of a provision of this ordinance is subject to enforcement through installation of a flow- restricting device in the meter; (e)Each violation of this ordinance may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30) days or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both as provided in Water Code Section 377 and Section 72 of this code; (f)Willful violations of the mandatory conservation measures and water use restrictions as set forth in Section 11.0 and applicable during a Drought Response Level 6 condition may be enforced by discontinuing service to the property at which the violation occurs as provided by Water Code Section 356 and Section 72 of this code; (g)All remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Appendix 2 Board Resolution Adopting the WSCP Appendix 3 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Participating Jurisdictions: Carlsbad National City Chula Vista Oceanside Coronado Poway Del Mar San Diego El Cajon San Marcos Encinitas Santee Escondido Solana Beach Imperial Beach Vista La Mesa County of San Diego Lemon Grove Alpine FPD Rancho Santa Fe FPD Padre Dam MWD October 2017 ii iii Contents Introduction 1 1.1 Plan Description/Purpose of Plan ................................................................. 1 1.2 Plan Purpose and Authority.......................................................................... 2 1.3 Community Description ............................................................................... 3 1.3.1 The County of San Diego ................................................................ 3 1.3.2 Local Jurisdictions ........................................................................... 6 2.1 List of Participating and Non-Participating Jurisdictions .......................... 13 2.2 Description of Each Jurisdiction’s Participation in the Planning Process .. 13 3.1 Description of Planning Committee Formation ......................................... 15 3.1.1 Invitation to Participate ................................................................. 15 3.2 Name of Planning Committee and its Members ........................................ 15 3.3 Hazard Mitigation Working Group Meetings ............................................ 17 3.4 Planning Process Milestones ...................................................................... 17 3.5 Public Involvement .................................................................................... 19 3.6 Existing Plans or Studies Reviewed ........................................................... 19 4.1 Overview of the Risk Assessment Process ................................................ 21 4.1.1 Risk Assessment ............................................................................ 21 4.1.2 Profiling (Describing) Hazards ...................................................... 22 4.1.3 Identifying Assets .......................................................................... 22 4.1.4 Analyze Risk ................................................................................. 22 4.1.5 Repetitive Loss .............................................................................. 23 4.1.6 Exposure Analysis ......................................................................... 23 4.2 Hazard Identification and Screening .......................................................... 23 4.2.1 List of Hazards Prevalent in the Jurisdiction ................................. 23 4.2.2 Hazard Identification Process ........................................................ 24 4.2.3 Hazard Identification Sources ........................................................... 27 4.2.4 Non-Profiled Hazards ........................................................................ 27 4.3 Hazard Profiles ........................................................................................... 28 4.3.1 Emerging Risk – Climate Change ................................................. 28 4.3.2 Sea Level Rise, Coastal Storms, Erosion and Tsunami ................. 31 4.3.3 Dam Failure ................................................................................... 39 4.3.4 Earthquake ..................................................................................... 43 4.3.5 Flood .............................................................................................. 49 4.3.6 Rain-Induced Landslide ................................................................. 55 4.3.7 Liquefaction ................................................................................... 59 4.3.8 Structure/Wildfire Fire .................................................................. 62 4.3.9 Extreme Heat ................................................................................. 69 4.3.10 Drought/Water Supply ................................................................... 71 4.3.11 Manmade Hazards ......................................................................... 72 4.4 Vulnerability Assessment ........................................................................... 77 4.4.1 Asset Inventory ................................................................................. 77 4.4.2 Estimating Potential Exposure and Losses, and Future Development Trends ............................................................................................ 77 4.5 Multi-Jurisdictional Assessment .............................................................. 121 4.5.1 Analysis of Land Use .................................................................. 121 iv 4.5.2 Analysis of Development Trends ................................................ 121 5.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 125 5.1.1 Develop Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................... 125 5.1.2 Identify and Prioritize Mitigation Actions ................................... 125 5.2 Regional Considerations .......................................................................... 127 5.21 County of San Diego ................................................................................ 129 5.21.1 Capabilities Assessment .............................................................. 131 5.21.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances .................. 131 5.21.3 Fiscal Resources .......................................................................... 136 5.21.4 Goals, Objectives and Actions..................................................... 137 5.21.5 Prioritization and Implementation of Action Items ..................... 148 6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan ........................................ 151 6.1.1 Plan Monitoring ........................................................................... 151 6.1.2 Plan Evaluation ............................................................................ 151 6.1.3 Plan Updates ................................................................................ 151 6.1.4 Implementation through Existing Programs ................................ 152 6.1.5 Continued Public Involvement .................................................... 152 section 7 References ................................................................................................ 155 Appendix A: Hazard Mitigation Working Group Meeting Agendas and Summaries 1 Appendix B: Data Matrix .............................................................................................. 1 Appendix C: Implementation status............................................................................ 1 Appendix D: Survey Results for SD Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Revision .................................................................................................. 1 v This page intentionally left blank SECTION ONE Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION Across the United States, natural and manmade disasters have led 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 problems. With four presidential disaster declarations, four gubernatorial proclamations and fifteen local proclamations of emergency since 1999 San Diego County, California recognizes the consequences of disasters and the need to reduce the impacts of natural and manmade hazards. The elected and appointed officials of the County also know that with careful selection, mitigation actions in the form of projects and programs can become long-term, cost effective means for reducing the impact of natural and manmade hazards. This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan for San Diego County, California (the Plan), was prepared with input from county residents, responsible officials, the San Diego County Water Authority, the Alpine and Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection Districts, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, the San Diego Foundation, ICLEI, the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The process to develop the Plan included over a year of coordination with representatives from all of the jurisdictions in the region. The Plan will guide the region toward greater disaster resilience in harmony with the character and needs of the community. This section of the Plan includes an overview of the Plan, a discussion of the Plan’s purpose and authority, and a description of the 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated County within the San Diego region. 1.1 Plan Description/Purpose of Plan 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 latest legislation to improve this planning process (Public Law 106-390). The new 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 new requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Section 322 of DMA 2000 specifically addresses mitigation planning at the 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 mitigation plans must demonstrate that their proposed mitigation measures are based on a sound planning process that accounts for the risk to and the capabilities of the individual communities. State governments have certain responsibilities for implementing Section 322, including: SECTION ONE Introduction 2 •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; and •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 between state and local authorities, prompting them to work together. It encourages and rewards local and state pre-disaster planning and promotes sustainability as a strategy for disaster resilience. 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. The Plan has been prepared to meet FEMA 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. 1.2 Plan Purpose and Authority 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. 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 once the State of California and FEMA have granted provisional approval. This Plan is intended to serve many purposes, including: Enhance Public Awareness and Understanding – to help residents of the County better understand the natural and manmade 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 that 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; 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 SECTION ONE Introduction 3 Provide Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination of Mitigation-Related Programming – to ensure that 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 that State hazard mitigation plans are updated every three years and local plans, including the San Diego Regional Plan, every five years. This means that the Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for San Diego uses a “five-year planning horizon”. It is designed to carry the region through the next five years, after which its assumptions, goals, and objectives will be revisited and the plan resubmitted for approval. 1.3 Community Description 1.3.1 The County of San Diego 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. Elevation ranges from sea level to about 6,500 feet. Orange and Riverside Counties border it to the north, the agricultural communities of Imperial County to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the State of Baja California, Mexico to the south. Geographically, the County is on the same approximate latitude as Dallas, Texas and Charleston, South Carolina. San Diego County is comprised of 18 incorporated cities and 17 unincorporated communities. The county's total population in 2016 was approximately 3.2 million with a median age of 35 years (US 2010 Census Quickfacts). San Diego is the third most populous county in the state. The following subsections provide an overview of the Economy, Physical Features, Infrastructure, and Jurisdictional Summaries for the County of San Diego. 1.3.1.1 Economy San Diego offers a vibrant and diverse economy along with a strong and committed public/private partnership of local government and businesses dedicated to the creation and retention of quality jobs for its residents. Although slowed by the recession in 2008, the 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. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), San Diego's Gross Regional Product (GRP)–an estimate of the total output of goods and services in the county–was $197.9 billion in 2013 San Diego's abundant and diverse supply of labor at competitive rates is one of the area's greatest assets. As of November 2014, the total civilian labor force was estimated at 1.33 million, which includes self-employed individuals and wage and salary employment. Unemployment for SECTION ONE Introduction 4 November 2014 was 5.8% or 94,000 persons. This was slightly higher than the national rate of 5.5% but significantly lower than the state's rate of 7.1% (Source: State of California Employment Development Department). 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. Each year San Diego's educational institutions graduate approximately 1,500 students with bachelors, masters and PhD degrees in electrical engineering, computer science, information systems, mechanical engineering and electronic technology. Over 2,500 students annually receive advanced degrees in business administration. There is also a pool of qualified workers from San Diego's business schools, which annually graduate over 1,000 students with administrative and data processing skills. 1.3.1.2 Employment San Diego's diverse and thriving high-tech industry has become the fastest growing sector of employment and a large driving force behind the region's continued economic prosperity. San Diego's high-tech industry comprises over a tenth of the region's total economic output. San Diego boasts the third largest concentration of biotech companies in the country with an estimated 700 firms. Currently there are over 34,500 people employed in San Diego's biotech industry. Life Science activity accounts for more than $14.2 billion in direct economic activity and $36.6 billion in total economic impact in San Diego (Source: BIOCOM 2013 Southern California Economic Impact Report). The general services industry is the second largest employment sector in the County, totaling nearly 51% of the county's industry employment. This sector includes business services, San Diego's tourism industry, health services and various business services, employing 671,600 workers. Government is the fourth largest employer with 236,200 jobs accounting for about 187% of total industry employment. (Source: California Employment Development Division). 1.3.1.3 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 an average yearly temperature of 70 degrees, the local climate has mild winters, pleasant summers, and an abundance of sunshine and light rainfall. SECTION ONE Introduction 5 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 77 degrees and lows are about 45 degrees. The mountains get a light snowfall several times a year. East of the mountains is the Anza Borrego Desert, where rainfall is minimal and the summers are hot. The dry, mild climate of San Diego County is conducive to productivity. Outdoor work and recreational activities are possible almost all year-round. In addition, storage and indoor work can be handled with minimum investment in heating and air conditioning, although extreme heat events have increased slightly in both frequency and severity. 1.3.1.4 Infrastructure San Diego has a well-developed highway system. There are about 610 miles of state highways and 1,000 miles of regional arterials within the San Diego region. The county also encompasses more than 7,185 miles of maintained city streets and county roads. Roughly 11.6 million vehicle trips are made on the region's roadways daily, accounting for more than 68 million vehicle miles traveled daily. Since 1980, San Diego's licensed drivers have increased 46%; likewise, auto registrations have increased 57%. Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) are up 86% since 1980. Unfortunately the increase in drivers, vehicles and VMT has not been matched by corresponding increases in freeway mileage (10%) or local street and road mileage (19%). Over the same time period, there has been a decrease in both reported fatal accidents and injury accidents. 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). San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC), which operates transit service under MTDB, serves about two million people annually with routes that cover the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, El Cajon, La Mesa and National City, as well as portions of San Diego County's unincorporated areas. SDTC routes also connect with other regional operators' routes. San Diego Trolley operates the light rail transit system under MTDB. The North County Transit District (NCTD) buses carry passengers in north San Diego County, including Del Mar, east to Escondido, north to Orange County and Riverside County, and north to Camp Pendleton. NCTD's bus fleet carries more than 11 million passengers every year. NCTD's bus system has 35 routes. In addition, NCTD runs special Express Buses for certain sporting and special events in San Diego. San Diego Gas & Electric is a public utility that provides natural gas and electric service to 3 million consumers through 1.2 million electric meters and 720,000 natural gas meters in San Diego and southern Orange counties. SDG&E's service area encompasses 4,100 square miles, covering two counties and 25 cities. SDG&E is a subsidiary of Sempra Energy, a Fortune 500 energy services holding company based in San Diego. Virtually all of the petroleum products in the region are delivered via a pipeline system operated by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners. The San Diego County Water Authority is a public agency serving the San Diego region as a wholesale supplier of water. The Water Authority works through its 24 member agencies to provide a safe, reliable water supply to support the region’s $171 billion economy and the quality SECTION ONE Introduction 6 of life of 3 million residents or 90 percent of the county’s population. The 24 member agencies are comprised of six cities, five water districts, three irrigation districts, eight municipal water districts, one public utility district and one federal agency (military base) and cover a service area of 920,000 acres. In 2008, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California supplied 71% of the water while 29% came from local and other supplies. Metropolitan imports the water from two sources, the Colorado River and the state Water Project (Bay-Delta) in northern California. Traveling hundreds of miles over aqueduct systems that include pump stations, treatment plants and reservoirs, approximately 700,000 acre-feet of water is transported annually through the Water Authority’s five pipelines and then distributed to the member agencies for delivery to the public. Residents place the highest demand on water, consuming roughly 59% of all water in San Diego County. Industrial/commercial use is the second largest consumer of water at 17%, followed by the public sector at 13% and agriculture at 12% of the total water demand. 1.3.2 Local Jurisdictions 1.3.2.1 Carlsbad (Population: 110,972) 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. The newest addition to Carlsbad's commercial/recreational landscape is Legoland, which opened in the spring of 1999. The city of Carlsbad has a strong economy, much of which has come from industrial development. Callaway Golf, Cobra Golf, ISIS Pharmaceuticals, Mallinckrodt Medical, NTN Communications and Immune Response are just a few of the local companies located in Carlsbad. The area has nine elementary schools, two junior high schools, and three high schools. The school district ranks among the best in the county. Distinguished private and parochial schools also serve Carlsbad, including the internationally renowned Army Navy Academy. 1.3.2.2 Chula Vista (Population: 256,780) Chula Vista is home to an estimated 44% of all businesses in the South Bay Region of San Diego County. Chula Vista is the second largest municipality in San Diego County, and the 21st largest of 450 California cities. Today Chula Vista is attracting such companies as Solar Turbines and Raytheon, a $20 billion global technology firm serving the defense industry. Chula Vista ranks among the nation's top ten governments in terms of employee productivity and local debt levels. 1.3.2.3 Coronado (Population: 23,500) Coronado is a 13.5 square mile ocean village. The military bases of the Naval Air Station North Island and Naval Amphibious Base occupy 5.3 square miles. 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. It is primarily a bedroom community for San Diego executives, a haven for retired senior military officers 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 SECTION ONE Introduction 7 the lush surroundings and village appeal of Coronado. The city contains 14 hotels, amongst them are 3 world-class resorts including the Hotel Del Coronado and 67 highly acclaimed restaurants. 1.3.2.4 Del Mar (Population: 4,311) Del Mar is the smallest city in the County with only 4,580 residents in the year 2014. 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 has 2.9 miles of shoreline that include the Del Mar City Beach and the Torrey Pines State Beach. There are two elementary schools, one junior high school and one high school in Del Mar, which is considered one of the region’s best school districts. 1.3.2.5 El Cajon (Population: 102,211) 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. El Cajon's current population of 97,934 makes it the sixth most populated jurisdiction in the region. 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. El Cajon includes a cross-section of housing types from lower cost mobile homes and apartments to moderately priced condominiums to higher cost single-family residences. There are 23 elementary schools, seven middle schools and four high schools. 1.3.2.6 Encinitas (Population: 61,588) 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. 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. Encinitas is bordered by Carlsbad to the north, Solana Beach to the south and the community of Rancho Santa Fe to the east. 1.3.2.7 Escondido (Population: 148,738) Escondido has a reputation as a bedroom community due to the large percentage of residents who work outside of the city. Escondido is located 30 miles north of San Diego and is approximately 18 miles inland from the coast. It is the region's fifth most populated city. More than a decade ago, the people of Escondido conceived a vision of cultural excellence. Today, the $73.4 million California Center for the Arts stands as a product of this vision. Escondido has 18 elementary schools, nine of which are parochial schools, three middle schools and six high schools, three of which are parochial. There is a unique mix of agriculture, industrial firms, high-tech firms, recreational centers and parks, as well as residential areas. The area’s largest shopping mall, the SECTION ONE Introduction 8 North County Fair, houses 6 major retail stores and approximately 175 smaller stores. California State University, San Marcos and Palomar Community College are located within minutes of Escondido. 1.3.2.8 Imperial Beach (Population: 27,063) Imperial Beach claims the distinction of being the "Most Southwesterly City - in the continental United States." The City is located 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 28,200, Imperial Beach occupies an area of 4.4 square miles. Imperial Beach offers some of the least expensive housing to be found west of the I-5. It is primarily a resort/recreation community with a vast beach area as well as a 12,000-foot pier for fishing. Some describe Imperial Beach as quaint, but mostly the town has a rare innocence and a relaxed atmosphere. Looking south just across the International border, Tijuana's famous "Bullring by the Sea," the Plaza De Monumental can be seen. 1.3.2.9 La Mesa (Population: 58,642) La Mesa is centrally located 12 miles east of downtown San Diego. La Mesa is a suburban residential community as well as a commercial and trade center. The area is characterized by rolling hills and has a large number of 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 Mt. Helix. La Mesa has an abundance of mixed-use condominiums for those who prefer a downtown village atmosphere. There is a positive 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 located in the heart of the city adjacent to another major activity center, Grossmont Hospital. The La Mesa-Spring Valley Elementary School District provides 18 elementary schools and four 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. 1.3.2.10 Lemon Grove Population: (26,141) Lemon Grove lies eight miles east of downtown San Diego. Lemon Grove is the third smallest jurisdiction in the San Diego region based on population and geographic size. Initially the site of expansive lemon orchards, the city still remains a small town with a rural ambiance. Currently manufacturing and trade account for over one-third of the total employment in this area. A substantial proportion of the homes in Lemon Grove are single-family dwellings with the addition of several apartments and condominiums built over the last 20 years. There are five elementary schools and two junior high schools. 1.3.2.11 National City (Population: 59,578) National City is one of the county's oldest incorporated areas. Just five miles south of San Diego, National City is the South Bay's center of industrial activity. The economy is based on manufacturing, shipbuilding and repair. The San Diego Naval Station, which overlaps San Diego and National City is the largest naval facility in the country. There are a great number of historical SECTION ONE Introduction 9 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 here. 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 located in National City. 1.3.2.12 Oceanside (Population: 172,794) 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 ocean to the west. The current population of 178,806 makes Oceanside the fourth largest jurisdiction in the County and the largest coastal community. Industrial real estate rates tend to be lower than the County average. There is an abundant supply of new housing and condominium developments, which tend 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, the Oceanside Harbor and the Oceanside Lagoon. There are 16 elementary schools, two parochial and two private, three middle schools and three high schools, as well as Mira Costa College and the United States International University. 1.3.2.13 Poway (Population: 49,417) Poway is located 23 miles northeast 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; the 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 Performing Arts Center is an 815 seat professional theater that began its eleventh season in 2001. The Poway Unified School District is excellent and has been consistently rated in the top tier. The district has four high schools, five middle schools and 19 elementary schools. There are eight private and parochial schools offering instruction from K-8 grades. 1.3.2.14 San Diego (Population 1,356,865) The City of San Diego is the largest city in San Diego County, containing roughly half of the County's total population. With its current population of 1,336,865, the City of San Diego is the second largest city in the state. It is the region's economic hub, with well over half of the region's jobs and nearly three-quarters of the region's large employers. Thirteen of the region's 20 major colleges and universities are in the City of San Diego, as are six of the region's major retail centers. The City's visitor attractions are world-class and include Balboa Park, San Diego Zoo, Wild Animal Park, Sea World, Cabrillo National Monument and Old Town State Historic Park. The City of San Diego spans approximately 40 miles from its northern tip to the southern border. Including the SECTION ONE Introduction 10 shoreline around the bays and lagoons, the City of San Diego borders a majority of the region's shoreline, encompassing 93 of the region's 182 shoreline miles. 1.3.2.15 San Marcos (Population: 89,387) San Marcos is located between Vista and Escondido, approximately 30 miles north of downtown San Diego. San Marcos is known for its resort climate, rural setting, central location and affordable housing prices. San Marcos has been the fasted growing jurisdiction in the region since 1956. It is home to two of the region's major educational facilities, Palomar Community College and California State University, San Marcos. The K-12 School District is an award winning district with over seven Schools of Distinction Awards to their credit. 1.3.2.16 Santee (Population: 56,105) 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. Since the expansion of the San Diego Trolley, Santee residents can ride the Trolley to Mission Valley, Downtown San Diego and as far as the U.S./Mexico Border. Elementary students attend one of 11 elementary schools, while high school students attend Santana or West Hills High School. 1.3.2.17 Solana Beach (Population: 13,236) As one of the county's most attractive coastal communities, Solana Beach is known for its small- town atmosphere and pristine beaches. Incorporated in 1986, it 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. 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. 1.3.2.18 Vista (Population: 96,929) Vista has been growing at twice the rate of the State of California and 50% faster than the rest of the San Diego area in the last decade. There are 10 elementary schools, four middle schools, and five high schools. More than 400 companies have located their businesses in the city since 1986. 1.3.2.19 Unincorporated County of San Diego (Population: 609,062) The unincorporated County consists of approximately 34 Community Planning and Sub-regional Areas. Many of the communities in the Unincorporated County jurisdiction are located 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 located in the central mountains along a principle 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. SECTION ONE Introduction 11 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. SECTION ONE Introduction 12 This page intentionally left blank. SECTIONTWO Multi-jurisdictional Participation Information 13 2.1 List of Participating and Non-Participating Jurisdictions The incorporated cities that participated in the planning process are Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego (City), San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Unincorporated (County), and Vista. There were no non-participating cities. The two Fire Protection District that participated in the revision of the plan were the Alpine Fire Protection District and the Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District. One municipal water district also participated, Padre Dam MWD. Representatives from all participating jurisdictions, local businesses, educational facilities, various public, private and non-profit agencies, and the general public provided input into the preparation of the Plan. Local jurisdictional representatives included but were not limited to fire chiefs/officials, police chiefs/officials, planners and other jurisdictional officials/staff. 2.2 Description of Each Jurisdiction’s Participation in the Planning Process A Hazard Mitigation Working Group (HMWG) was established to facilitate the development of the Plan. Representatives from each incorporated city, special district and the unincorporated county were designated by their jurisdiction as the HMWG member. Each HMWG member identified a Local Mitigation Planning Team for their jurisdiction 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 jurisdiction-level 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 HMWG members brought this information to HMWG 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 in Section 3.2. All HMWG members were provided an overview of hazard mitigation planning elements at the HMWG meetings. This training was designed after the FEMA State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide worksheets, which led the HMWG members through the process of defining the jurisdiction’s assets, vulnerabilities, capabilities, goals and objectives, and action items. The HMWG members were also given additional action items at each meeting to be completed by their Local Mitigation Planning Team. HMWG members also participated in the public workshops held to present the risk assessment, preliminary goals, objectives and actions. In addition, several HMWG 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 their respective City Council, City Manager and/or representatives for approval. Throughout the planning process, the HMWG 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 the data sources listed in Appendix B. These data sources contain the most recent data available for the San Diego region. A very 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 that the data used was the most recent available for each participating jurisdiction. The HMWG members reviewed these maps and provided updates or changes to the critical facility or hazard layers. Data received from HMWG members were added to the hazard SECTIONTWO Multi-jurisdictional Participation Information 14 database and used in the modeling process described in the Risk Assessment portion of the Plan (Section 4). The data used in this revision of the plan is considered to be more accurate that that utilized in the original plan All 18 incorporated cities and participating special districts provided OES with edits to critical facilities within their jurisdictions. SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation 15 3.1 Description of Planning Committee Formation 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). 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 was offered the opportunity to participate in the development of this plan. 3.1.1 Invitation to Participate The original development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, as well as this current revision, was conducted under the auspices of the UDC. At the direction of the UDC, the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services (OES) acted as the lead agency in the revision of this plan. Thomas Amabile, the representative for the San Diego County OES, requested input from each jurisdiction in the county. Each municipality and special district was formally invited to attend a meeting to develop an approach to the planning process and to form the HMWG Committee (See Appendix A). These invitations were in the form of an email to each member jurisdiction. Invitations were also emailed to each Water District and Fire Protection District within the County. At the October 17, 2013 UDC meeting, it was again announced that the plan was reaching the five year mark and required updating. Each jurisdiction also confirmed their participation on the HMWG. In addition to the eighteen incorporated cities, 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 and non-profit interested to be involved in the planning process. Some of those parties are listed in Section 3.2 below. The committee was formed as a working group to undertake the planning process and meeting dates were set for all members of the committee and interested parties to attend. Local jurisdictional representatives included but were not limited to fire chiefs/officials, police chiefs/officials, planners and other jurisdictional officials/staff. 3.2 Name of Planning Committee and its Members The HMWG is comprised of representatives from San Diego County (County), each of the 18 incorporated cities in the County four special districts and interested public agencies and citizens, as listed above in Section 2.1. The HMWG met regularly, and served as a forum for participating agencies to voice their opinions and concerns about the mitigation plan. Although several jurisdictions sent several representatives to the HMWG meetings, each jurisdiction selected a lead representative who acted as the liaison between their jurisdictional Local Mitigation Planning Team and the HMWG. Each local team, made up of other jurisdictional staff/officials met separately and provided additional local-level input to the leads for inclusion into the Plan. These lead representatives are: SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation 16 Lead HMWG Representatives for Participating Jurisdictions: •City of Carlsbad, David Harrison, Fire Department, Emergency Preparedness Manager •City of Chula Vista, Marisa Balmer, Fire Department, Emergency Services Coordinator •City of Coronado, Perry Peake, Fire Department, Battalion Chief •City of Del Mar, Ashlee Stratakis, Fire Department, Program Analyst •City of El Cajon, Rick Sitta, Fire Department, Deputy Chief •City of Encinitas, Tom Gallup, Fire Department, Senior Program Analyst •City of Escondido, Don Rawson, Fire Department, Emergency/Disaster Preparedness Manager •City of Imperial Beach, Dean Roberts, Fire Department, Emergency Services Coordinator •City of La Mesa, Greg McAlpine, Fire Dept, Deputy Chief •City of Lemon Grove, Tim Smith, Fire Department, Deputy Chief •City of National City, Walter Amadee, Fire Department, Management Analyst III •City of Oceanside, Greg Vanvorhees, Fire Department, Fire Marshall •City of Poway, Dane Cawthone, Fire Department, Division Chief •City of San Diego, Jeff Pack, Office of Homeland Security, Sr. Homeland Security Coordinator •City of San Diego, Eugene Ruzzini, Office of Homeland Security, Analyst •City of San Marcos, Scott Hansen, Fire Department, Battalion Chief •City of Santee, Richard Mattick, Fire Department, Assistant Chief •City of Solana Beach, Ashlee Stratakis, Fire Department, Program Analyst •City of Vista, Mike Easterling, Fire Department, Deputy Chief •County of San Diego, Thomas Amabile, OES, Sr. Emergency Services Coordinator •County of San Diego, Jason Batchelor, SD County Planning and Developmental Services, GIS Coordinator •Alpine FPD, Bill Paskle, Fire Chief •Padre Dam MWD, Larry Costello, Safety and Risk Manager •Rancho Santa Fe FPD, Tony Michel, Fire Chief Representatives of the following agencies/organizations were invited to attend all planning team meetings and provided both data and general input to and feedback on the plan: •California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES.), Joanne Phillips, Sr. Emergency Services Coordinator •Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Medical Response, Donna Johnson, EMS Specialist •San Diego County Hazardous Materials Division, Dave Cammall, Registered Environmental Health Specialist •San Diego Department of Public Works, Gitanjali Shinde, Assistant Engineer The California Office of Emergency Services participated on the regional planning committee. The representatives from San Diego County EMS, Hazardous Materials and Public Works participated on the County’s local planning team. Each participating jurisdiction had their own local planning team. Details on the membership of those teams can be found in the individual jurisdiction’s portion of Section Five. Each local planning team met SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation 17 either before or after the regional team to discuss the topics of the regional meetings (listed in Section 3.3 below). Finally, the Unified Disaster Council (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 • Chambers of Commerce • Federal Agencies (USN, USMC, USCG, DHS) • Hospitals • Port of San Diego • State Agencies (Cal OES, DMV, Caltrans) • School Districts • Universities and colleges • Utilities (Power- SDG&E, Water – San Diego County Water Authority and Water Districts, Cable, telephone and internet – Cox Communications) 3.3 Hazard Mitigation Working Group Meetings The Hazard Mitigation Working Group met regularly. The following is a list of meeting dates and results of meetings (see Appendix A for sign-in sheets, meeting agendas, and meeting minutes). HMWG Meeting Dates/Results of Meeting: HMWG Meeting 1: 2/11/2014 - Kickoff and Formation of HMWG Climate Change Workshop 1: 3/4/2014 HMWG Meeting 2: 3/11/2014 - Overview of Planning Process/Assessing Risks Climate Change Workshop 2: 6/10/2014 HMWG Meeting 3: 6/10/2014 - Overview of Planning Process/Profiling Hazards HMWG Meeting 4: 9/16/2014 - Review Risk Assessment/Development of Mitigation Plan The distribution of the draft and final plans was accomplished electronically. Other meetings included individual meetings with jurisdictions and meetings with GIS staff. Not all members were able to attend all meetings. Follow-up phone calls and in person meetings were conducted with those who were not able attend to ensure they were kept current on the process. 3.4 Planning Process Milestones The approach taken by San Diego County 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: SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation 18 Risk Assessment (June 2014 – September 2014) - The HMWG used the list of hazards from the current 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 HMWG 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 HMWG 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 HMWG 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. Again, this was a similar process to that used in the original plan and first update. Goals, Objectives and Alternative Mitigation Actions (August, 2014- October, 2014) – Based on this understanding of the hazards faced by the County, the goals and objectives identified in the current 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 roadblocks. Members then added those goals, objectives or 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 OES staff. Mitigation Plan and Implementation Strategy (October 2014 - February, 2015) – Each jurisdiction reviewed their priorities for action from among their goals, objectives and actions, developing a specific implementation strategy including details about the organizations responsible for carrying out the actions, their estimated cost, possible funding sources, and timelines for implementation. Work Group Meetings (February, 2014 – December, 2014) - As listed in Section 3.3 a series of HMWG meetings were held in which the HMWG 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) starting February 2014 and continued through September 2014. The meetings evolved as the planning process progressed, and were designed to aid the jurisdictions in completing worksheets that helped define hazards within their jurisdictions, their existing capabilities and mitigation goals and action items for the Mitigation Plan. Climate Change Workshops and Stakeholder Meeting (March, 2014-September 2014) – A series of workshops to discuss the impact climate change is having on the regions natural hazards were conducted to educate local planners and community members. Topics discussed included sea level rise, drought, changes to precipitation patterns and extreme weather, as well as their current 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 and objectives. SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation 19 3.5 Public Involvement A detailed survey was posted on the websites of all participating jurisdictions. It was active from the beginning of March 2014 to the end of July 2014. There were 532 responses to the survey. The survey questions and respondents answers are found in Appendix D. A Hazard Mitigation Plan Web Page, as part of the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services website was developed to provide the public with information. Items posted on the web site included the current plan, and draft updates, by jurisdiction or agency. Public involvement was valuable in the development of the Plan. The areas of concern provided by the survey responses were used by each jurisdiction while developing mitigation objectives and actions. 3.6 Existing Plans or Studies Reviewed HMWG team members and their corresponding Local Mitigation Planning Teams prior to and during the planning process reviewed several plans, studies, and guides. These plans included FEMA documents, emergency services documents as well as county and local general plans, community plans, local codes and ordinances, and other similar documents. These included: San Diego County/Cities General Plans Various Local Community Plans Various Local Codes and Ordinances FEMA Local Mitigation Handbook March 2013 FEMA Mitigation Ideas January 25, 2013 Integrating Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Planning – ICLEI February 2014 Climate Change Impacts in the United States – U.S. Government Printing Office 2014 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool California State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2013 Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan dated September 2010 SECTIONTHREE Planning Process Documentation 20 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 21 4.1 Overview of the Risk Assessment Process Risk Assessment requires the collection and analysis of hazard-related data in order to enable local jurisdictions to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions that will reduce losses from potential hazards. The FEMA Local Mitigation Handbook March 2013 identifies nine tasks to the hazard mitigation planning process, including: 1) determining the planning area and resources, which requires establishing the planning area and those jurisdictions to be included in the planning process 2) building the planning team, which involves identifying local team members, engaging local leadership, getting buy-in and documentation of the process, 3) creating an outreach strategy, to ensure public participation 4) reviewing community capabilities, which involves assessing what resources are in place, such as the National Flood Insurance Program, to help mitigate the hazards, 5) conducting the risk assessment which profiles the hazards, 6) developing a mitigation strategy to minimize the impacts of the hazards, 7) keeping the plan current, 8) reviewing and adopting the plan and 9) creating a safe and resilient community . Tasks 1, 2 3 and 4 were described in Section Three. The remaining tasks are described below. When the revision process began in 2014 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. We also reassessed those hazards that were not considered for mitigation actions in 2010 to determine if that decision was still applicable or if they should be moved to the active list. Finally, we 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. An example of this is the data for dam failure. The 2010 plan shows an exposed population of is 241,767, with the exposure for residential buildings at $23,054,569. The 2014 data shows the exposed population has increased to 432,664, with exposure for residential buildings increasing to $40,141,337. 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 risk to the San Diego region. The HMG reviewed all events since 2010 (wildfires, etc.) and all were profiled accurately in the original plan. The review of the other hazards showed that 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. 4.1.1 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment is the process of identifying the potential impacts of hazards that threaten an area including both natural and man-made 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. Man-made 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 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 22 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 or not 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 County, it is important during the hazard identification stage to consider all hazards that may potentially affect the study area. 4.1.2 Profiling (Describing) Hazards 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 and then collecting and mapping hazard event profile information obtained from various federal, state, and local government agencies. Building upon the original hazard profiles, 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 particular hazard. The hazards looked at were both natural and man-made. 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 4.1.3 Identifying Assets The next step of the risk assessment process entails identifying which assets in each jurisdiction will be affected by each hazard type. Assets include the built environment (any type of structure or critical facility such as hospitals, schools, museums, apartment buildings, and public infrastructure), people, economic factors, future development and the natural environment. The inventory of existing and proposed assets within the County was updated. The assets were then mapped to show their locations and to determine their vulnerability to each hazard type. The HMWG also considered proposed structures, including planned and approved developments, based upon a review of the General Plan Land Use Element for the County and the cities. 4.1.4 Analyze Risk 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 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 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 23 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 in a given area. It identifies the effects of natural and man-made 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. 4.1.5 Repetitive Loss Disaster records were reviewed for repetitive losses. No repetitive losses were found for Coastal storms, erosion and Tsunamis, Dam Failures, Earthquakes, landslides, wildfire or liquefaction. The City of Lemon Grove had one address involved in a series of repetitive structure fires caused by arson. A list of repetitive losses by jurisdiction is below (Repetitive loss due to flooding is found in Section 4.3.5.3): Alpine FPD 0 National City 0 Carlsbad 1 Structure Fire Oceanside 0 Chula Vista 0 Poway 0 Coronado 0 Padre Dam MWD 0 Del Mar 3 Storm /Erosion San Diego 0 El Cajon 0 San Marcos 0 Encinitas 0 Santee 0 Escondido 0 Solana Beach 0 Imperial Beach 0 Flood Vista 0 La Mesa 0 County of San Diego 0 Flood Lemon Grove 1 Structure Fire Rancho Santa Fe FPD 0 4.1.6 Exposure Analysis 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. 4.2 Hazard Identification and Screening 4.2.1 List of Hazards Prevalent in the Jurisdiction The HMWG 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 How-to Guide were also reviewed to determine if they should be added to the list of hazards to include in the plan revision. All hazards identified by FEMA in the How-To-Guides were reviewed. They include: avalanche, coastal storm, coastal erosion, dam failure, drought/water supply, earthquake, expansive soils, extreme heat, flooding, hailstorm, house/building fire, land subsidence, landslide, liquefaction, severe winter storm, tornado, tsunami, wildfire, windstorm, and volcano. Although not required by the FEMA Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, manmade hazards such as hazardous materials release, nuclear materials release, and terrorism were also reviewed by the HMWG. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 24 Climate change was not included as a hazard. However, the impact of climate change on the identified hazards was included in the evaluation of the hazards and their impacts. 4.2.2 Hazard Identification Process As summarized above, hazard identification is the process of identifying all hazards that threaten an area, including both natural and man-made events. In the hazard identification stage, The HMWG 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 HMWG 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 2010 Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan, and the general public. OES, with assistance of 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 HMWG indicated that based on the fact that the majority of the development in San Diego is relatively recent (within the last 60 years), an urban type of 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 house/building 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 decided to incorporate nuclear materials release (resulting from an accident) under hazardous materials release. The final list of hazards to be profiled for San Diego County was determined as Wildfire/Structure Fire, Flood, Coastal Storms/Erosion/Tsunami, Earthquake/Liquefaction, Rain-Induced Landslide, Dam Failure, Drought, Hazardous Materials Incidents, and Terrorism. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 25 Table 4.2-1 shows a summary of the hazard identification results for San Diego County. Table 4.2-1 Summary of Hazard Identification Results Hazard Data Collected for Hazard Identification Justification for Inclusion Coastal Storms, Erosion and 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) • Storms in San Diego County (publication of San Diego County Dept. of Sanitation and Flood Control) • Coastal storms prompted 11 Proclaimed States of Emergency from 1950-2017 • Coastline stabilization measures have been implemented at various times in the past (erosion) • Extensive development along the coast 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 • Regional water storage reserves are at the lowest point since 2008 Earthquake • USGS • CGS • URS • CISN • SanGIS • SANDAG • FEMA-HAZUS 99 • FEMA Hazards website • Several active fault zones pass through San Diego County SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 26 Hazard Data Collected for Hazard Identification Justification for Inclusion Floods • FEMA FIRM Maps • Topography • Base flood elevations (FEMA) • Historical flood records • San Diego County Water Authority • San Diego County Dept. of Sanitation and Flood Control • FEMA Hazards website • Much of San Diego County is located within the 100-year floodplain • 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 1950-2016 for floods in San Diego County 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 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 2 Proclaimed States of Emergency for landslides in 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 Nuclear Materials Release • San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) and Department of Defense • The potential exists for an accidental release to occur at San Onofre or from nuclear ships in San Diego Bay • Heightened security concerns since September 2001 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 Wildfire/ Structure Fire • CDF-FRAP • USFS • CDFG • Topography • Local Fire Agencies • Historical fire records • FEMA Hazards website • San Diego County experiences wildfires on a regular basis • 9 States of Emergency were declared for wildfires between 1950-2016 • Terrain and climate of San Diego • Santa Ana Winds A matrix of all data collected, including source, original projection, scale and data limitations is included in Attachment B. Maps were generated depicting the potential hazards throughout the county and distributed to the jurisdictions. Data and methods that were ultimately used to determine risk levels and probability of occurrence for each hazard are described in detail in the hazard profiling sections. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 27 Hazards are categorized in this plan as being highly likely (occurring every 1-10 years), likely (occurring every 10-50 years) or somewhat likely (occurring at intervals greater than 50 years). 4.2.3 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 URS 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. Table 4.2-1 also depicts data sources researched and utilized by hazard, as well as brief justifications for inclusion of each hazard of concern in the San Diego region. See Appendix B for a Data Matrix of all sources used to gather initial hazard information. 4.2.4 Non-Profiled Hazards During the initial evaluation the HMWG determined that those hazards that were not included in the original plan’s profiling step because they were not prevalent hazards within the County, were found to pose only minor or very minor threats to the County compared to the other hazards had not changed and would not be included in the revision. The following table gives a brief description of those hazards and the reason for their exclusion from the list. Table 4.2-2 Summary of Hazards Excluded from Hazard Profiling 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 Hailstorm 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. Land subsidence Occurs when large amounts of ground water have been withdrawn from certain types of Soils in the County are mostly granitic. Presents a minor threat to limited parts of the county. No historical record SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 28 Hazard Description Reason for Exclusion 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. of this hazard in the region. Tornado A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. It is spawned by a thunderstorm (or sometimes as a result 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. 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. Windstorm A storm with winds that have reached a constant speed of 74 miles per hour or more 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 (see Figure 4.3.1) 4.3 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 were 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. 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 HMWG. Because Nuclear Materials Release, Hazardous Materials Release and Terrorism hazards are sensitive issues and release of information could pose further unnecessary threat, the HMWG decided that each of these hazards would be discussed separately in a “For Official Use Only” Appendix and would be exempt from public distribution and disclosure by Section 6254 (99) of the California Government Code (See separately bound Attachment A). 4.3.1 Emerging Risk – Climate Change 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.1 The overwhelming majority of 1 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. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 29 climate scientists agree that human activities, especially burning of fossil fuels, are responsible for most of the global warming observed.2 Climate change is already affecting California and the San Diego region. Sea levels measured at a station in La Jolla have risen at a rate of 6 inches over the last century.3 Flooding and erosion in coastal areas is already occurring even at existing sea levels and damaging some coastal areas during storms and extreme high tides.4 California has also seen an increase in average temperatures of about 1.5F since 1985, more extreme heat events, and decreasing spring snowmelt from the Sierra Nevada as more precipitation falls as rain instead of snow.5 Eighty-four percent of San Diego County residents believe that climate change is happening.6 The climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond.7 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. This risk assessment goes on to discuss climate change as a factor affecting extreme heat, coastal storms/erosion, wildfire, flooding, and drought/water supply. 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. The following section provides a summary of projections for temperatures, sea level rise, and precipitation, provided by Dr. Daniel Cayan and his team at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.8 4.3.1.1 Annual Average Temperature According to the National Climate Assessment, the Southwestern United States has already heated up markedly. The period since 1950 has been hotter than any other comparably long period in the last 600 years and the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the hottest in the 110-year instrumental record.9 Global climate 2 Ibid. 3 California Environmental Protection Agency and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2013. “Indicators of Climate Change in California.” 4 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. 5 Ibid. 6 Climate Education Partners, 2014. “San Diego, 2050 Is Calling. How Will We Answer?” 7 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. 8 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 9 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. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 30 models project that San Diego will likely warm 2-3 oF by 2050 under the relatively low GHG emissions scenario (RCP 4.5). Greater warming can be expected in inland areas than along the coast. Under the higher emissions scenario (RCP 8.5), the warming trend becomes significantly more pronounced after 2050. This tendency occurs in coastal and inland areas. 4.3.1.2 Heat Waves For this analysis, the definition of a heat wave is the occurrence of the 98th percentile maximum temperature calculated from the historical period of 1970-2000 for at least one day. For coastal areas, a heat wave is defined as at least one day with the temperature reaching 83 oF or higher. For inland areas, a heat wave is at least one day with the temperature reaching 116 degrees oF or higher. By this definition, heat waves occur about 2 times per year in San Diego’s present climate. However, heat waves are projected to increase in frequency and intensity (higher maximum temperatures) over the 21st century. By mid-century, the San Diego region could see heat waves occurring 12-16 times per year. Heat waves are also projected to increase in duration (number of days). In the current climate, heat waves last 2 days on average. By mid-century, heat waves are projected to last 3-4 days on average. 4.3.1.3 Sea Level Rise Sea levels measured at a station in La Jolla have risen at a rate of 6 inches over the last century.10 The table below shows the ranges of sea level rise that the California Coastal Commission11 recommends local jurisdictions plan for based on the National Research Council’s (NRC) report on Sea Level Rise in California, Oregon and Washington: Past Present and Future.12 San Diego is projected to experience up to two feet of sea level rise by mid-century. NRC Average Sea Level Rise Projections for South of Cape Mendocino Time Period Range Central Estimate 2000-2030 4 to 30 cm (.13 to .98 ft) 14.7 ± 5.0 cm 2000-2050 12 to 61 cm (.39 to 2.0 ft) 28.4 ± 9.2 cm 2000-2100 42 to 167 cm (1.38 to 5.48 ft) 91.9 ± 24.9 cm 4.3.1.4 High Sea Level Events It’s not only important to consider increases in average sea level, but also consider other fluctuations that will occur on top of the increase in the average, such as high astronomical tides, wind, waves, and storm surge. These fluctuations produce high sea level events. This analysis of high sea levels uses a model that includes sea level rise, weather, and tidal-related fluctuations in sea level. This analysis defines a high sea level as the 99.99th percentile hourly sea level 10 California Environmental Protection Agency and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2013. “Indicators of Climate Change in California.” 11 California Coastal Commission Draft Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance (2013) http://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slr/guidance/CCC_Draft_SLR_Guidance_PR_10142013.pdf 12 Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future (2012). http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 31 calculated for the period 1970-1999.The analysis sums the total number of hours in a year that the sea level is at or above this threshold. The chart below illustrates how as the annual mean sea level increases, San Diego’s shoreline will see increasingly more hours of high sea levels as the century progresses. In the present climate, San Diego experiences one hour of high sea levels per year on average. By the 2030 period, high sea levels occur 12 hours per year on average. By mid-century, this increases to 62 hours per year. These high sea levels put more natural ecosystems (beaches, cliffs, wetlands) and man-made infrastructure at risk of exposure to flooding and wave action. High Sea Levels Trend Chart: 4.3.2 Sea Level Rise, Coastal Storms, Erosion and Tsunami 4.3.2.1 Nature of Hazard These four hazards were mapped and profiled as a group because many of the factors and risks involved are similar and limited to the coastal areas. 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. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 32 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 father inland and occur more often13. Beaches and cliffs could also see increased erosion as they are exposed to more hours of high sea levels and wave action.14 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/digitalcoast/tools/slr. According to the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy for the San Diego Bay, the sectors 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.15 In addition, some of San Diego’s military installations and the region controlled by the Port of San Diego may also be affected.16 According to the County of San Diego Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, (dated February 2017), fewer than one percent of the residents of San Diego County reside in areas at risk of inundation from a 55-inch rise in sea level by 2100. Based on that information, 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 away 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 re-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 of coastal erosion in San Diego County is considered medium. • 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. 13 San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 33 4.3.2.2 Disaster History There were eleven (11) Proclaimed States of Emergency for Weather/Storms in San Diego County between 1950 and 2017. 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 3900 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 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. 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, September 29, 2009 with a wave height of 0.5 feet, February 2010 with a wave height of 0.6 meters, and in June, 2011 with wave height of 2 feet.. 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. 4.3.2.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Figure 4.3.1 displays the location and extent of coastal storm/coastal erosion/tsunami hazard areas for the County of San Diego. As shown in this figure, 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. As shown on Figure 4.3.1, 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 Figure 4.3.1. As stated above, the risk of damage from seal level rise is considered somewhat likely with the risk of damage from coastal erosion considered to be likely and from 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 (refer to Appendix B for complete data matrix). 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 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 34 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. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 35 Figure 4.3.1 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 36 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 37 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 38 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 39 4.3.3 Dam Failure 4.3.3.1 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. 4.3.3.2 Disaster History Two major dam failures have been recorded in San Diego County. The Hatfield Flood of 1916 caused the failure of the Sweetwater 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). 4.3.3.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Figure 4.3.2 displays the location 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. Dam inundation map data were used to profile dam failure risk levels (refer to Appendix B for complete data matrix). These maps were created by agencies that own and operate dams. 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 potential for dam failure is considered to be somewhat likely. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 40 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 41 Figure 4.3.2 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 42 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 43 4.3.4 Earthquake 4.3.4.1 Nature of 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 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 (Table 4.3-1). SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 44 Table 4.3-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity 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. 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. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 45 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 (see Figure 4.3.3). 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 to be 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). 4.3.4.2 Disaster History Historic documents record that a very strong earthquake struck San Diego on May 27, 1862, damaging buildings in Old Town and opening up 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). 4.3.4.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Figure 4.3.3 displays the location and extent of the profiled earthquake hazard areas for San Diego County. This is based on a 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). SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 46 Data used to profile earthquake 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) (refer to Attachment A for complete data matrix). From these data, the HMWG 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. The potential for an earthquake in the San Diego region is considered somewhat likely. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 47 Figure 4.3.3 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 48 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 49 4.3.5 Flood 4.3.5.1 Nature of 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 injury and death from flood occurs when people are swept away by flood currents, and property damage typically occurs as a result of inundation by sediment-filled water. Average annual precipitation in San Diego County ranges from 10 inches on the coast to approximately 45 inches on the highest point of the Peninsular Mountain Range that transects the county, and 3 inches in the desert east of the mountains. 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. 4.3.5.2 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). Table 4.3-2 displays a history of flooding in San Diego County, as well as loss associated with each flood event. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 50 Table 4.3-2 Historical Records of Large Floods in San Diego County 4.3.5.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and 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 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 Oct-87 $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 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 51 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. There are over 3,600 miles of rivers and streams which threaten residents and over 200,000 acres of flood-prone property. Seven principle 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). Figure 4.3.4 displays the location and extent of flood hazard areas for the County of San Diego. As shown in this figure, 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. Based on FEMA Records the San Diego region has not suffered severe repetitive loss (residential properties that have at least four NFIP payments over $5,000 each with the cumulative claim exceeding $20,000 or at least two separate claims payments with the cumulative amount exceeding the market value of the building) since 1974. There have been numerous repetitive losses (losses of at least $1,000 each). These losses are provided in the table below: Table 4.3-3 Repetitive Loss Due to Floods in San Diego County Jurisdiction Number of Repetitive Losses Jurisdiction Number of Repetitive Losses Jurisdiction Number of Repetitive Losses Carlsbad 1 Chula Vista 2 Coronado 0 Del Mar 13 El Cajon 4 Encinitas 2 Escondido 2 Imperial Beach 4 La Mesa 2 Lemon Grove 0 National City 2 Oceanside 15 Poway 7 San Diego 35 San Marcos 1 Santee 1 Solana Beach 6 Vista 2 County of San Diego 14 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 52 Based on the historical record, the likelihood of flooding in the San Diego region is highly likely. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 53 Figure 4.3.4 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 54 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 55 4.3.6 Rain-Induced Landslide 4.3.6.1 Nature of 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 oversteeped. 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. 4.3.6.2 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. Areas where significant landslides have occurred are: the Otay Mesa area, Oceanside, Mt. Soledad in La Jolla, Sorrento Valley, in the vicinity of Rancho Bernardo and Rancho Penasquitos, along the sides of Mission Gorge (San Carlos and Tierrasanta), western Santee, the Fletcher Hills area of western El Cajon, western Camp Pendleton, and the east side of Point Loma. Some of the more significant historical coastal bluff landslides have occurred along north La Jolla (Black’s Beach), Torrey Pines, Del Mar, and Encinitas. 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 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 56 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. 4.3.6.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and 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 Figure 4.3.5, the location and extent of landslide hazard areas are generally concentrated along canyons near the coastal areas with steep slopes. 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 potential for a rain-induced landslide is considered likely. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 57 Figure 4.3.5 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 58 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 59 4.3.7 Liquefaction 4.3.7.1 Nature of Hazard 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. 4.3.7.2 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 has not occurred as a consequence 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. 4.3.7.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and 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. Figure 4.3.6 displays the location and extent of areas with a risk of liquefaction. 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 (refer to Attachment A for complete data matrix). 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. Areas where soil types D or E are located are illustrated in Figure 4.3.6. The potential for liquefaction in San Diego is considered somewhat likely. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 60 Soil Amplification Factors Soil Type PGA 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 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 61 Figure 4.3.6 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 62 4.3.8 Structure/Wildfire Fire 4.3.8.1 Nature of Hazard A structural 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 hi-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 wildland fire is a wildfire in an 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. 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, 203, October 2007 and May 2014) should be used as a guide for fire planning and mitigation. 4.3.8.2 Disaster History Table 4.3-3 lists the most recent major wildfires in San Diego County. Wildland fires prompted five (5) Proclaimed States of Emergency, and Urban/Intermix Fires prompted four (4) Proclaimed States of Emergency in the County of San Diego between 950-2014. In October of 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 $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. 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 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 63 ($5.7 million); 225,000 acres of trees and other watershed ($30 million); small dams ($3 million); and bridges and roads ($600,000). The total dollar cost of the Laguna Fire was approximately $40 million. The Bernardo, Poinsettia and Cocos Fires of May, 2014 burned 26,000 acres, destroyed 65 homes and damaged 19 others. Table 4.3-3 Major Wildfires in San Diego County Larger than 5,000 acres 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 La Jolla Fire (Palomar Mtn) September 1999 7,800 2 2 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 Bernardo, Poinsettia & Cocos Fires May 2014 26,000 65 19 0 * Information gathered from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection website SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 64 4.3.8.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude The wildfire risk maps use the most recent USGS Fire Regime data. Data for Regimes II and IV were utilized to develop the risk tables for the participating jurisdictions. Additional wildland fire hazard maps are available at http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_sandiego. Perimeter maps for the three most significant wildfire events of the past 15 years, the 2003 and 2007 Firestorms and the 2014 North County wildfires, are below. 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 2007.17 The fire season could also become longer and less predictable, making firefighting efforts more costly.18 Using the scale described in Section 4.2.3 the potential for a wildfire in the San Diego region is considered highly likely. 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 Applications19 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 likeliest 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.20 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.21 17 San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation. 18 Ibid. 19 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. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 65 Figure 4.3.7 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 66 2003 Wildfire Perimeter Map SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 67 October 31, 2007 Wildfire Perimeter Map SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 68 2014 North County Wildfires Perimeter Map SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 69 4.3.9 Extreme Heat 4.3.9.1 Nature of the Hazard 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.22 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.23 However, the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan considers extreme heat a legitimate disaster type.24 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.25 San Diego County has among the highest percentages of impervious surfaces in the states, increasing the potential impacts of heat islands.26 In fact, Southern California’s urban centers are warming more rapidly than other parts of the state.27 Extreme heat events put vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, children, 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.28 For example, socially isolated elderly persons are especially vulnerable. People who live in urban areas with high impervious surface coverage and no access to air conditioning are also especially vulnerable. In California, San Diego County ranks second, behind Los Angeles, in absolute numbers of the elderly and children less than five years of age. These two populations are most likely to suffer from heat-related illnesses and heat events.29 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 22 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. 23 Klinenberg, Eric. Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, The University of Chicago, 2002 24 Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (2013) California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 25 Ibid. 26 English et al. (2007). Executive Summary, Heat-Related Illness and Mortality Information for the Public Health Network in California 27 Ibid. 28 Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (2013) California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 29 English et al. (2007). Executive Summary, Heat-Related Illness and Mortality Information for the Public Health Network in California SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 70 dangerous.30 Hotter temperatures may also lead to poorer air quality because ozone formation, a component of smog, increases with higher temperatures.31 4.3.9.2 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 Excess Heat Preparedness and Response Plan.32 According to the Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS) there have been four extreme heat events in San Diego in the past 18 years resulting in 4 heat related fatalities and 28 heat related injuries. 4.3.9.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude San Diego 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, residents 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.33 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.34 The potential for extreme heat event is considered highly likely. 30 Ibid. 31 USGCRP (2009). Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States . Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). United States Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. 32 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. 33 Gershunov, A., and K. Guirguis (2012), California heat waves in the present and future, Geophysical Research Letters., 39, L18710 34 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. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 71 4.3.10 Drought/Water Supply 4.3.10.1 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Climate Change and Drought/Water Supply 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.35 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 snowmelt, and earlier arrival of most of the year’s streamflow.36 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.37 In fact, studies indicate that San Diego’s sources of water could shrink by 20 percent or more by 2050.38 An additional threat to water supply is the vulnerability of the levees protecting the California Delta, which feeds the State Water Project.39 According to the California Adaptation Planning Guide, jurisdictions in the San Diego region must carefully consider the vulnerability of their water supply.40 At the same time that the San Diego region’s water supply is likely to decrease, water demand is expected to increase approximately 29% by 2050 due to economic growth and population pressures.41 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. Off-setting this slightly is the desalinization plant in Carlsbad. The plant, designed to produce 50 million gallons per day, is estimated to provide 8% of the regions water resources by 2020. A U.S. Drought Monitor, using the Palmer Drought Severity Index, can be found at http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ 4.3.10.2 History of Drought in San Diego The depression ear 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 actually considered banning outdoor water use. The rains of “Miracle March” in 1991 replenished rivers, reservoirs and the Sierra snowpack. 35 Ibid. 36 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. 37 California Adaptation Planning Guide, Understanding Regional Characteristics (2012) 38 San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation. 39 California Adaptation Planning Guide, Understanding Regional Characteristics (2012) 40 Ibid. 41 San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 72 Another drought occurred in 2007 and lasted until 2011. The latest drought that began in 2012 just ended in 2017 following a series of winter storms that brought heavy rainfall to the state. 4.3.11 Manmade Hazards 4.3.11.1 Nature of Hazard Manmade hazards are distinct from natural hazards in that they result directly from the actions of people. Two types of manmade hazards can be identified: 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 biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological 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 Technological hazards involving hazardous material releases can occur at facilities (fixed site) or along transportation routes (off-site). They can occur as a result 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 particular 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. 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 shutdown of 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 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 73 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 a number of serious international and domestic terrorist incidents during the 1990’s and early 2000’s, citizens 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. 4.3.11.2 Disaster History Hazardous Material Releases 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 a total of 12,747 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. The major transit corridors of Interstates 5 and 805 have been the locations of the majority of incidents the Hazardous Incident Response Team (HIRT) has responded to in recent years. 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, SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 74 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. Table 4.3-4 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. Table 4.3-4 Licensed Hazardous Material Sites by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Facilities with County Environmental Health Hazardous Material Permits Sites with Toxic/Radiologic Hazardous Materials or Large and Complex Sites Sites with Flammable hazardous Materials Carlsbad 409 4 0 Chula Vista 805 5 0 Coronado 77 0 0 Del Mar 47 0 0 El Cajon 679 2 0 Encinitas 290 0 0 Escondido 790 7 0 Imperial Beach 36 0 0 La Mesa 305 1 0 Lemon Grove 111 0 0 National City 369 2 0 Oceanside 523 2 0 Poway 311 0 0 San Diego 5,458 15 2 San Marcos 431 2 0 Santee 227 1 0 Solana Beach 63 0 0 Unincorporated 1,192 9 0 Vista 522 1 0 USMCB Camp Pendleton 102 0 0 TOTAL 12,747 55 2 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 75 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 following emergency response history for San Diego County chronicles various hazardous materials releases, the incidents do not necessarily indicate the degree of exposure to the public. There were 504 responses to a hazardous materials release within San Diego County in 2014. Table 4.3-5 lists the numbers buy jurisdiction. Table 4.3-5 County of San Diego Environmental Health Department Hazardous Materials Division HIRT Responses in 2014 City Number of Hazardous Materials Releases Carlsbad 18 Chula Vista 28 Coronado 1 Del Mar 2 El Cajon 26 Encinitas 9 Escondido 22 Imperial Beach 7 La Mesa 8 Lemon Grove 5 National City 15 Oceanside 16 Poway 8 San Diego 220 San Marcos 7 Santee 12 Solana Beach 0 Unincorporated 86 Vista 14 TOTAL RESPONSES IN 2014 504 There has not been significant exposure to the public in San Diego County due to manmade 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. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 76 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. 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 the majority of bomb threats are hoaxes, authorities have been required to mobilize resources and activate emergency procedures on a fairly regular basis in response. Other Manmade 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. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 77 In 1984, a gunman 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. 4.3.11.3 Location and Extent/Probability of Occurrence and Magnitude Information related to the probability and magnitude of manmade hazards is considered sensitive homeland security related information. Consequently, this information is provided in a separate confidential document (Attachment C). The potential for a man-made event is highly likely. 4.4 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 a given 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. 4.4.1 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 general 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. Figure 4.4-1 shows the critical facilities identified for the County. The critical facilities identified in San Diego County include 57 hospitals and other health care facilities; 289 emergency operations facilities, fire stations, and police stations; 1,057 schools, 3,732 hazardous material sites, 7 transportation systems that include 46 airport facilities, 1,985 bridges, 23 bus and 40 rail facilities; 68 marinas and port facilities, and 1,040 kilometers of highways; utility systems that include 21 electric power facilities, natural gas facilities, crude and refined oil facilities, 13 potable and waste water facilities, and 672 communications facilities and utilities; 56 dams, 124 government office/civic centers, jails, prisons, military facilities, religious facilities, and post offices (Figure 4.4.1). 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 4,264 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. The hazards addressed are described in Section 4.3. 4.4.2 Estimating Potential Exposure and 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, structure fire/wildfire, dam failure, landslide, and manmade 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 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 78 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. 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. Table 4.4-1 provides abbreviations and average replacement costs used for critical facilities and infrastructure listed in all subsequent exposure/loss tables. Table 4.4-2 provides the total inventory and exposure estimates for the critical facilities and infrastructure by jurisdiction. Table 4.4-3 shows the estimated exposure inventory for infrastructure by jurisdiction. Table 4.4-4 provides an inventory of the maximum population and building exposure by jurisdiction. In addition to estimating potential exposure for structures, at-risk populations were also identified per hazard area. At-risk populations were defined as low-income, disabled and/or elderly and were based upon the 2000 census information. Loss was 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 2006 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). SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 79 Figure 4.4.1 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 80 Table 4.4-1 Abbreviations and Costs Used for Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Abr. Name Building Type (where applicable) Average Replacement Cost AIR Airport facilities s1l 200,000,000 BRDG Bridges n/a 191,600 BUS Bus facilities c1l 2,000,000 COM Communication facilities and Utilities c1l 2,000,000 ELEC Electric Power facility c1l 10,000,000 EMER Emergency Centers, Fire Stations and Police Stations c1l 2,000,000 GOVT Government Office/Civic Center c1l 2,000,000 HOSP Hospitals/Care facilities s1m 100,000,000 INFR Kilometers of Infrastructure. Includes: Oil/Gas Pipelines (OG) n/a 300 Railroad Tracks (RR) n/a 860 Highway (HWY) n/a 3,860 PORT Port facilities c1l 20,000,000 POT Potable and Waste Water facilities c1l 100,000,000 RAIL Rail facilities c1l 2,000,000 SCH Schools rm1l 1,000,000 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 81 Table 4.4-2 Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure and Exposure Value by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT RAIL SCH TOTAL Carlsbad Number 1 33 0 2 1 7 5 2 153 0 2 0 33 239 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 6,323 0 4,000 10,000 14,000 10,000 200,000 247 0 200,000 0 33,000 677,570Chula Vista Number 0 44 2 2 1 13 9 7 119 1 1 0 75 274 Exposure (x$1000)0 8,430 4,000 4,000 10,000 26,000 18,000 700,000 255 20,000 100,000 0 75,000 965,686CoronadoNumber0201034128000948 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 2,000 0 6,000 8,000 100,000 51 0 0 0 9,000 125,434 Del Mar Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 14 0 0 0 2 24 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 10 0 0 0 2,000 8,968El Cajon Number 1 37 1 2 1 8 7 6 64 0 0 0 47 174 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 7,089 2,000 4,000 10,000 16,000 14,000 600,000 161 0 0 0 47,000 900,250 Encinitas Number 0 16 0 1 0 6 3 3 85 0 1 7 25 147 Exposure (x$1000)0 3,066 0 2,000 0 12,000 6,000 300,000 145 0 100,000 14,000 25,000 462,211EscondidoNumber0741408888301146234 Exposure (x$1000)0 14,178 2,000 8,000 0 16,000 16,000 800,000 211 0 100,000 2,000 46,000 1,004,389Imperial Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 8 19 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 200,000 2 0 0 0 8,000 216,194 La Mesa Number 0 36 0 1 0 4 4 2 53 0 0 0 25 125 Exposure (x$1000)0 6,898 0 2,000 0 8,000 8,000 200,000 113 0 0 0 25,000 250,011Lemon Grove Number 0 8 0 0 0 2 3 0 24 0 0 0 10 47 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,533 0 0 0 4,000 6,000 0 60 0 0 0 10,000 21,593National City Number 0 47 1 1 2 4 4 7 37 5 1 3 20 132 Exposure (x$1000)0 9,005 2,000 2,000 20,000 8,000 8,000 700,000 88 100,000 100,000 6,000 20,000 975,093 Oceanside Number 1 43 2 4 0 10 12 11 124 0 1 8 43 259 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 8,239 4,000 8,000 0 20,000 24,000 1,100,000 250 0 100,000 16,000 43,000 1,523,489PowayNumber0451004213400025112Exposure (x$1000)0 8,622 2,000 0 0 8,000 4,000 100,000 98 0 0 0 25,000 147,720 San Diego (City)Number 4 498 12 33 9 89 98 50 959 62 2 5 361 2,182 Exposure (x$1000)800,000 95,417 24,000 66,000 90,000 178,000 196,000 5,000,000 2,168 1,240,000 200,000 10,000 361,000 8,262,585San Marcos Number 0 12 0 2 0 8 3 2 59 0 0 2 28 116 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 4,000 0 16,000 6,000 200,000 149 0 0 4,000 28,000 260,448SanteeNumber015140430330101576 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,874 2,000 8,000 0 8,000 6,000 0 72 0 100,000 0 15,000 141,946 Solana Beach Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 28 0 0 1 9 46 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 46 0 0 2,000 9,000 18,004Unincorporated -Number 33 227 2 44 3 100 3 15 1,334 0 0 0 86 1,847 Rural Exposure (x$1000)6,600,000 43,493 4,000 88,000 30,000 200,000 6,000 1,500,000 4,402 0 0 0 86,000 8,561,895Unincorporated -Number 0 117 0 12 0 40 7 10 320.3 0 1 2 115 624Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 22417.2 0 24000 0 80000 14000 1000000 597.25 0 100000 4000 115000 1,360,014VistaNumber01200094353001040131 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 0 0 18,000 8,000 300,000 101 0 0 20,000 40,000 388,400Total Number 40 1,277 23 113 17 323 185 130 12,749 68 11 39 1,022 15,997Total Exposure (x$1000)8,000,000 244,673 46,000 226,000 170,000 646,000 370,000 13,000,000 42,540 1,360,000 1,100,000 78,000 1,022,000 26,305,213 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 82 Table 4.4-3 Inventory of Exposure for Infrastructure Jurisdiction Data HWY Replacen RR Total Carlsbad Number 55 87 11 153 Exposure (x$1000)212 26 9 247Chula Vista Number 61 52 6 119Exposure (x$1000)234 15 6 255Coronado Number 12 16 0 28Exposure (x$1000)46 5 0 51Del Mar Number 1 8 5 14Exposure (x$1000)3 3 4 10El Cajon Number 39 19 7 64Oil/Gas Pipeplines 150 6 6 161EncinitasRailroad Tracks 32 43 10 85Exposure (x$1000)124 13 8 145Escondido Number 52 27 3 83Exposure (x$1000)200 8 3 211Imperial Beach Number 0 4 0 4Exposure (x$1000)1 1 0 2 La Mesa Number 26 16 12 53 Exposure (x$1000)99 5 10 113Lemon Grove Number 14 6 4 24Exposure (x$1000)54 2 4 60National City Number 21 12 4 37Exposure (x$1000)81 4 4 88Oceanside Number 57 49 18 124Exposure (x$1000)220 15 15 250Poway Number 25 9 0 34Exposure (x$1000)95 3 0 98San Diego Number 514 354 92 959(City)Exposure (x$1000)1,983 106 79 2,168San Marcos Number 35 15 9 59 Exposure (x$1000)136 4 8 149Santee Number 17 15 1 33Exposure (x$1000)67 4 1 72Solana Beach Number 10 15 3 28Exposure (x$1000)40 4 2 46Unicorporated - Number 1,107 117 110 1,334RuralExposure (x$1000)4,272 35 94 4,402Unicorporated - Number 136 152 33 320 Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)523 46 28 597VistaNumber2324753 Exposure (x$1000)88 7 6 101Total Number 10,777 1,352 620 12,749Total Exposure (x$1000)41,601 405 533 42,540 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 83 Table 4.4-4 Inventory of the Maximum Population and Building Exposure by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000)Carlsbad 104,707 43,723 $12,308,025 1,559 $6,986,970 Chula Vista 232,095 77,457 $21,804,146 2,184 $9,788,033 Coronado 23,009 9,541 $2,685,792 470 $2,106,399Del Mar 4,591 2,537 $714,166 220 $985,974 El Cajon 98,205 35,656 $10,037,164 1,360 $6,095,112 Encinitas 64,145 24,848 $6,994,712 1,268 $5,682,796Escondido143,071 47,044 $13,242,886 1,835 $8,223,920 Imperial Beach 28,243 9,859 $2,775,309 346 $1,550,668La Mesa 56,880 25,333 $7,131,240 952 $4,266,578Lemon Grove 25,650 8,824 $2,483,956 365 $1,635,821 National City 56,522 15,776 $4,440,944 892 $3,997,676Oceanside179,626 64,642 $18,196,723 1,964 $8,802,059 Poway 51,126 16,339 $4,599,429 732 $3,280,604 San Diego (City)1,354,013 510,740 $143,773,310 18,862 $84,533,825San Marcos 83,149 27,726 $7,804,869 812 $3,639,140 Santee 56,848 19,681 $5,540,202 582 $2,608,349 Solana Beach 13,547 6,512 $1,833,128 322 $1,443,107Unincorporated - Rural 168,254 60,561 $17,047,922 2,177 $9,756,661 Unincorporated - Urban Core 333,626 108,042 $30,413,823 3,560 $15,954,852Vista96,100 30,707 $8,644,021 1,163 $5,212,217 Total 3,173,407 1,145,548 $322,471,762 41,625 $186,550,763 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 84 4.4.2.1 Coastal Storm/Erosion FEMA FIRM flood hazard data compiled and digitized in 1997 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 and 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. Table 4.4-5 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 4,600 people may be at risk from coastal storm/coastal erosion hazards in San Diego County. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by coastal storm/coastal erosion in San Diego County include: 331 low-income households and 813 elderly persons. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 85 Table 4.4-5 Potential Exposure from Coastal Storm/Erosion Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000)Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 14 8 $2,252 0 $0Chula Vista 0 0 $0 0 $0 Coronado 580 261 $73,472 1 $4,482 Del Mar 17 10 $2,815 0 $0El Cajon 0 0 $0 0 $0 Encinitas 94 42 $11,823 0 $0Escondido00$0 0 $0Imperial Beach 157 64 $18,016 0 $0 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0Lemon Grove 0 0 $0 0 $0 National City 0 0 $0 0 $0 Oceanside 76 54 $15,201 3 $13,445Poway00$0 0 $0 San Diego (City)199 128 $36,032 1 $4,482 San Marcos 0 0 $0 0 $0Santee00$0 0 $0 Solana Beach 402 167 $47,011 2 $8,963Unincorporated - Rural 0 0 $0 0 $0 Unincorporated - Urban Core 0 0 $0 0 $0Vista00$0 0 $0Total1,539 734 $206,621 7 $31,372 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 86 4.4.2.2 Tsunami Tsunami maximum run-up projections were modeled for the entire San Diego County coastline in 2000 by the University of Southern California, and distributed by the CA Office of Emergency Services. 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, and 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. Table 4.4-6 provides a breakdown of potential exposure by jurisdiction, and Table 4.4-7 provides a breakdown of potential exposure to infrastructure and critical facility by jurisdiction. Approximately 37,000 people may be at risk from the tsunami hazard in San Diego County. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by tsunami in San Diego County include: 2,558 low income households and 3,655 elderly persons. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 87 Table 4.4-6 Potential Exposure from Tsunami Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 1,165 535 $150,603 23 $103,079Chula Vista 83 26 $7,319 1 $4,482Coronado8,523 3,367 $947,811 98 $439,207 Del Mar 1,023 542 $152,573 35 $156,860El Cajon 0 0 $0 0 $0 Encinitas 388 178 $50,107 9 $40,335 Escondido 0 0 $0 0 $0Imperial Beach 5,225 2,138 $601,847 97 $434,725 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0 Lemon Grove 0 0 $0 0 $0National City 1,306 0 $0 5 $22,409 Oceanside 2,108 1,059 $298,109 46 $206,158Poway00$0 0 $0San Diego (City)10,294 6,490 $1,826,935 393 $1,761,308 San Marcos 0 0 $0 0 $0Santee00$0 0 $0Solana Beach 324 135 $38,003 3 $13,445 Unincorporated - Rural 5,154 95 $26,743 0 $0 Unincorporated - Urban Core 35 11 $3,097 1 $4,482 Vista 0 0 $0 0 $0Total35,628 14,576 $4,103,144 711 $3,186,489 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 88 Table 4.4-7 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Tsunami Hazard by Jurisdiction Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH TotalCarlsbadNumber020000004000006 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 386 Chula Vista Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 20,192 Coronado Number 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 18 0 0 0 0 1 23 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 36 0 0 0 0 1,000 7,227 Del Mar Number 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2,385 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 100,000 0 0 0 100,193EscondidoNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,001 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 60,000 0 0 0 0 60,384 Oceanside Number 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1000)0 575 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 578PowayNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0San Diego (City)Number 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 49 0 0 0 0 68 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,341 0 0 0 0 2,000 100,000 5 980,000 0 0 0 0 1,083,347 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0UnincorporatedNumber040000001000005RuralExposure (x$1000)0 766 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 768UnincorporatedNumber000000001000001Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2VistaNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Number 0 23 0 0 0 2 3 1 42 53 1 0 0 2 127 Total Exposure (x$1000)0 4,407 0 0 0 4,000 6,000 100,000 55 1,060,000 100,000 0 0 2,000 1,276,462 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 89 4.4.2.3 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 San Diego County Water Authority provided the San Vicente Dam and Olivenhain Dam inundation maps. Olivenhain Dam is the newest dam in San Diego County, and had not yet been filled at the time of preparation of this report. Inundation areas for Olivenhain Dam however were identified and modeled as high risk. 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, and 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. Table 4.4-8 provides a breakdown of potential exposure by jurisdiction, and Table 4.4-9 provides a breakdown of potential exposure to infrastructure and critical facility by jurisdiction. Approximately 368,000 people are at risk from the dam failure hazard. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by the dam failure hazard in San Diego County include 13,689 low-income households and 24,316 elderly persons. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 90 Table 4.4.8 Potential Exposure from Dam Failure Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 4,113 1,951 $549,207 49 $219,603 Chula Vista 8,635 2,973 $836,900 190 $851,523 Coronado 0 0 $0 0 $0 Del Mar 1,139 612 $172,278 47 $210,640 El Cajon 0 0 $0 0 $0 Encinitas 1,204 425 $119,638 35 $156,860 Escondido 47,700 14,323 $4,031,925 766 $3,432,982 Imperial Beach 5,526 1,880 $529,220 42 $188,231 La Mesa 1,701 731 $205,777 19 $85,152 Lemon Grove 0 0 $0 0 $0 National City 1,998 496 $139,624 184 $824,633 Oceanside 33,755 11,437 $3,219,516 285 $1,277,285 Poway 47 16 $4,504 1 $4,482 San Diego (City)75,686 28,036 $7,892,134 1,206 $5,404,930 San Marcos 2,481 829 $233,364 59 $264,420 Santee 20,815 6,968 $1,961,492 267 $1,196,614 Solana Beach 40 17 $4,786 2 $8,963 Unincorporated - Rural 14,512 3,686 $1,037,609 135 $605,030 Unincorporated - Urban Core 21,862 7,304 $2,056,076 277 $1,241,431 Vista 553 215 $60,523 16 $71,707 Total 241,767 81,899 $23,054,569 3,580 $16,044,486 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 91 Table 4.4-9 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Dam Failure Hazard by Jurisdiction Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH TotalCarlsbadNumber0400000070000112 Exposure (x$1000)0 766 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,775Chula Vista Number 0 16 0 0 1 1 1 2 23 0 0 0 0 1 45 Exposure (x$1000)0 3,066 0 0 10,000 2,000 2,000 200,000 60 0 0 0 0 1,000 218,126 Coronado Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Number 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 13 Exposure (x$1000)0 575 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2,579 El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 1 0 0 3 28 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 100,000 0 0 3,000 103,971EscondidoNumber03311048648001115118 Exposure (x$1000)0 6,323 2,000 2,000 0 8,000 16,000 600,000 149 0 0 100,000 2,000 15,000 751,472Imperial Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 6 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,000 3,192La Mesa Number 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 11 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 395Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0National City Number 0 26 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 1 0 0 1 2 53 Exposure (x$1000)0 4,982 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 63 20,000 0 0 2,000 2,000 31,044OceansideNumber117010320250000756 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 3,257 0 2,000 0 6,000 4,000 0 62 0 0 0 0 7,000 222,319PowayNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0San Diego (City)Number 0 120 0 1 1 8 12 2 286 0 1 0 1 12 444Exposure (x$1000)0 22,992 0 2,000 10,000 16,000 24,000 200,000 605 0 100,000 0 2,000 12,000 389,597San Marcos Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 6 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,196SanteeNumber012130420670100696 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 2,000 6,000 0 8,000 4,000 0 130 0 100,000 0 0 6,000 128,429 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0UnincorporatedNumber1420105006800105123RuralExposure (x$1000)200,000 8,047 0 2,000 0 10,000 0 0 211 0 0 100,000 0 5,000 325,258 Unincorporated Number 0 22 0 0 0 6 2 2 76 0 0 0 0 15 123Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 4,215 0 0 0 12,000 4,000 200,000 140 0 0 0 0 15,000 235,356VistaNumber020001001000004 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,384Total Number 2 306 2 7 2 33 29 12 664 1 3 2 3 70 1,136Total Exposure (x$1000)400,000 58,630 4,000 14,000 20,000 66,000 58,000 1,200,000 1,465 20,000 300,000 200,000 6,000 70,000 2,418,094 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 92 4.4.2.4 Earthquake, Liquefaction and Earthquake-Induced Landslides 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, and 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 Tables 4.4-11 and 4.4-12, to plan for an event that is more likely to occur in the near-term as discussed above). Table 4.4-10 provides a breakdown of potential exposure and losses due to annualized earthquake events by jurisdiction. Tables 4.4-11 and 4.4-12 provide a breakdown of infrastructure and critical facility losses from 100-year and 500-year earthquakes, respectively. Approximately 2,800,000 people may be at risk from the annualized earthquake and earthquake-induced liquefaction hazards. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by the earthquake hazard in San Diego County include 13,689 low-income households and 24,316 elderly persons. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 93 Table 4.4-10 Potential Exposure and Losses from Annualized Earthquake Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count **Potential Loss from Shaking (x$1000) **Potential Additional Loss from Liquefaction (x$1000) **Potential Additional Loss from Landslide (x$1000) Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count **Potential Loss from Shaking (x$1000) **Potential Additional Loss from Liquefaction (x$1000) **Potential Additional Loss from Landslide (x$1000) Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 104,707 43,723 2,649 0 524 12,308,025 1,559 998 0 352 6,986,970 Chula Vista 232,095 77,457 3,086 332 586 21,804,146 2,184 772 50 262 9,788,033 Coronado 23,009 9,541 1,309 156 208 2,685,792 470 224 0 75 2,106,399 Del Mar 4,591 2,537 235 0 46 714,166 220 110 0 27 985,974 El Cajon 98,205 35,656 1,739 0 319 10,037,164 1,360 726 0 218 6,095,112 Encinitas 64,145 24,848 1,962 0 536 6,994,712 1,268 659 0 209 5,682,796 Escondido 143,071 47,044 2,743 0 399 13,242,886 1,835 1,149 0 339 8,223,920Imperial Beach 28,243 9,859 680 149 94 2,775,309 346 87 8 34 1,550,668 La Mesa 56,880 25,333 1,026 0 121 7,131,240 952 318 0 82 4,266,578 Lemon Grove 25,650 8,824 454 0 56 2,483,956 365 95 0 32 1,635,821 National City 56,522 15,776 874 56 203 4,440,944 892 420 0 132 3,997,676Oceanside179,626 64,642 4,336 646 1,156 18,196,723 1,964 849 34 293 8,802,059 Poway 51,126 16,339 776 0 141 4,599,429 732 257 0 82 3,280,604 San Diego (City)1,354,013 510,740 32,046 1,648 8,721 143,773,310 18,862 12,428 725 4,231 84,533,825 San Marcos 83,149 27,726 934 0 113 7,804,869 812 518 0 153 3,639,140Santee56,848 19,681 1,076 0 279 5,540,202 582 252 0 108 2,608,349 Solana Beach 13,547 6,512 573 62 108 1,833,128 322 312 15 84 1,443,107 Unincorporated- Rural 168,254 60,561 886 0 152 17,047,922 2,177 149 0 43 9,756,661Unincorporated- Urban Core 333,626 108,042 8,963 1 2,113 30,413,823 3,560 1,123 0 329 15,954,852 Vista 96,100 30,707 1,597 0 251 8,644,021 1,163 411 0 116 5,212,217 Total 3,173,407 1,145,548 $67,943 $3,050 $16,126 $322,471,762 $41,625 $21,860 $832 $7,202 $186,550,763 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 94 Table 4.4-11 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 100-Year Earthquake Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH TOTAL Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated -Number 15 30 1 19 0 26 0 8 437 0 0 1 0 28 565 Rural Exposure (x$1000)3,000,000 5,748 2,000 38,000 0 52,000 0 800,000 1,647 0 0 100,000 0 28,000 4,027,395 Unincorporated -Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number 15 30 1 19 0 26 0 8 437 0 0 1 0 28 565 Total Exposure (x$1000)3,000,000 5,748 2,000 38,000 0 52,000 0 800,000 1,647 0 0 100,000 0 28,000 4,027,395 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 95 Table 4.4-12 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 500-Year Earthquake Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH TOTAL Carlsbad Number 1 33 0 2 1 7 5 2 153 0 2 0 0 33 239 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 6,323 0 4,000 10,000 14,000 10,000 200,000 247 0 200,000 0 0 33,000 677,570Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CoronadoNumber01010241190000937 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 2,000 0 4,000 8,000 100,000 30 0 0 0 0 9,000 123,222 Del Mar Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 14 0 0 0 0 2 24 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 10 0 0 0 0 2,000 8,968El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Number 0 16 0 1 0 6 3 3 85 0 1 0 7 25 147 Exposure (x$1000)0 3,066 0 2,000 0 12,000 6,000 300,000 145 0 100,000 0 14,000 25,000 462,211EscondidoNumber07114088883011146232 Exposure (x$1000)0 13,604 2,000 8,000 0 16,000 16,000 800,000 211 0 100,000 100,000 2,000 46,000 1,103,815Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0OceansideNumber143240101211124010843259 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 8,239 4,000 8,000 0 20,000 24,000 1,100,000 250 0 100,000 0 16,000 43,000 1,523,489PowayNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0San Diego (City)Number 2 115 3 15 4 24 35 4 239 47 1 0 5 68 562 Exposure (x$1000)400,000 22,034 6,000 30,000 40,000 48,000 70,000 400,000 421 940,000 100,000 0 10,000 68,000 2,134,455San Marcos Number 0 12 0 2 0 8 3 2 59 0 0 0 2 28 116 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 4,000 0 16,000 6,000 200,000 149 0 0 0 4,000 28,000 260,448 Santee Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Solana Beach Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 28 0 0 0 1 9 46 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 47 0 0 0 2,000 9,000 18,005 Unincorporated -Number 30 188 2 31 2 76 1 12 1,145 0 0 4 0 63 1,554RuralExposure (x$1000)6,000,000 36,021 4,000 62,000 20,000 152,000 2,000 1,200,000 3,818 0 0 400,000 0 63,000 7,942,838Unincorporated -Number 0 39 0 9 0 20 3 6 165 0 1 0 2 45 290 Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 7472.4 0 18000 0 40000 6000 600000 252 0 100000 0 4000 45000 820,725VistaNumber012000943530001040131 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 0 0 18,000 8,000 300,000 101 0 0 0 20,000 40,000 388,400 Total Number 34 540 8 69 7 172 82 52 2,167 47 7 5 36 411 3,637Total Exposure (x$1000)6,800,000 103,464 16,000 138,000 70,000 344,000 164,000 5,200,000 5,681 940,000 700,000 500,000 72,000 411,000 15,464,145 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 96 4.4.2.5 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 utilized 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). Table 4.4-13 provides a breakdown of potential exposure and losses by jurisdiction for 100-year flood, and Table 4.4-14 provides a breakdown of infrastructure and critical facility losses for 100-year flood by jurisdiction. Table 4.4-15 provides a breakdown of potential exposure and losses by jurisdiction from 500- year flood, and Table 4.4-16 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 134,000 people may be at risk from the 100-year flood hazard. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by the 100-year flood hazard in San Diego County include 8,424 low-income households and 15,144 elderly persons. Approximately 215,000 people are at risk from the 500-year flood hazard. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by the 500-year flood hazard in San Diego County include 13,689 low-income households and 24,316 elderly persons. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 97 4.4.2.5.1 Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program Most jurisdictions within San Diego County participate in the National Flood Insurance program. Specific details for each participating jurisdiction are listed below. City of Carlsbad The City of Carlsbad has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program since 1974. Participation in the NFIP allows FEMA to authorize the sale of flood insurance (up to program limits) for businesses and residents within the appropriate flood risk zones. FEMA provides Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) delineating base flood elevations and flood risk zones and provides requirements to be adopted by the City. Their maps were updated in 2012. City of Chula Vista The City of Chula Vista participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, allowing FEMA to authorize the sale of flood insurance (up to program limits) for businesses and residents within the appropriate flood risk zones. FEMA provides Flood Insurance Rate Maps delineating base flood elevations and flood risk zones and provides requirements to be adopted by the City. The Chula Vista Municipal Code has been amended to include the language required by FEMA. City of Coronado The City of Coronado participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, allowing FEMA to authorize the sale of flood insurance (up to program limits) for businesses and residents within the appropriate flood risk zones. FEMA provides Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) delineating base flood elevations and flood risk zones and provides requirements to be adopted by the City. City of Del Mar The City of Del Mar participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, allowing FEMA to authorize the sale of flood insurance (up to program limits) for businesses and residents within the appropriate flood risk zones. FEMA provides Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) identifying base flood elevations and flood risk zones and provides requirements. All FEMA requirements have been adopted by the City. City of El Cajon The City of El Cajon is a participant in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the City and as designated by FEMA. The City of El Cajon manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the FEMA guidelines and requirements and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. City of Encinitas Encinitas participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and is required to adopt and enforce floodplain ordinances that meet FEMA’s requirements. In return the NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available in areas that are prone to flooding (have at least 1% chance of flooding annually). Without Federally backed insurance for flooding, homeowners either can’t find flood insurance or the rate is very high. The NFIP is a Federal program administered by FEMA that provides flood insurance, floodplain management, and flood hazard mapping. The City of Encinitas Engineering Department SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 98 manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the FEMA guidelines and requirements and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to address questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. Encinitas received updated maps last year. Any proposed changes to these maps are processed by the City through FEMA. The Floodplain Management Regulations in Chapter 23.40 of the Encinitas Municipal Code meet or exceed FEMA guidelines and requirements. City of Escondido The City of Escondido does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As part of their property insurance policy the City does purchase flood coverage. The City has a $30,000,000 limit with a deductible of either $250,000 or $100,000 depending upon the specific flood zone. City of Imperial Beach The City of Imperial Beach participates in the NFIP. The staff member with the key role in the program is the Floodplain Administrator. The Administrator determines if a proposed structure would be situated within an area of special flood hazard (usually a 100-year floodplain or floodway) as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). They are usually along the oceanfront, bay-front, or river valley. It is rare if the City receives a building permit application to build within a floodplain. When that occurs, the Administrator requires the finish floor elevation to be above the base flood elevation. In addition there would be a requirement for the applicant’s engineer to submit a hydrology study that would show the proposed structure would not raise the base flood elevation. The requirements in the City of Imperial beach follow the rules, regulations and guidelines of the National Flood Insurance Program. City of La Mesa The City of La Mesa is a participant in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the City and as designated by FEMA. The City of La Mesa manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the FEMA guidelines and requirements and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. City of Lemon Grove The City of Lemon Grove is a participant in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the City and as designated by FEMA. The City of Lemon Grove manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the FEMA guidelines and requirements and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. City of National City The City of National City is a participant in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the city and as designated by FEMA. The City of National City manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the FEMA guidelines and requirements, State of SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 99 California Department of Water Resources Model Floodplain. Management Ordinance and the City of National City Floodplain Ordinance, and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. Any proposed changes to these maps are processed by the City through FEMA. City of Oceanside The City of Oceanside participates in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program. The program is monitored through our City Engineering Department which manages the permitting of developments and improvements in the floodplain areas. These areas are identified by Flood Maps that are updated by FEMA. The City has been part of this program since 1991 with our last assessment in 1996. City of Poway The City of Poway participates in the National Flood insurance Program (NFIP). Participation in the NFIP is required to provide our citizens with Federally-subsidized flood insurance. The City’s responsibility, as a NFIP participant, is to adopt a floodplain ordinance regulate development in the 100 year floodplain. Any development in the floodplain requires a Floodplain Development permit issued by the City. They estimate there are over 900 residential structures located in the 100-year floodplain. The City of Poway also participates in the Community Rating System (CRS) program which provides our citizens with a 10% reduction in their flood insurance premiums. The amount of reduction is based on our floodplain management activities that are over and above the minimum required by FEMA. City of San Diego The City of San Diego is a participant in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the city and as designated by FEMA. The City of San Diego manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the FEMA guidelines and requirements and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. Any proposed changes to these maps are processed by the City through FEMA. City of San Marcos The City of San Marcos is a participant in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the city and as designated by FEMA. The City of San Marcos has adopted a floodplain management ordinance in accordance with the FEMA’s rules and regulations. The City manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the guidelines and requirements provided in said ordinance and keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. Any proposed changes to these maps are processed by the City through FEMA. City of Santee The City of Santee is a participant in FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the city and as designated by SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 100 FEMA. The City of Santee manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the City's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance that meets or exceeds FEMA guidelines and requirements. The City of Santee keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. Any proposed changes to these maps are processed by the City through FEMA. City of Solana Beach The City of Solana Beach is a participant in FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the city and as designated by FEMA. The City also has a Municipal Code (Chapter 17.80; FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION OVERLAY ZONE). This ordinance references the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The City of Solana Beach is currently working with FEMA to ensure their program remains current. City of Vista The City of Vista is a participant in FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program provides flood insurance for structures located within the floodplain areas in the city and as designated by FEMA. The City of Vista manages the permitting of any proposed developments and improvements within the floodplain areas per the City's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance that meets or exceeds FEMA guidelines and requirements. The City of Vista keeps up to date copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that are used to assist constituents in answering their questions regarding the 100-year flood elevations and boundaries within the floodplain areas. Any proposed changes to these maps are processed by the City through FEMA. County of San Diego The County of San Diego participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). To qualify for flood insurance, new construction and substantial improvement to structures located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) within the County must meet minimum standards established by the NFIP. Additionally, FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) program enables communities to earn credits for tasks and activities above and beyond minimum NFIP standards. The County has been a participating member under the CRS since September 2007, and has twice successfully reduced insurance premiums in San Diego by five percent. To ensure that the County’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance reflects the most current standards set forth by the NFIP and to implement higher regulations for development of new or substantially improved structures located within the SFHA, the County’s DPW Flood Control Engineering Group has begun the process of updating the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Fire Protection Districts and Municipal Water Districts Special districts do not directly participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Residents of the Fire protection Districts or Water Agencies participate in the NFIP through the process set up by the jurisdiction (City or County) they reside in. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 101 Table 4.4-13 Potential Exposure and Losses from 100-Year Flood Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000)Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 6,906 3,045 $857,168 102 $457,133 Chula Vista 5,947 2,395 $674,193 153 $685,700 Coronado 2,853 1,227 $345,401 30 $134,451 Del Mar 813 435 $122,453 42 $188,231 El Cajon 1,870 657 $184,946 36 $161,341 Encinitas 653 234 $65,871 22 $98,597 Escondido 8,367 2,599 $731,619 101 $452,652 Imperial Beach 1,206 408 $114,852 14 $62,744 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0 Lemon Grove 105 34 $9,571 2 $8,963 National City 2,854 893 $251,380 118 $528,841 Oceanside 19,007 6,715 $1,890,273 217 $972,529 Poway 2,518 814 $229,141 47 $210,640 San Diego (City)36,042 12,191 $3,431,767 523 $2,343,929 San Marcos 2,377 794 $223,511 70 $313,719 Santee 1,873 572 $161,018 46 $206,158 Solana Beach 1,124 574 $161,581 13 $58,262 Unincorporated - Rural 7,276 3,661 $1,030,572 137 $613,993 Unincorporated -Urban Core 10,125 3,358 $945,277 195 $873,932 Vista 1,988 635 $178,753 94 $421,280 Total 113,904 41,241 $11,609,342 1,962 $8,793,095 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 102 Table 4.4-14 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 100-Year Flood Hazard by Jurisdiction Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 27 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,150 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 1,000 2,169Chula Vista Number 0 12 0 0 0 1 1 1 13 0 0 0 0 1 29 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 100,000 25 0 0 0 0 1,000 107,324 Coronado Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2,198 Del Mar Number 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 Exposure (x$1000)0 575 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 578El Cajon Number 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 10 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,387 Encinitas Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 10 Exposure (x$1000)0 766 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 100,000 0 0 0 100,771 Escondido Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 15 Exposure (x$1000)0 766 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,781 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 National City Number 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 1 0 0 0 1 20 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,533 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 24 20,000 0 0 0 1,000 24,557 Oceanside Number 1 17 0 1 0 2 3 0 28 0 0 0 0 5 57 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 3,257 0 2,000 0 4,000 6,000 0 53 0 0 0 0 5,000 220,310 Poway Number 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,341 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3,343 San Diego (City)Number 0 74 1 3 0 0 2 1 66 49 0 0 1 3 200 Exposure (x$1000)0 14,178 2,000 6,000 0 0 4,000 100,000 99 980,000 0 0 2,000 3,000 1,111,278 San Marcos Number 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 13 Exposure (x$1000)0 575 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 14 0 0 0 0 2,000 202,589 Santee Number 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 12 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,724 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1,726 Solana Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 Unincorporated Number 3 36 0 1 0 4 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 12 107RuralExposure (x$1000)600,000 6,898 0 2,000 0 8,000 0 0 175 0 0 0 0 12,000 629,073 Unincorporated Number 0 14 0 0 0 1 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 34Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 2,682 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 6,733 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 5 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 5 0 0 0 2,000 0 6,005 Total Number 4 201 1 5 0 10 10 4 239 50 1 0 2 35 562 Total Exposure (x$1000)800,000 38,512 2,000 10,000 0 20,000 20,000 400,000 504 1,000,000 100,000 0 4,000 35,000 2,430,016 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 103 Table 4.4-15 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$1000)Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 6,996 3,086 $868,709 104 $466,097 Chula Vista 25,564 9,180 $2,584,170 405 $1,815,089 Coronado 3,868 1,715 $482,773 46 $206,158 Del Mar 1,062 567 $159,611 47 $210,640 El Cajon 17,608 6,457 $1,817,646 278 $1,245,913 Encinitas 678 243 $68,405 23 $103,079 Escondido 32,516 9,994 $2,813,311 336 $1,505,851 Imperial Beach 3,408 1,178 $331,607 35 $156,860 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0 Lemon Grove 131 41 $11,542 2 $8,963 National City 8,584 2,735 $769,903 259 $1,160,760 Oceanside 37,323 12,878 $3,625,157 368 $1,649,266 Poway 4,690 1,540 $433,510 79 $354,054 San Diego (City)85,289 28,438 $8,005,297 1,126 $5,046,394 San Marcos 2,609 875 $246,313 77 $345,091 Santee 2,994 967 $272,211 60 $268,902 Solana Beach 1,250 648 $182,412 16 $71,707 Unincorporated - Rural 8,950 4,426 $1,245,919 151 $676,737 Unincorporated - Urban Core 11,357 3,785 $1,065,478 213 $954,602 Vista 4,639 1,553 $437,170 144 $645,365 Total 259,516 90,306 $25,421,139 3,769 $16,891,527 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 104 Table 4.4-16 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from 500-Year Flood Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH TotalCarlsbadNumber06000000200000127 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,150 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 1,000 2,169Chula Vista Number 0 18 0 0 1 1 1 1 30 1 0 0 0 3 56 Exposure (x$1000)0 3,449 0 0 10,000 2,000 2,000 100,000 48 20,000 0 0 0 3,000 140,497CoronadoNumber010000102000004 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2,198Del Mar Number 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 Exposure (x$1000)0 575 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2,578El Cajon Number 0 13 1 0 1 2 3 3 9 0 0 0 0 8 40 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,491 2,000 0 10,000 4,000 6,000 300,000 19 0 0 0 0 8,000 332,510EncinitasNumber0400000060100011 Exposure (x$1000)0 766 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 100,000 0 0 0 100,771 Escondido Number 0 20 0 0 0 2 5 2 14 0 0 0 0 11 54 Exposure (x$1000)0 3,832 0 0 0 4,000 10,000 200,000 31 0 0 0 0 11,000 228,863 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 La Mesa Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 National City Number 0 12 0 0 0 1 2 0 11 1 0 0 0 2 29 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 27 20,000 0 0 0 2,000 30,327 Oceanside Number 1 21 0 2 0 4 4 1 37 0 0 0 1 6 77 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 4,024 0 4,000 0 8,000 8,000 100,000 77 0 0 0 2,000 6,000 332,100 Poway Number 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 11 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,533 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1,000 4,535 San Diego (City)Number 0 119 2 3 0 2 8 3 122 49 1 0 1 5 315 Exposure (x$1000)0 22,800 4,000 6,000 0 4,000 16,000 300,000 229 980,000 100,000 0 2,000 5,000 1,440,030 San Marcos Number 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 14 Exposure (x$1000)0 766 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 14 0 0 0 0 2,000 202,781 Santee Number 0 9 0 2 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 17 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,724 0 4,000 0 0 2,000 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7,729 Solana Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 Unincorporated Number 3 39 0 1 0 4 1 0 56 0 0 0 0 13 117RuralExposure (x$1000)600,000 7,472 0 2,000 0 8,000 2,000 0 193 0 0 0 0 13,000 632,665 Unincorporated Number 0 15 0 0 0 1 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 38 Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 2,874 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 58 0 0 0 0 1,000 7,932 Vista Number 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 4 14 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 0 10 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 14,202 Total Number 4 294 3 8 2 21 29 12 349 51 2 0 3 57 835 Total Exposure (x$1000)800,000 56,330 6,000 16,000 20,000 42,000 58,000 1,200,000 753 1,020,000 200,000 0 6,000 57,000 3,482,083 Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 105 4.4.2.6 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, and 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. Table 4.4-17 provides a breakdown of potential exposure for high-risk rain-induced landslide hazard by jurisdiction, and Table 4.4-18 provides a breakdown of infrastructure and critical facility exposure for high risk. Table 4.4-19 provides a breakdown of potential exposure for moderate risk rain-induced landslide by jurisdiction, and Table 4.4-20 provides a breakdown of potential infrastructure and critical facility exposure for moderate risk. Approximately 505,000 people may be at risk from the rain-induced landslide hazard. In addition, special populations at risk that may be impacted by the rain-induced landslide hazard in San Diego County include 22,346 low-income households and 57,564 elderly persons. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 106 Table 4.4-17 Potential Exposure from Rain-Induced Landslide Hazard (High Risk) by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 455 204 $57,426 2 $8,963 Chula Vista 0 0 $0 0 $0 Coronado 0 0 $0 0 $0 Del Mar 0 0 $0 0 $0 El Cajon 35 22 $6,193 0 $0 Encinitas 24 7 $1,971 0 $0 Escondido 751 295 $83,043 2 $8,963 Imperial Beach 0 0 $0 0 $0 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0 Lemon Grove 2 0 $0 0 $0 National City 0 0 $0 0 $0 Oceanside 0 0 $0 0 $0 Poway 2 0 $0 0 $0 San Diego (City)137,095 48,049 $13,525,794 1,072 $4,804,382 San Marcos 1,441 457 $128,646 4 $17,927 Santee 35 12 $3,378 0 $0 Solana Beach 0 0 $0 0 $0 Unincorporated - Rural 9,130 3,573 $1,005,800 93 $416,798 Unincorporated - Urban Core 1,509 314 $88,391 4 $17,927 Vista 92 32 $9,008 1 $4,482 Total 150,571 52,965 $14,909,648 1,178 $5,279,443 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 107 Table 4.4-18 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Rain-Induced Landslide Hazard (High Risk) by Jurisdiction Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City)Number 0 17 0 10 0 6 4 0 93 0 0 0 0 22 152 Exposure (x$1000)0 3,257 0 20,000 0 12,000 8,000 0 221 0 0 0 0 22,000 65,478 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 Santee Number 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Number 0 3 0 2 0 3 1 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 35RuralExposure (x$1000)0 575 0 4,000 0 6,000 2,000 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 12,657 Unincorporated Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 10Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8,000 8,003 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Number 0 20 0 13 0 10 5 0 121 0 0 0 0 30 199Total Exposure (x$1000)0 3,832 0 26,000 0 20,000 10,000 0 306 0 0 0 0 30,000 90,138 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 108 Table 4.4-19 Potential Exposure to Rain-Induced Landslide Hazard (Moderate Risk) by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 57 30 $8,445 0 $0 Chula Vista 2 1 $282 1 $4,482 Coronado 0 0 $0 0 $0 Del Mar 0 0 $0 0 $0 El Cajon 39 13 $3,660 1 $4,482 Encinitas 6 1 $282 0 $0 Escondido 171 71 $19,987 2 $8,963 Imperial Beach 0 0 $0 0 $0 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0 Lemon Grove 0 0 $0 0 $0 National City 7 2 $563 0 $0 Oceanside 0 0 $0 0 $0 Poway 0 0 $0 0 $0 San Diego (City)10 3 $845 0 $0 San Marcos 970 286 $80,509 0 $0 Santee 0 0 $0 0 $0 Solana Beach 0 0 $0 0 $0 Unincorporated - Rural 23,197 4,188 $1,178,922 89 $398,871 Unincorporated - Urban Core 35,499 11,039 $3,107,479 389 $1,743,381 Vista 11 2 $563 0 $0 Total 59,969 15,636 $4,401,534 482 $2,160,179 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 109 Table 4.4-20 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructure from Rain-Induced Landslide Hazard (Moderate Risk) by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CoronadoNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0EncinitasNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 Oceanside Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0PowayNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0San Diego (City)Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Number 1 20 0 0 0 3 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 4 67RuralExposure (x$1000)200,000 3,832 0 0 0 6,000 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 4,000 213,940 Unincorporated Number 0 29 0 0 0 8 2 1 36 0 0 0 2 12 90Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 5,556 0 0 0 16,000 4,000 100,000 71 0 0 0 4,000 12,000 141,628VistaNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Number 1 50 0 0 0 11 2 1 75 0 0 0 2 16 158Total Exposure (x$1000)200,000 9,580 0 0 0 22,000 4,000 100,000 179 0 0 0 4,000 16,000 355,759 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 110 4.4.2.7 Wildfire/Structure Fire Wildfire loss estimates were determined using the USGS LANDFIRE model because data for the CDF- FRAP model was being revised and would not be available for this revision. The LANDFIRE model provides five different Fire Regimes. In the model, fire threat is a combination of factors including; 1) historical fire regime and fire regime condition class, 2) existing vegetation, and 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 The model uses spatial data in the ARC Grid format which includes existing vegetation types, historical vegetation data, and fire behavior fuel models. It also incorporates natural and human-caused changes. Fuel is considered to be any material that can burn and is further defined as live and dead biomass. Fuel loading is the dry weight of a fuel component per unit area, typically kilogram per square meter. Other factors such as surface-to-volume ratio, packing ratio and heat content are also considered42. LANDFIRE uses the Fuel Characterization Classification System (FCCS) developed by Sandberg and others (2001) which summarizes fuel loading using canopy, shrub, surface and ground fuel stratifications. It also uses a fuel loading model developed specifically for LANDFIRE. This uses a broad classification of fuel beds based on fuel loading that accounts for variability of loading within fuel components43. 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. Areas burned during the 2007 firestorm that are susceptible to flooding or debris flow as a result of a significant rain event have been mapped and these maps have been provided to the appropriate jurisdictions. Tables 4.4-21 and 4.4-22 provide a breakdown of potential exposure to Fire Regimes II and IV. These two regimes provide the greatest risk to the San Diego region. 42 Keane, Robert F., Tracey Frescino, Matthew C. Reeves, and Jennifer L. Long, Mapping Wildland Fuel Across Large Regions for the LANDFIRE prototype Project, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-175. 2006 43 Ibid. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 111 Table 4.4-21 Potential Exposure from Extreme Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction FIRE REGIME GROUPS II AND IV - POPULATION TOTAL Buildings at Risk Building Count Exposure (x$1,000) Square Footage Exposure (x$1,000) Exposure (x$1,000) Carlsbad 99,892 43,157 12,148,696 29,541 10,339,342 22,488,038 Chula Vista 227,269 72,446 20,393,549 24,923 8,722,910 29,116,459 Coronado 22,740 9,263 2,607,535 3,372 1,180,036 3,787,571 Del Mar 3,791 2,288 644,072 2,055 719,363 1,363,435 El Cajon 96,248 32,872 9,253,468 18,121 6,342,347 15,595,815 Encinitas 57,529 23,980 6,750,370 15,107 5,287,475 12,037,845 Escondido 134,425 43,388 12,213,722 20,384 7,134,378 19,348,100 Imperial Beach 25,831 9,466 2,664,679 1,477 517,032 3,181,711 La Mesa 56,037 24,608 6,927,152 10,150 3,552,605 10,479,757 Lemon Grove 25,538 8,689 2,445,954 2,777 971,934 3,417,887 National City 57,267 15,144 4,263,036 9,300 3,255,165 7,518,201 Oceanside 157,029 60,356 16,990,214 17,827 6,239,477 23,229,691 Poway 43,624 15,054 4,237,701 12,366 4,328,138 8,565,839 San Diego (City)1,244,722 486,276 136,886,694 262,238 91,783,418 228,670,112 San Marcos 79,610 25,994 7,317,311 14,638 5,123,300 12,440,611 Santee 45,353 16,283 4,583,665 5,307 1,857,498 6,441,162 Solana Beach 12,004 5,986 1,685,059 5,292 1,852,269 3,537,328 Vista 89,520 29,418 8,281,167 18,919 6,621,623 14,902,790 Unincorporated-Rural 88,262 27,785 7,821,478 12,481 4,368,416 12,189,894 Unincorporated-Urban 335,301 111,685 31,439,328 29,983 10,494,099 41,933,427 Padre Dam MWD 83,399 30,088 8,469,772 11,692 4,092,373 12,562,145 Valley Center MWD 22,390 7,410 2,085,915 3,023 1,058,187 3,144,102 Alpine FPD 12,885 4,814 1,355,141 1,355 474,178 1,829,319 Rancho Santa Fe FPD 24,260 10,052 2,829,638 4,463 1,562,217 4,391,855 San Miguel FPD 114,949 39,482 11,114,183 9,036 3,162,580 14,276,763 TOTAL1 2,901,990 1,064,138 299,554,847 516,259 180,690,824 480,245,671 1Total includes municipalities and unincorporated area only; FPDs and MWDs are excluded from the total to avoid multiple counting of items. Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at RiskExposed PopulationJurisdiction SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 112 Table 4.4-22 Potential Exposure from Very High Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 3,219 1,294 $364,261 33 $147,896Chula Vista 9,048 2,795 $786,793 3 $13,445Coronado190$0 0 $0 Del Mar 7 5 $1,408 0 $0El Cajon 97 36 $10,134 2 $8,963 Encinitas 1,267 424 $119,356 14 $62,744 Escondido 846 328 $92,332 14 $62,744Imperial Beach 65 0 $0 0 $0 La Mesa 0 0 $0 0 $0 Lemon Grove 188 79 $22,239 1 $4,482National City 0 0 $0 0 $0 Oceanside 1,402 470 $132,305 7 $31,372Poway937305$85,858 17 $76,189San Diego (City)20,153 6,990 $1,967,685 208 $932,194 San Marcos 2,236 818 $230,267 8 $35,854Santee22289$25,054 3 $13,445 Solana Beach 76 33 $9,290 1 $4,482 Unincorporated - Rural 47,816 18,209 $5,125,834 658 $2,948,959 Unincorporated - Urban Core 41,461 10,036 $2,825,134 180 $806,706 Vista 654 217 $61,086 7 $31,372 Total 129,713 42,128 $11,859,032 1,156 $5,180,845 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 113 Table 4.4-23 Potential Exposure from High Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 9,255 4,298 $1,209,887 72 $322,682Chula Vista 3,840 1,224 $344,556 18 $80,671Coronado00$0 0 $0 Del Mar 16 9 $2,534 1 $4,482El Cajon 118 42 $11,823 3 $13,445 Encinitas 1,159 419 $117,949 18 $80,671 Escondido 1,660 654 $184,101 17 $76,189Imperial Beach 37 7 $1,971 0 $0 La Mesa 404 177 $49,826 1 $4,482 Lemon Grove 0 0 $0 0 $0National City 9 2 $563 5 $22,409 Oceanside 2,795 849 $238,994 21 $94,116Poway3,069 976 $274,744 55 $246,494San Diego (City)30,997 10,710 $3,014,865 280 $1,254,876 San Marcos 11,312 3,578 $1,007,207 30 $134,451Santee2,658 938 $264,047 18 $80,671Solana Beach 50 22 $6,193 1 $4,482 Unincorporated - Rural 8,518 3,197 $899,956 108 $484,024 Unincorporated - Urban Core 8,068 2,504 $704,876 76 $340,609 Vista 792 277 $77,976 12 $53,780Total84,757 29,883 $8,412,065 736 $3,298,531 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 114 Table 4.4-24 Potential Exposure from Moderate Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 76,454 31,464 $8,857,116 1,229 $5,508,009Chula Vista 169,128 57,512 $16,189,628 1,963 $8,797,577Coronado18,868 8,097 $2,279,306 428 $1,918,168 Del Mar 3,332 1,836 $516,834 178 $797,743El Cajon 97,629 35,464 $9,983,116 1,348 $6,041,332 Encinitas 55,064 21,388 $6,020,722 1,103 $4,943,315 Escondido 134,126 43,671 $12,293,387 1,745 $7,820,567Imperial Beach 26,346 9,139 $2,572,629 310 $1,389,327 La Mesa 56,195 25,030 $7,045,945 946 $4,239,688 Lemon Grove 25,058 8,606 $2,422,589 361 $1,617,894National City 55,054 15,749 $4,433,344 881 $3,948,378 Oceanside 161,361 58,273 $16,403,850 1,824 $8,174,621Poway43,815 14,007 $3,942,971 610 $2,733,837San Diego (City)1,251,231 473,008 $133,151,752 17,500 $78,429,750 San Marcos 60,659 20,218 $5,691,367 735 $3,294,050Santee50,473 17,705 $4,983,958 535 $2,397,710Solana Beach 11,413 5,585 $1,572,178 303 $1,357,955 Unincorporated - Rural 71,028 24,474 $6,889,431 792 $3,549,506 Unincorporated - Urban Core 255,909 86,104 $24,238,276 2,970 $13,310,649 Vista 90,913 28,908 $8,137,602 1,106 $4,956,760Total2,714,056 986,238 $277,625,997 36,867 $165,226,834 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 115 Table 4.4-25 Potential Exposure from Wildfire (Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme Combined) Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Exposed Population Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Building Count Potential Exposure (x$1000) Carlsbad 88,928 37,056 $10,431,264 1,334 $5,978,588Chula Vista 182,033 61,536 $17,322,384 1,984 $8,891,693Coronado18,887 8,097 $2,279,306 428 $1,918,168 Del Mar 3,355 1,850 $520,775 179 $802,224El Cajon 97,844 35,542 $10,005,073 1,353 $6,063,740 Encinitas 57,495 22,232 $6,258,308 1,135 $5,086,730 Escondido 136,697 44,680 $12,577,420 1,776 $7,959,499Imperial Beach 26,448 9,146 $2,574,599 310 $1,389,327 La Mesa 56,599 25,207 $7,095,771 947 $4,244,170 Lemon Grove 25,246 8,685 $2,444,828 362 $1,622,375National City 55,063 15,751 $4,433,907 886 $3,970,786 Oceanside 165,558 59,592 $16,775,148 1,852 $8,300,108 Poway 47,823 15,289 $4,303,854 682 $3,056,519San Diego (City)1,302,402 490,708 $138,134,302 17,989 $80,621,301 San Marcos 74,207 24,614 $6,928,841 773 $3,464,354Santee53,353 18,732 $5,273,058 556 $2,491,825Solana Beach 11,539 5,640 $1,587,660 305 $1,366,919 Unincorporated - Rural 140,648 51,134 $14,394,221 1,745 $7,820,567 Unincorporated - Urban Core 307,689 99,272 $27,945,068 3,249 $14,561,043Vista92,372 29,407 $8,278,071 1,125 $5,041,913Total2,944,186 1,064,170 $299,563,855 38,970 $174,651,849 Residential Buildings at Risk Commercial Buildings at Risk SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 116 Table 4.4-26 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructures from Extreme Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH TotalCarlsbadNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CoronadoNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0EncinitasNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0EscondidoNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego (City)Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Number 2 22 1 14 0 5 0 0 114 0 0 0 0 2 160RuralExposure (x$1000)400,000 4,215 2,000 28,000 0 10,000 0 0 415 0 0 0 0 2,000 446,630 Unincorporated Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number 2 22 1 14 0 5 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 2 166Total Exposure (x$1000)400,000 4,215 2,000 28,000 0 10,000 0 0 426 0 0 0 0 2,000 446,641 Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 117 Table 4.4-27 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructures from Very High Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 7 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 2,000 100,000 3 0 0 0 2,000 104,195Chula Vista Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 4 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1,000 1,001CoronadoNumber00000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)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$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0El Cajon Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3EncinitasNumber01000000100002 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 193 Escondido Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 196Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)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$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0National City Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oceanside Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4PowayNumber00000000300014 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1,000 1,008 San Diego (City)Number 0 8 0 2 0 0 1 0 58 0 0 0 3 72 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,533 0 4,000 0 0 2,000 0 134 0 0 0 3,000 10,667 San Marcos Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1SanteeNumber00000000100001 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Unincorporated - Number 13 105 2 34 0 50 0 5 665 0 0 0 23 897RuralExposure (x$1000)2,600,000 20,118 4,000 68,000 0 100,000 0 500,000 2,173 0 0 0 23,000 3,317,291 Unincorporated - Number 0 9 0 0 0 6 1 2 75 0 0 0 6 99Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 1,724 0 0 0 12,000 2,000 200,000 82 0 0 0 6,000 221,806VistaNumber00000000100012 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 Total Number 13 125 2 36 0 56 3 8 815 0 0 0 37 1,095Total Exposure (x$1000)2,600,000 23,950 4,000 72,000 0 112,000 6,000 800,000 2,417 0 0 0 37,000 3,657,367 Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 118 Table 4.4-28 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructures from High Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 3 22 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 3,000 3,027 Chula Vista Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,195CoronadoNumber000000000000000 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Del Mar Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Encinitas Number 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 7 Exposure (x$1000)0 575 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 100,000 0 0 0 100,576EscondidoNumber000100007000008 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2,005 Imperial Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 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 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lemon Grove Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National City Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 Oceanside Number 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 2,208PowayNumber0200000070000110 Exposure (x$1000)0 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,405 San Diego (City)Number 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 8 75 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,491 0 6,000 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 8,000 16,582 San Marcos Number 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 4,000 0 2,000 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 6,196SanteeNumber000100002000003 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2,005Solana Beach Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Number 4 17 0 2 0 3 1 0 136 0 0 0 0 2 165RuralExposure (x$1000)800,000 3,257 0 4,000 0 6,000 2,000 0 446 0 0 0 0 2,000 817,703 Unincorporated Number 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 2 16 0 0 1 0 0 26Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 1,150 0 0 0 2,000 0 200,000 21 0 0 100,000 0 0 303,171VistaNumber000001002000014 Exposure (x$1000)0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,000 3,001 Total Number 4 45 0 9 0 6 2 2 255 0 1 1 0 16 341Total Exposure (x$1000)800,000 8,622 0 18,000 0 12,000 4,000 200,000 648 0 100,000 100,000 0 16,000 1,259,270 Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 119 Table 4.4-29 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructures from Moderate Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 1 19 0 2 1 7 4 1 89 0 1 0 0 18 143 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 3,640 0 4,000 10,000 14,000 8,000 100,000 153 0 100,000 0 0 18,000 457,793Chula Vista Number 0 39 2 2 1 11 8 7 85 0 1 0 0 59 215 Exposure (x$1000)0 7,472 4,000 4,000 10,000 22,000 16,000 700,000 165 0 100,000 0 0 59,000 922,638CoronadoNumber01010341120000931 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 2,000 0 6,000 8,000 100,000 12 0 0 0 0 9,000 125,204 Del Mar Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 20 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 7 0 0 0 0 2,000 8,965 El Cajon Number 1 37 1 2 1 8 7 6 61 0 0 0 0 47 171 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 7,089 2,000 4,000 10,000 16,000 14,000 600,000 153 0 0 0 0 47,000 900,242EncinitasNumber01101063372000723126 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,108 0 2,000 0 12,000 6,000 300,000 127 0 0 0 14,000 23,000 359,235EscondidoNumber06711068868010143204 Exposure (x$1000)0 12,837 2,000 2,000 0 12,000 16,000 800,000 187 0 100,000 0 2,000 43,000 990,024 Imperial Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 8 18 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 200,000 2 0 0 0 0 8,000 216,194 La Mesa Number 0 36 0 1 0 4 4 2 52 0 0 0 0 25 124 Exposure (x$1000)0 6,898 0 2,000 0 8,000 8,000 200,000 112 0 0 0 0 25,000 250,010Lemon Grove Number 0 8 0 0 0 2 3 0 23 0 0 0 0 10 46 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,533 0 0 0 4,000 6,000 0 58 0 0 0 0 10,000 21,591National City Number 0 46 1 1 2 4 4 7 37 0 1 0 2 20 125 Exposure (x$1000)0 8,814 2,000 2,000 20,000 8,000 8,000 700,000 87 0 100,000 0 4,000 20,000 872,901 Oceanside Number 1 37 2 4 0 10 9 11 103 0 1 0 7 37 222 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 7,089 4,000 8,000 0 20,000 18,000 1,100,000 206 0 100,000 0 14,000 37,000 1,508,295 Poway Number 0 40 1 0 0 3 1 1 22 0 0 1 0 22 91 Exposure (x$1000)0 7,664 2,000 0 0 6,000 2,000 100,000 60 0 0 100,000 0 22,000 239,724San Diego (City)Number 4 445 12 22 8 85 95 49 750 3 2 2 5 339 1,821 Exposure (x$1000)800,000 85,262 24,000 44,000 80,000 170,000 190,000 4,900,000 1,686 60,000 200,000 200,000 10,000 339,000 7,103,948San Marcos Number 0 11 0 0 0 7 3 2 54 0 0 0 2 20 99 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,108 0 0 0 14,000 6,000 200,000 136 0 0 0 4,000 20,000 246,244 Santee Number 0 14 1 1 0 3 2 0 27 0 1 0 0 15 64 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,682 2,000 2,000 0 6,000 4,000 0 60 0 100,000 0 0 15,000 131,742 Solana Beach Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 27 0 0 0 1 9 44 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 44 0 0 0 2,000 9,000 16,002 Unincorporated Number 13 72 0 5 3 35 2 5 383 0 0 1 0 38 557RuralExposure (x$1000)2,600,000 13,795 0 10,000 30,000 70,000 4,000 500,000 1,289 0 0 100,000 0 38,000 3,367,085 Unincorporated Number 0 96 0 1 0 30 7 6 194 0 1 1 2 100 438Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 18,394 0 2,000 0 60,000 14,000 600,000 415 0 100,000 100,000 4,000 100,000 998,808VistaNumber01200084348000938122 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 0 0 16,000 8,000 300,000 95 0 0 0 18,000 38,000 382,394Total Number 20 1,002 21 44 16 236 173 114 2,118 3 9 5 36 882 4,679Total Exposure (x$1000)4,000,000 191,983 42,000 88,000 160,000 472,000 346,000 11,400,000 5,056 60,000 900,000 500,000 72,000 882,000 19,119,039 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 120 Table 4.4-30 Potential Exposure to Critical Facilities and Infrastructures from (Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme Combined) Wildfire Hazard by Jurisdiction Refer to Table 4.4-1 for abbreviation definition Jurisdiction Data AIR BRDG BUS COM ELEC EMER GOVT HOSP INFR PORT POT WWTR RAIL SCH Total Carlsbad Number 1 20 0 2 1 7 5 2 110 0 1 0 0 23 172 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 3,832 0 4,000 10,000 14,000 10,000 200,000 183 0 100,000 0 0 23,000 565,015 Chula Vista Number 0 40 2 2 1 11 8 7 95 0 1 0 0 61 228 Exposure (x$1000)0 7,664 4,000 4,000 10,000 22,000 16,000 700,000 185 0 100,000 0 0 61,000 924,849 Coronado Number 0 1 0 1 0 3 4 1 12 0 0 0 0 9 31 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 2,000 0 6,000 8,000 100,000 13 0 0 0 0 9,000 125,204 Del Mar Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 20 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 4,000 0 7 0 0 0 0 2,000 8,965 El Cajon Number 1 37 1 2 1 8 7 6 63 0 0 0 0 47 173 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 7,089 2,000 4,000 10,000 16,000 14,000 600,000 159 0 0 0 0 47,000 900,248 Encinitas Number 0 15 0 1 0 6 3 3 76 0 1 0 6 25 136 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,874 0 2,000 0 12,000 6,000 300,000 130 0 100,000 0 12,000 25,000 460,004 Escondido Number 0 68 1 2 0 6 8 8 76 0 1 1 1 43 214 Exposure (x$1000)0 13,029 2,000 4,000 0 12,000 16,000 800,000 197 0 100,000 100,000 2,000 43,000 1,092,226 Imperial Beach Number 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 8 19 Exposure (x$1000)0 192 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 200,000 2 0 0 0 0 8,000 216,194 La Mesa Number 0 36 0 1 0 4 4 2 53 0 0 0 0 25 125 Exposure (x$1000)0 6,898 0 2,000 0 8,000 8,000 200,000 113 0 0 0 0 25,000 250,010 Lemon Grove Number 0 8 0 0 0 2 3 0 23 0 0 0 0 10 46 Exposure (x$1000)0 1,533 0 0 0 4,000 6,000 0 58 0 0 0 0 10,000 21,591 National City Number 0 47 1 1 2 4 4 7 37 0 1 0 2 20 126 Exposure (x$1000)0 9,005 2,000 2,000 20,000 8,000 8,000 700,000 87 0 100,000 0 4,000 20,000 873,093 Oceanside Number 1 38 2 4 0 10 10 11 112 0 1 0 7 37 233 Exposure (x$1000)200,000 7,281 4,000 8,000 0 20,000 20,000 1,100,000 226 0 100,000 0 14,000 37,000 1,510,506 Poway Number 0 42 1 0 0 3 1 1 31 0 0 1 0 24 103 Exposure (x$1000)0 8,047 2,000 0 0 6,000 2,000 100,000 89 0 0 100,000 0 24,000 242,137 San Diego Number 4 466 12 27 8 85 96 49 859 3 2 3 5 350 1,966 (City)Exposure (x$1000)800,000 89,286 24,000 54,000 80,000 170,000 192,000 4,900,000 1,912 60,000 200,000 300,000 10,000 350,000 7,231,198 San Marcos Number 0 12 0 2 0 8 3 2 56 0 0 0 2 20 105 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 4,000 0 16,000 6,000 200,000 142 0 0 0 4,000 20,000 252,441 Santee Number 0 14 1 2 0 3 2 0 30 0 1 0 0 15 68 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,682 2,000 4,000 0 6,000 4,000 0 65 0 100,000 0 0 15,000 133,748 Solana Beach Number 0 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 28 0 0 0 1 9 45 Exposure (x$1000)0 958 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 46 0 0 0 2,000 9,000 16,004UnincorporatedNumber301942413883101,184 0 0 3 0 63 1,618RuralExposure (x$1000)6,000,000 37,170 4,000 82,000 30,000 176,000 6,000 1,000,000 3,908 0 0 300,000 0 63,000 7,702,078 Unincorporated Number 0 111 0 1 0 37 8 10 285 0 1 2 2 106 561 Urban Core Exposure (x$1000)0 21,268 0 2,000 0 74,000 16,000 1,000,000 518 0 100,000 200,000 4,000 106,000 1,523,785 Vista Number 0 12 0 0 0 9 4 3 50 0 0 0 9 40 127 Exposure (x$1000)0 2,299 0 0 0 18,000 8,000 300,000 96 0 0 0 18,000 40,000 386,395 Total Number 37 1,172 23 89 16 298 178 124 3,192 3 10 10 35 937 6,114 Total Exposure (x$1000)7,400,000 224,555 46,000 178,000 160,000 596,000 356,000 12,400,000 8,136 60,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 70,000 937,000 24,435,691 SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 121 4.4.2.8 Manmade Hazards Vulnerability assessment information for manmade hazards is considered sensitive homeland security information and is provided in a separate confidential document (Attachment A). 4.5 Multi-Jurisdictional Assessment It should be noted that individual risk assessment maps were completed for each of the 18 participating incorporated cities as well as the unincorporated County. Hazard profile maps were created at a local (1:2,000) scale, complete with land use information, critical facility information, infrastructure and hazard areas for each of the 19 jurisdictions. Jurisdictional HMWG leads were presented copies of these maps to provide to their Local Mitigation Planning teams. The local teams utilized these maps to help identify their jurisdictional Goals, Objectives, and Mitigation Measures. Several of the local goals, objectives, and action items identified in the proceeding section (Section 5) relate directly to these risk assessment maps. Due to concern of sensitivity of information depicted on these localized maps, only the County-scale maps are included in the Plan. 4.5.1 Analysis of Land Use San Diego County covers 4,264 square miles and is located in the southernmost corner of the state, bordering Mexico and the Pacific Ocean. There are 18 jurisdictions in the County with a total of over 888 thousand households in the region and a total population of 2,813,833 (2000 Census Bureau data). Existing land use data (Figure 4.5.1) was utilized in the hazard profiling process. Forecast land use information for 2030 from the Regional Economic Development Information system (REDI) was evaluated in analyzing future development trends. Existing land use consists of mainly residential, commercial and industrial in the western (urban core) portion of the county. The eastern area (unincorporated rural) is spotted with residential surrounded by park and ‘not in use’ areas. The forecast land use describes residential land use becoming the most predominant land use in the urban core of the county and expanding largely into the eastern portion of the county. In the eastern portion of the county, Native American Reservations and parks will make up the rest of the land use designations. Within the county, there are 18 incorporated jurisdictions and the County jurisdiction, all of which contributed to the risk assessment analyses for the San Diego County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Wildfire and flood were identified as the most significant risks to the County, however, all hazards are addressed in the Mitigation Plan. Each jurisdiction has unique hazard situations that require additional or unique mitigation measures. The loss estimates are summarized above in tables that show potential total exposure and/or losses for each jurisdiction. The Mitigation Strategy (Section 5) approaches each jurisdiction separately. 4.5.2 Analysis of Development Trends The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is a regional planning body whose membership includes all 18 incorporated cities and the County of San Diego. SANDAG plays a key role in regional coordination efforts. In 2004 the SANDAG Board of Directors adopted a Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) that provides a strategic framework for the San Diego Region. It encourages cities and the county to increase residential and employment concentrations in areas with the best existing and future transit connections, and to preserve important open spaces “Smart Growth”). City general plans are being aligned with the RCP as they are revised. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 122 Many of the jurisdictions in San Diego County are close to being “built-out” under their general plans. A few representative examples will illustrate the trends throughout the region: •The City of San Diego has less than four percent (4%) of its land available for development. For the City of San Diego this means that the focus is now on how to reinvest in existing communities (City of San Diego General Plan, March 2008). The City’s General Plan takes hazard mitigation into consideration in the Public Facilities, Services and Safety Element by discussing disaster preparedness (preparation for natural and man-made disasters as well as preparations for restoration of municipal services) and seismic safety. •The City of Poway’s Plan calls for the preservation of open space and the maintenance of the City’s rural character. (Poway Comprehensive Plan: General Plan). Accordingly, future development “in Poway should be concentrated in parts of the City other than the rural hillside areas and existing open space should be protected.” This is intended to limit growth to the “enhancement of existing developed and developing areas.” •The City of National City has only 0.8% (113 acres) of land vacant and available for development. It has adopted the SANDAG Smart Growth concept. Additional opportunities for future development may include a change to an existing use within a built-up area, rebuilding sites with more intense uses or building on under-utilized sites. (City of National City General Plan, Chapter 2 Land Use). •The City of Chula Vista also subscribes to the SANDAG Smart Growth concept. Chula Vista was one of the fastest growing cities in the State during the 1990s and the early initial years of the 21st century. This growth occurred mostly in the eastern portion of the City on large, vacant tracts of land. Western Chula Vista is for the most part already developed. Chula Vista’s emphasis is shifting from the development of vacant lands in the eastern portion of the City to revitalizing the already developed areas. “Redevelopment will play a prominent role in the City’s evolution” (City of Chula Vista General Plan, Chapter Five, Land Use Element). •The City of Encinitas still contains a number of underdeveloped or undeveloped areas that can accommodate additional homes or businesses. It is the intent of the City to achieve a balanced and functional mix of development consistent with the long-range goals, objectives and values of the City (City of Encinitas General Plan April, 2013). Among the things the City seeks to accomplish with this plan the “reduction of loss of life, injury, and property damage that might result from flooding, seismic hazards and other natural and man-made hazards that need to be •The County of San Diego will manage growth in the unincorporated areas through the use of zoning regulations, building codes and the permit process (San Diego County General Plan). Hazard mitigation measures to minimize landslides, flooding, and other natural and man-made hazards are found in the plan. The 2010 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan has been included into the General Plan by reference. The result of this is that much of the new development in the near term will occur in the unincorporated portion of San Diego County. In the near future development trends will shift towards the redevelopment of urban cores. Hazards mapped in these areas include wildfire, flood, earthquake, and dam failure. The two most prevalent hazards related to development trends appear to be the increasing density in downtown San Diego near the Rose Canyon Fault Zone (earthquake and liquefaction hazard) and the expansion of the urban/wildland interface by new development throughout the county, but especially in east and south county (wildfire hazard). It should also be noted that high-rise residential and commercial development has SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 123 increased significantly in the downtown San Diego and Golden Triangle areas and these developments present a potential new type of structural fire hazard risk. The population is estimated to increase to approximately 4.4 million by 2050 (SANDAG, 2010). The forecast land use describes residential land use becoming the most predominant land use in the urban core of the county and expanding largely into the eastern portion of the county. The original plan predicted that near term development (that development that would occur over the course of the four year life of the plan) would be concentrated mostly in the unincorporated urban core and the southeastern portion of San Diego County in and around the City of Chula Vista. For the first few years this prediction appeared to be accurate. Beginning in 2008, the economic downturn resulted in a significant slow-down within the region in terms of growth and caused a very large downturn in median home prices. It is estimated that the downturn resulted in a $4 billion loss to San Diego County as a result of the change it caused in consumer spending habits. The median price of a home in San Diego County dropped from approximately $600,000 in 2006 to approximately $400,000 in 2012. The current median price of home is $488,000 up approximately since 2014. 2008 saw the unemployment rate rise to 7.6% in San Diego with the loss of 56,500 jobs by January of 2009. This was the worst job loss in San Diego since 1974. In 2008 there were fewer than 3000 residential building permits issued. The normal average is 14,000. By April of 2009 the total number of unemployed in San Diego had reached 135,000, for and unemployment rate of 8.6%. (National Association of Counties “A Snapshot of Large, Urban Counties” April, 2009). Current unemployment rate for the San Diego region is 4.6%, down from 5.1% in August 2015. Since September 2014 there has been an increase of 46,900 nonfarm jobs in San Diego. 4.5.2.1 Data Limitations It should be noted that the analysis presented here is based upon “best available data”. See Appendix B for a complete listing of sources and their unique data limitations (if any). Data used in updates to this plan should be reassessed upon each review period to incorporate new or more accurate data if/when possible. SECTIONFOUR Risk Assessment 124 This page intentionally left blank. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions 125 5.1 Overview After each participating jurisdiction reviewed the Risk Assessment (Section 4), 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 and priorities, 3) an implementation plan, and 4) documentation of the mitigation planning process for each of the twenty one (21) participating jurisdictions. Each of these steps is described as follows. 5.1.1 Develop Mitigation Goals and Objectives Each jurisdiction reviewed hazard profile and loss estimation information presented in Section 4 and utilized this as a basis for developing mitigation goals and objectives. Mitigation goals are defined as general guidelines explaining what each jurisdiction wants to achieve in terms of hazard and loss prevention. Goal statements are typically long-range, policy-oriented statements representing jurisdiction-wide visions. Objectives are statements that detail how each jurisdiction’s goals will be achieved, and typically define strategies or implementation steps to attain identified goals. 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. 5.1.2 Identify and Prioritize Mitigation Actions 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, reviewing 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 with an eye toward 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. After completion of the capabilities assessment, each jurisdiction evaluated and prioritized their proposed mitigations. As part of this process, each city and the County reviewed the actions detailed in the 2010 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 Appendix C. Also considered were changes in development, mitigation efforts and 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 are a tool used to assist communities in deciding which actions to include in their implementation strategy. The criteria are designed to account for a wide range of factors that affect the appropriateness of an action. STAPLEE considers the following criteria: SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions 126 • Social: Community acceptance, public support, adverse effects on population segments, health/welfare/safety impacts, and financial effects • Technical: Technical feasibility, long term effectiveness, and secondary impacts • Administrative: Staff, funding, and maintenance capabilities • Political: Political support, local champion, and public support • Legal: State authority, existing local authority, and potential opposition • Economic: Benefits, costs, and availability of outside funding • Environmental: impact on environment and endangered species, local regulations and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considerations. Local planning groups are comprised of individuals from the various jurisdictional departments brining 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 and objectives. Individual LPG membership is discussed in each jurisdictions section of this chapter. Each jurisdiction also considered the following: ease of implementation; multi-objective actions; time for implementation and post-disaster mitigation feasibility. Utilizing the above information, each community ranked the possible action items on a prioritization scale of high, medium, and low. A High ranking indicated that the hazard has a high probability of occurrence and/or a severe impact on the community. The Medium ranking indicated a moderate potential for occurrence or impact. Those 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 remote and/or the impact of the event is minimal to the community. Only those hazards that received a high or moderate ranking were considered in the mitigation planning process. 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. All jurisdictions rated wildfire high (based on the firestorms of 2003 and 2007). Flooding and Earthquake (based on the known faults within the County) were also rated high by all participants. Table 5.X-1 Summary of Potential Hazard-Related Exposure/Loss formed the initial ranking basis for the individual participants. The hazards selected by each jurisdiction for mitigation actions are included in their section of this Chapter. In all cases the 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. Those actions that will provide the most benefits in the least amount of time with available resources were selected as the highest priorities. That is not to say the other actions are not considered important. It merely indicates that we set out to complete what we could with current resources. The other actions will be completed as additional resources become available. There were nine Goals established by the HMWG. They are listed below (in the order of importance assigned by the jurisdictions): 1. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to geologic hazards (includes Earthquakes, landslides, liquefaction, etc.). 2. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to structure fire/wildfire. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions 127 3.Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, criticalfacilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to flooding/dam failure. 4. Increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation. 5.Improve hazard mitigation coordination and communication with federal, State, local andtribal governments. 6. Promote disaster resistant existing and future development. 7. Build and support local capacity and commitment to continuously become less vulnerableto hazards. 8.Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to coastal erosion/coastal blufffailure/storm surge/Tsunami. 9.Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, criticalfacilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to severe weather. Each jurisdiction then identified and prioritized actions. They listed those with the highest short to medium term priorities. Not all jurisdictions included all the goals. Some jurisdictions included unique goals (such as minimizing losses by prompt resumption of City operations and restoration of City services). Others split the goals into multiple ones (i.e., some have a separate earthquake goal as opposed to a geologic hazard goal). An implementation schedule, funding source and coordinating individual or agency are identified for each prioritized action item. Each jurisdiction prepared a strategy for implementing the mitigation actions identified in the previous step. The implementation strategies identify who is responsible for which action, what kind of funding mechanisms and other resources are available or will be pursued, and when the strategies will be completed. In combination, the goals, objectives, actions and implementation strategies form the body of each jurisdiction’s Plan. The following subsections present individual Plans for each of the 19 jurisdictions as well as the Fire Protection District. 5.2 Regional Considerations The Risk Assessment (Section 4) indicates that each participating jurisdiction is susceptible to a variety of potentially serious hazards in the region. This had been recognized and formally addressed as early as the 1960s. At that time all of the cities and the County formed a Joint Powers Agreement which established the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization (Organization) and the Unified Disaster Council (UDC) which is the policy making group of the Organization. It also created the Office of Disaster Preparedness (now OES), which is staff to the Organization. The Organization’s approach to emergency planning has been comprehensive, i.e., planned for and prepared to respond to all hazards: natural disasters, man-made emergencies, and war-related emergencies, utilizing the State of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions 128 (SEMS), the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as well as a coordinated Incident Command System. OES is the agency charged with developing and maintaining the San Diego County Operational Area Emergency Plan, which is considered a preparedness document. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that in addition to having emergency response and emergency preparedness documents, regions should develop and maintain a document outlining measures that can be taken before a hazard event occurs that would help minimize the damage to life and property. The UDC assigned OES the role of coordinating the development of the Plan as a multi-jurisdictional plan. The Plan includes specific goals, objectives, and mitigation action items each of the participating jurisdictions developed that will help minimize the effects of the specified hazards that potentially affect their jurisdiction. Some overall goals and objectives shared some commonalities (including promoting disaster-resistant future development; increasing public understanding, support, and demand for effective hazard mitigation; building and supporting local capacity and commitment to continuously becoming less vulnerable to hazards; and improving coordination and communication with federal, state, local and tribal governments). However, the specific hazards and degree of risk vary greatly between the different jurisdictions; and the mix of other goals and objectives, and most action items are unique to each jurisdiction. Consequently, the goals, objectives and action items in this Plan are presented by individual jurisdiction and special district. It is also envisioned that these mitigation actions will be implement on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. However, UDC and OES will provide general oversight to this process to help reduce duplication of efforts between jurisdictions as appropriate, and to spearhead coordination of initiatives and action items that could be accomplished more efficiently on a regional level. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 129 5.21 County of San Diego The Unincorporated portion of the County of San Diego (County) reviewed a set of jurisdictional-level hazard maps including detailed critical facility information and localized potential hazard exposure/loss estimates to help identify the top hazards threatening their jurisdiction. In addition, LPGs were supplied with exposure/loss estimates for the County summarized in Tables 5.21-1a and 5.21-1b. See Section 4.0 for additional details. Table 5.21-1a Summary of Potential Hazard-Related Exposure/Loss in the County (Urban) Residential Commercial Critical Facilities Hazard Type Exposed Population Number of Residential Buildings Potential Exposure/ Loss for Residential Buildings (x$1,000) Number of Commercial Buildings Potential Exposure/ Loss for Commercial Buildings (x$1,000) Number of Critical Facilities Potential Exposure for Critical Facilities (x$1,000) Coastal Storm / Erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sea Level Rise 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dam Failure 21,862 7,304 2,056,076 277 1,241,431 123 235,356 Earthquake (Annualized Loss - Includes shaking, liquefaction and landslide components) 333,626* 108,042* 8,963* 3,560* 15,954,852* 290* 820,725* Flood (Loss) 100 Year 10,125 3,358 945,277 195 873,932 34 6,733 500 Year 11,357 3,785 1,065,478 213 954,602 38 7,932 Rain-Induced Landslide High Risk 1,509 314 88,391 4 17,927 10 8,003 Moderate Risk 35,499 11,039 3,107,479 389 1,743,381 12 141,628 Tsunami 35 11 3,097 1 4,482 1 2 Wildfire / Structure Fire Fire Regime II & IV 335,301 111,685 31,439,328 29,983 10,494,099 561 1,523,785 * Represents 250-year earthquake value under three earthquake scenarios (shake only, shake and liquefaction, and shake and landslide). SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 130 Table 5.21-1b Summary of Potential Hazard-Related Exposure/Loss in the County (Rural) Residential Commercial Critical Facilities Hazard Type Exposed Population Number of Residential Buildings Potential Exposure/ Loss for Residential Buildings (x$1,000) Number of Commercial Buildings Potential Exposure/ Loss for Commercial Buildings (x$1,000) Number of Critical Facilities Potential Exposure for Critical Facilities (x$1,000) Coastal Storm / Erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dam Failure 14,512 3,686 1,037,609 135 605,030 123 325,258 Earthquake (Annualized Loss - Includes shaking, liquefaction and landslide components) 168,254* 60,561* 17,047,922* 2,177* 9,756,661* 1,554* 7,942,838* Flood (Loss) 100 Year 7,276 3,661 1,030,572 137 613,993 107 629,073 500 Year 8,950 4,426 1,245,919 151 676,737 117 632,685 Rain-Induced Landslide High Risk 9,130 3,573 1,005,800 93 416,798 35 12,657 Moderate Risk 23,197 4,188 1,178,922 89 398,871 67 213,940 Tsunami 5,154 95 26,743 0 0 5 768 Wildfire / Structure Fire Fire Regime II & IV 88,262 27,785 7,821,478 12,481 4,368,416 1,618 7,702,078 * Represents 500-year earthquake value under three earthquake scenarios (shake only, shake and liquefaction, and shake and landslide). SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 131 After reviewing the localized hazard maps and exposure/loss table above, the following hazards were identified by the County LPG as their top five. • Fire • Hazardous Materials Release • Flood • Earthquake • Manmade Hazards 5.21.1 Capabilities Assessment The LPG identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment (Assessment) portion of the jurisdictional mitigation plan identifies administrative, technical, legal and fiscal capabilities. This includes a summary of departments and their responsibilities associated to hazard mitigation planning as well as codes, ordinances, and plans already in place associated to hazard mitigation planning. The second part of the Assessment provides the County’s fiscal capabilities that may be applicable to providing financial resources to implement identified mitigation action items. 5.21.2 Existing Institutions, Plans, Policies and Ordinances The following 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 regulations related to mitigation efforts within the community. The administrative and technical capabilities of the County, as shown in Table 5.21-2, provides an identification of the staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in the mitigation section of the 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 manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. • San Diego County Planning Development Services Maintain and protect public health, safety and well-being. Preserve and enhance the quality of life for County residents by maintaining a comprehensive general plan and zoning ordinance, implementing habitat conservation programs, ensuring regulatory conformance and performing comprehensive community outreach. Advanced Planning Division: Provides land use and environmental review, maintains a comprehensive general plan and zoning ordinance, issues land use and building permits, and enforces building and zoning regulations. It is also responsible for long-range planning through development and implementation of a comprehensive County General Plan. Building Division: Review site and building plans for compliance with all applicable codes. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 132 Code Compliance Division: Enforces building, grading, zoning, brushing and clearing, junk, graffiti, signs, abandoned vehicle complaints and noise control. Land Development Division: Provides engineering and review services for construction and development projects throughout the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. Project Planning Division: reviews “discretionary” projects. Those are 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 responsibledevelopment of reliable and sustainable infrastructure and services. 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. 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 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 air force, ASTREA, is based at Gillespie Field. 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. 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 residents in rural areas. •San Diego County Housing & Community Development Improve the quality of life in our communities – helping needy families find safe, decent and affordable housing and partnering with property owners to increase the supply and availability of SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 133 affordable housing. The Department provides many valuable services to both property owners and tenants and strives to create more livable neighborhoods that residents are proud to call home. Key service programs include: improving neighborhoods by assisting low-income residents, increasing the supply of affordable, save 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 low and moderate income persons, 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 AIDS and the Emergency Solutions Grant program. Participating cities, community residents, nonprofit organizations and other county departments may submit grant proposals. • County of San Diego Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Mission: To ensure that all residents of 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 branch of the Health and Human Services Agency's Public Health Services. It is the 'local EMS agency' (LEMSA) as defined in California law. Part of San Diego County EMS is the Disaster Medical Health Emergency Preparedness unit. This unit coordinates with emergency management agencies, 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 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 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. Function: 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 and 5) Developing and providing preparedness materials for the public. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 134 • 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. • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalFIRE is an emergency response and resource protection department that responds to more than 5,600 wildland fires that burn over 172,000 acres in the State each year. In addition, department personnel respond to more than 350,000 other emergency calls, including structure fires, automobile accidents, medical aid, swift water rescues, civil disturbance, search and rescue, floods, and earthquakes. CalFIRE is the State’s largest fire protection organization, whose fire protection team includes extensive ground forces, supported by a variety of fire-fighting equipment. CalFIRE has joined with Federal and local agencies to form a statewide mutual aid system. This system insures a rapid response of emergency equipment by being able to draw on all available resources regardless of jurisdiction. CalFIRE 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. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 135 Table 5.21-2 County of San Diego: Administrative and Technical Capacity Staff/Personnel Resources Y/N Department/Agency and Position A. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge of land development and land management practices Y Department of Planning & Land Use (DPLU)/ Lead Planner B. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Y DPLU/Building Inspectors C. Planners or Engineer(s) with an understanding of natural and/or manmade hazards Y D. Floodplain manager Y E. Surveyors Y DPLU & Department of Public Works (DPW)/ Surveyor, Lead F. Staff with education or expertise to assess the community’s vulnerability to hazards Y G. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Y DPLU GIS Manger and DPW GIS Manager H. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community Y County Science Advisory Board I. Emergency manager Y Office of Emergency Services / Emergency Services Coordinator J. Grant writers N Departments determine their own level of service. The legal and regulatory capabilities of the County are shown in Table 5.21-3, which presents the existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of the County. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: the County’s building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordnances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 136 Table 5.21-3 County of San Diego: Legal and Regulatory Capability Regulatory Tools (ordinances, codes, plans) Local Authority (Y/N) Does State Prohibit (Y/N) A. Building code Y N B. Zoning ordinance Y N C. Subdivision ordinance or regulations Y N D. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain management, storm water management, hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire ordinances, hazard setback requirements) Y N E. Growth management ordinances (also called “smart growth” or anti-sprawl programs) Y N F. Site plan review requirements Y N G. General or comprehensive plan Y N H. A capital improvements plan Y N I. An economic development plan Y J. An emergency response plan Y N K. A post-disaster recovery plan Y L. A post-disaster recovery ordinance N M. Real estate disclosure requirements Y N 5.21.3 Fiscal Resources Table 5.21-4 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to the County such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard- prone areas. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 137 Table 5.21-4 County of San Diego: Fiscal Capability Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No) A. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Yes B. Capital improvements project funding Yes C. Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes D. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes E. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new developments/homes Yes F. Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes G. Incur debt through special tax and revenue bonds Yes H. Yes Incur debt through private activity bonds Yes I. Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas Yes 5.21.4 Goals, Objectives and Actions Listed below are the County’s specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives and related potential actions. For each goal, one or more objectives have been 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. 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 in further development of these goals and objectives, the LPG compiled and reviewed current jurisdictional sources including the County’s planning documents, codes, and ordinances. In addition, County representatives met with consultant staff and/or OES to specifically discuss these hazard-related goals, objectives and actions as they related to the overall Plan. Representatives of numerous County departments involved in hazard mitigation planning, including Fire, Police, and Public Works provided input to the County LPG. The County LPG members were: • Tom Amabile, County OES • Dave Cammal, DEH • Jason Batchelor, Planning and Development Services • Gitanjali Shinde, DPW • Lisa Prus, San Diego County Water Authority • Donna Johnson, HHSA, EMS Once developed, County staff submitted the plan to Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and FEMA for approval. Once approved the plan will be taken to the Unified Disaster Council and then to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors for adoption. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 138 A public survey was posted on all participating agencies websites from March through July 2014. Over 500 responses were received. The survey results are in Appendix D. An email address was also provided on the webpage to allow the public to submit questions and/or suggestions. This email address was checked daily. The following sections present the hazard-related goals, objectives and actions as prepared by the County’s LPG in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, locally elected officials and residents. 5.21.4.1 Goals The County of San Diego has developed the following 13 Goals for their Hazard Mitigation Plan (See Attachment A for Goals 12, and 13). Goal 1. Promote Disaster-resistant future development. Goal 2. Increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation. Goal 3. Build and support local capacity and commitment to become less vulnerable to hazards. Goal 4. Enhance hazard mitigation coordination and communication with federal, state, local and tribal governments. “Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and County-owned facilities, due to”: Goal 5. Dam Failure Goal 6. Earthquakes and Liquefaction Goal 7. Coastal Storm/Erosion/Tsunami Goal 8. Landslides Goal 9. Floods Goal 10. Structural Fire/Wildfire Goal 11. Extreme Weather and Drought Goal 12. Manmade Hazards Goal 13. Hazardous Materials Release 5.21.4.2 Objectives and Actions The County of San Diego developed the following broad list of objectives and actions to assist in the implementation of each of their 11 identified goals. The County of San Diego developed objectives to assist in achieving their hazard mitigation goals. For each of these objectives, specific actions were developed SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 139 that would assist in their implementation. A discussion of the prioritization and implementation of the action items is provided in Section 5.21.5. Goal 1: Promote disaster-resistant future development. New, Existing or Both Objective 1.A: Facilitate the development or updating of general plans and zoning ordinances to limit development in hazard areas. Action 1.A.1 Update General Plan as necessary. Both Action 1.A.2 Attract and retain qualified, professional and experienced staff. Both Action 1.A.3 Continue to identify high hazard areas using GIS. Both Objective 1.B: Facilitate the adoption of building codes that protect existing assets and restrict new development in hazard areas. Action 1.B.1 Review Codes as necessary. New Objective 1.C: Facilitate consistent enforcement of general plans, zoning ordinances, and building codes. Action 1.C.1 Staff enforcement personnel to a level to ensure compliance. Both Action 1.C.2 Develop and coordinate permits for all agencies. Both Action 1.C.3 Continue to utilize multi-agency permitting and enforcement team. Both Objective 1.D: Limit future development in hazardous areas Action 1.D.1 Development should be in harmony with existing topography. Both Action 1.D.2 Development patterns should respect environmental characteristics. New Action 1.D.3 Clustering should be encouraged. New Action 1.D.4 Development should be limited in areas of known geologic hazards. New Action 1.D.5 Development in floodplains shall be limited to protect lives and property. New Action 1.D.6 High fire hazard areas shall have adequate access for emergency vehicles. Both Objective 1.E: Address identified data limitations regarding the lack of information about new development and build-out potential in hazard areas. Action 1.E.1 Continue to utilize Geographic Information Systems (GIS) capabilities to identify hazards. Both Action 1.E.2 Continue to develop and update data sets that are necessary to test hazard scenarios and mitigation tools. Both Objective 1.F: Increase public understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation for new developments. Action 1.F.1 Continue to gain public acceptance for avoidance policies in high hazard areas. Both Action 1.F.2 Continue public education efforts to publicize and adopt the appropriate hazard mitigation measures. Both Action 1.F.3 Help create demand for hazard resistant construction and site planning. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 140 Goal 2: Increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation. New, Existing or Both Objective 2.A: Educate the public to increase awareness of hazards and opportunities for mitigation actions. Action 2.A.1 Publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation actions. Both Action 2.A.2 Continue to provide information to the public on the County website. Both Action 2.A.3 Heighten public awareness of hazards by using the County Communications Office. Both Action 2.A.4 Gain public acceptance for avoidance policies in high hazard areas. Both Action 2.A.5 Identify hazard specific issues and needs. Both Action 2.A.6 Help create demand for hazard resistant construction and site planning. Both Action 2.A.7 Promote partnerships between the state, counties, local and tribal governments to identify, prioritize and implement mitigation actions. Both Action 2.A.8 Promote County’s “Know Your Hazards” app. Both Objective 2.B: Promote partnerships between the state, counties, local and tribal governments to identify, prioritize, and implement mitigation actions. Action 2.B.1 Develop, maintain and improve lasting partnerships. Both Action 2.B.2 Support the County Fire Safe Council. Both Action 2.B.3 Promote cooperative vegetation Management Programs that incorporate hazard mitigation. Both Objective 2.C: Promote hazard mitigation in the business community. Action 2.C.1 Increase awareness and knowledge of hazard mitigation principles and practices. Both Action 2.C.2 Encourage businesses to develop and implement hazard mitigation actions. Both Action 2.C.3 Identify hazard-specific issues and needs. Both Objective 2.D: Monitor and publicize the effectiveness of mitigation actions implemented countywide. Action 2.D.1 Continue to use the County website to publicize mitigation actions. Both Action 2.D.2 Continue to create marketing campaigns. Both Action 2.D.3 Continue to determine mitigation messages to convey. Both Action 2.D.4 Continue to establish budget and identify funding sources for mitigation outreach. Both Action 2.D.5 Continue to develop and distribute brochures, CDs and other publications. Both Objective 2.E: Provide education on hazardous conditions. Action 2.E.1 Continue to support public and private sector symposiums. Both Action 2.E.2 Coordinate production of brochures, informational packets and other handouts. Both Action 2.E.3 Develop partnerships with the media on hazard mitigation. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 141 Goal 3: Build and support local capacity and commitment to become less vulnerable to hazards. New, Existing or Both Objective 3.A: Increase awareness and knowledge of hazard mitigation principles and practice among local officials. Action 3.A.1 Use County Communications Office/County News Center to promote mitigation actions. Both Action 3.A.2 Conduct meetings with key elected officials to determine local issues and concerns. Both Action 3.A.3 Continuously demonstrate the importance of pre-disaster mitigation planning to the Board of Supervisors and other public officials. Both Objective 3.B: Develop hazard mitigation plan and provide technical assistance to implement plan. Action 3.B.1 Coordinate the update of the multi-jurisdictional plan. Both Action 3.B.2 Continue to have the County Working Group update and monitor the plan. Both Objective 3.C: Limit growth and development in hazardous areas. Action 3.C.1 Update GIS mapping to identify hazardous areas. Both Action 3.C.2 Continue to enforce trespassing regulations in high-risk areas. Both Action 3.C.3 Update General Plan and zoning regulations to reflect hazardous areas. Both Action 3.C.4 Support transfer of development rights in hazard prone areas. Both Objective 3.D: Management of wildland vegetative communities to promote less hazardous conditions. Action 3.D.1 Continue to use GIS to inventory by type and vegetation age class. Both Action 3.D.2 Continue to define target class ranges. Both Action 3.D.3 Continue to develop partnerships within the communities to fix age class ranges. Both Objective 3.E: Improve the County’s ability to manage in pre and post-disaster scenarios as well as respond effectively during the event. Action 3.E.1 Train multiple staff members for each position in the Op Area EOC Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 142 Goal 4: Enhance hazard mitigation coordination and communication with federal, state, local and tribal governments. New, Existing or Both Objective 4.A: Establish and maintain closer working relationships with state agencies, local and tribal governments. Action 4.A.1 Continue the program of multi-jurisdictional/multi-functional training and exercises to enhance hazard mitigation. Both Action 4.A.2 Leverage resources and expertise that will further hazard mitigation efforts. Both Action 4.A.3 Update the multi-jurisdictional/multi-hazard mitigation plan to include tribal governments and special districts. Both Action 4.A.4 Maintain multi-jurisdictional/multi-functional training and exercises to enhance hazard mitigation. Both Objective 4.B: Encourage other organizations to incorporate hazard mitigation activities. Action 4.B.1 Continue to encourage tribal governments to become part of the HIRT JPA. Both Action 4.B.2 Establish and maintain lasting partnerships. Both Action 4.B.3 Continue to streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of effort. Both Objective 4.C: Improve the County’s capability and efficiency at administering pre- and post-disaster mitigation. Action 4.C.1 Maintain consistency with the State in administering recovery programs. Both Action 4.C.2 Continue to work to establish a requirement that all hazard mitigation projects submitted to the State must be reviewed by the County. Both Action 4.C.3 Continue to improve coordination with the State Hazard Mitigation Office in dealing with local issues. Both Objective 4.D: Support a coordinated permitting activities process. Action 4.D.1 Develop notification procedures for all permits that support affected agencies. Both Action 4.D.2 Continue to streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of effort. Both Action 4.D.3 Continue to exchange resources and work with local and regional partners. Both Objective 4.E: Coordinate recovery activities while restoring and maintaining public services. Action 4.E.1 Maintain two damage assessment teams. Both Action 4.E.2 Maintain activation and reporting procedures for the damage assessment teams. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 143 Goal 5: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to dam failure. New, Existing or Both Objective 5. A: Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to dam failure Action 5.A.1 Update dam inundation plans, at a minimum every ten years. Both Action 5.A.2 Continue to participate in community awareness meetings Both Action 5.A.3 Continue to develop and distribute printed publications to the communities concerning hazards. Both Objective 5.B: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of a dam failure. Action 5.B.1 Continue to identify hazard-prone structures. Existing Action 5.B.2 Continue to construct barriers around structures. Both Action 5.B.3 Encourage structural retrofitting. Existing Objective 5.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate dam failure (e.g., US Army Corps of Engineers, US Bureau of Reclamation, and California Department of Water Resources). Action 5.C.1 Continue to revise development ordinances to mitigate effects of development on wetland areas. Both Action 5.C.2 Incorporate and maintain valuable wetlands in open space preservation programs. Both Action 5.C.3 Review and revise, as necessary, sediment and erosion control regulations. Both Objective 5.D: Protect floodplains from inappropriate development. Action 5.D.1 Strengthen existing development regulations to discourage land uses and activities that create hazards. New Action 5.D.2 Plan and zone for open space, recreational, agricultural, or other low-intensity uses within floodway fringes. New Goal 6: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to earthquakes and liquefaction. New, Existing or Both Objective 6.A: Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to earthquakes. Action 6.A.1 Update Building Codes to reflect current earthquake standards. Both Action 6.A.2 Continue to participate in community awareness meetings. Both Action 6.A.3 Continue to develop and distribute printed publications to the communities concerning hazards. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 144 Goal 6: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to earthquakes and liquefaction. New, Existing or Both Objective 6.B: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of earthquakes. Action 6.B.1 Continue to identify hazard-prone structures through GIS modeling. Both Action 6.B.2 Ensure new construction critical facilities are designed to function after a major earthquake. New Action 6.B.3 Continue to study ground motion, landslide, and liquefaction. Both Objective 6.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate earthquake hazards. Action 6.C.1 Identify projects for pre-disaster mitigation funding. Both Action 6.C.2 Continue to implement an ongoing public seismic risk assessment program. Both Action 6.C.3 Continue to collaborate with Federal, State and local agencies’ mapping efforts. Both Objective 6.D: Address identified data limitations regarding the lack of information about the relative vulnerability of assets from earthquakes. Action 6.D.1 Continue to assess countywide utility infrastructure with regard to earthquake risk. Both Action 6.D.2 Develop and implement an incentive program for seismic retrofits. Existing Action 6.D.3 Continue to encourage the public to prepare and maintain a 3-day preparedness kit for home and work. Both Objective 6.E: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of liquefaction. Action 6.E.1 Identify hazard-prone structures through GIS modeling. Existing Action 6.E.2 Build critical facilities that function after a major earthquake. New Action 6.E.3 Study ground motion, landslide and liquefaction. Both Goal 7: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to coastal storm/erosion/tsunami. New, Existing or Both Objective 7.A: Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to coastal storms/erosion. Action 7.A.1 Continue to coordinate with coastal cities to develop a comprehensive plan. Both Action 7.A.2 Participate in community awareness meetings. Both Action 7.A.3 Develop and distribute printed publications to the communities concerning hazards. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 145 Goal 7: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to coastal storm/erosion/tsunami. New, Existing or Both Objective 7.B: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of coastal storms/erosion. Action 7.B.1 Retrofit structures to strengthen resistance to damage. Existing Action 7.B.2 Continue to encourage the public to prepare and maintain a 3-day preparedness kit for home and work. Both Action 7.B.3 Seek pre-disaster mitigation funding for coastal erosion projects. Both Objective 7.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate severe coastal storms/erosion. Action 7.C.1 Continue to review and update plans that would include coordination with cities, special districts and county departments. Both Action 7.C.2 Continue to streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of effort. Both Action 7.C.3 Continue to develop and publish evacuation procedures to the public. Both Objective 7.D: Address identified data limitations regarding the lack of information about the relative vulnerability of assets from coastal storms/erosion. Action 7.D.1 Using GIS continue to identify hazard-prone structures. Both Action 7.D.2 Continue to incorporate information and recommendations from coastal cities into the hazard mitigation plan. Both Goal 8: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities /infrastructure, and public facilities due to landslide. New, Existing or Both Objective 8.A: Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to landslide. Action 8.A.1 Continue to identify potential areas based upon historical data. Both Action 8.A.2 Continue to participate in community awareness meetings. Both Action 8. A.3 Continue to develop and distribute printed publications to the communities concerning hazards. Both Objective 8.B: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of landslide. Action 8.B.1 Study and improve storm drains for landslide prone areas. Both Action 8.B.2 Develop, adopt and enforce effective building codes and standards. New Action 8.B.3 Seek pre-disaster mitigation funding for landsides prevention projects. Both Objective 8.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate landslide. Action 8.C.1 Continue to review and update plans that would include coordination with cities, special districts and county departments. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 146 Goal 8: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities /infrastructure, and public facilities due to landslide. New, Existing or Both Action 8.C.2 Continue to streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of effort. Both Action 8.C.3 Develop and publish evacuation procedures to the public. Both Objective 8.D: Address identified data limitations regarding the lack of information about the relative vulnerability of assets from landslide. Action 8.D.1 Identify hazard-prone structures through GIS modeling. Both Action 8.D.2 Implement hazard awareness program. Both Goal 9: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to floods. New, Existing or Both Objective 9.A: Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to floods. Action 9.A.1 Continue to review and compare existing flood control standards, zoning and building requirements. Both Action 9.A.2 Identify flood-prone areas by using GIS. Both Action 9.A.3 Adopt policies that discourage growth in flood-prone areas. Both Objective 9.B: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of floods within the 100-year floodplain. Action 9.B.1 Assure adequate funding to restore damaged facilities to 100-year flood design. Both Action 9.B.2 Update storm water system plans and improve storm water facilities in high- risk areas. Both Action 9.B.3 Plan for evacuation in case of major hazard event. Both Objective 9.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate floods (e.g., US Army Corps of Engineers, US Bureau of Reclamation, and California Department of Water Resources). Action 9.C.1 Develop a flood control strategy that ensures coordination with Federal, State and local agencies. Both Action 9.C.2 Improve hazard warning and response planning. Both Objective 9.D: Minimize repetitive losses caused by flooding. Action 9.D.1 Identify those communities that have recurring losses. Both Action 9.D.2 Develop project proposals to reduce flooding and improve control in flood prone areas. Both Action 9.D.3 Acquire properties, when feasible, on floodway to prevent development. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 147 Goal 9: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to floods. New, Existing or Both Objective 9.D: Minimize repetitive losses caused by flooding. Action 9.D.4 Seek pre-disaster mitigation funding. Both Objective 9.E: Address perceived data limitations regarding the lack of information about the relative vulnerability of assets from flooding. Action 9.E.1 Continue to encourage the public to prepare and maintain a 3-day preparedness kit for home and work. Both Action 9.E.2 Increase participation and improve compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Both Action 9.E.3 Develop and implement hazard awareness program. Both Goal 10: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to structural fire/wildfire. New, Existing or Both Objective 10.A: Develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the possibility of damage and losses due to structural fire/wildfire. Action 10.A.1 Update the County Consolidated Fire Code as necessary. Both Action 10.A.2 Develop model Weed Abatement and Fuel Modification Ordinances. Both Action 10.A.3 Utilize GIS as an information tool. Both Action 10.A.4 Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate structural fire/wildfire. Both Action 10.A.5 Continue to develop partnerships for a countywide vegetation management program. Both Objective 10.B: Protect existing assets with the highest relative vulnerability to the effects of structural fire/wildfire. Action 10.B.1 Enforce standardized Defensible Space Clearance distances. Both Action 10.B.2 Work with community-based groups to pilot chipping programs. Both Action 10.B.3 Continue to research options to provide low cost insurance to cover landowners who allow prescribed burning on their lands. Both Objective 10.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate structural fire/wildfire. Action 10.C.1 Establish a continuing wildland fire technical working group. Both Action 10.C.2 Continue to develop partnerships for a countywide vegetation management program. Both SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 148 Goal 10: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/infrastructure, and public facilities due to structural fire/wildfire. New, Existing or Both Objective 10.C: Coordinate with and support existing efforts to mitigate structural fire/wildfire. Action 10.C.3 Report annually to the Board of Supervisors on the progress of fire mitigation strategies. Both Objective 10.D: Address identified data limitations regarding the lack of information about the relative vulnerability of assets from structural fire/wildfire. Action 10.D.1 Identify Urban/wildland fire interface areas. Both Action 10.D.2 Use GIS to map fire risk areas. Both Action 10.D.3 Implement public education program to address fire dangers and corrective measures. Both Goal 11: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities /infrastructure, and public facilities due to extreme weather and drought. New, Existing or Both Objective 11.A: Educate the community about drought, its potential impacts and individual mitigation techniques that they can engage in to help prevent drought or reduce the impact of drought. Action 11.A.1 Encourage residents to adopt drought tolerant landscaping or xeriscape practices. Both Action 11.A.2 Promote use of reclaimed water for all landscaping efforts. Both Action 11.A.3 Support groundwater recycling efforts. Both Objective 11.B: Protect vulnerable populations from the effects of extreme heat Action 11.B.1 Support regional efforts to prepare for excessive heat events Both Action 11.A.2 Participate in “Excessive Heat Emergency Awareness” events and exercise heat emergency plans as established by HHSA, AIS, EMS, and PHS. Both Action 11.A.3 Continue to provide “Cool Zones” during excessive heat events. Both 5.21.5 Prioritization and Implementation of Action Items Once the comprehensive list of jurisdictional goals, objectives, and action items listed above was developed, the proposed mitigation actions were prioritized using 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 SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 149 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 11 prioritized mitigation actions as well as an implementation strategy for each are: Action Item #1: Update Operational Area Emergency Operational Plan and associated Annexes Coordinating Individual/Organization: The Office of Emergency Services (OES) will work with the 18 incorporated cities and participating special districts to revise and update the Plan Potential Funding Source: FEMA Grants/ General Funds for County and Cities. Implementation Timeline: January 2019 – January 2020 Action Item #2: Develop and maintain public education and outreach programs related to actions residents can take to mitigate hazards they may face. (Annual defensible space education/outreach; terrorism prevention; erosion control, etc.) Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES and County Communications Office (CCO) Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State Grants Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #3: Review the County Consolidated Fire Code annually and update as necessary Coordinating Individual/Organization: Planning and Developmental Services and County Fire Authority Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State Grants Implementation Timeline: January 2018 - January 2023 Action Item #4: 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. Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES, County Departments, local military, healthcare agencies and the 18 incorporated cities Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State grants Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #5: Publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation actions throughout the region Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES/PDS/County Fire Authority/CCO/County Technology Office (CTO) Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State grants. Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #6: Review Building Codes to reflect current earthquake standards annually and update as necessary Coordinating Individual/Organization: Planning and Developmental Services Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State Grants. SECTIONFIVE Goals, Objectives and Actions County of San Diego 150 Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #7: Support public and private sector symposiums that emphasize hazard mitigation planning Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES/County Departments/Cities/Private Sector Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State Grants Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #8: Maintain multi-jurisdictional/multi-functional training and annual exercises to enhance hazard mitigation Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES/County Departments/All 18 Cities/appropriate Private Sector Agencies Potential Funding Source: Grant Funded Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #9: Review and update annually regional emergency plans, Concept of Operation plans, protocols, and standard operational processes. Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES/appropriate county Departments/All 18 Cities/Special Districts Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State grants. Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #10: 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. Coordinating Individual/Organization: OES/CCO/CTO Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State grants Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 Action Item #11: Develop a Climate Action Plan. Coordinating Individual/Organization: Land Use and Environment Group/OES Potential Funding Source: General Fund/Federal or State grants Implementation Timeline: January 2018 – January 2023 SECTIONSIX Plan Maintenance 151 This section of the Plan describes the formal process that will ensure that 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 county and cities will integrate public participation throughout the plan maintenance process. Finally, this section includes an explanation of how jurisdictions intend to incorporate the mitigation strategies outlined in this plan into existing planning mechanisms such as the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Capital Improvement Plans, and Building Codes. 6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan 6.1.1 Plan Monitoring The HMWG participants 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 OES to integrate these updates into the Plan. County OES will be responsible for monitoring the overall Plan for updates on an annual basis. 6.1.2 Plan Evaluation The Plan is evaluated by 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 HMWG 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 to County OES for inclusion in further updates to the Plan. The HMWG and each Local Mitigation Planning Team meet annually to discuss the status of the Plan. 6.1.3 Plan Updates Since the plan’s original adoption in 2005 the HMWG has participated in an annual review. This process was continued after the adoption of the 2010 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 the vast majority of the action items developed by the participating jurisdictions. Appendix C details the status of the action items from the 2010 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 HMWG to improve the document by eliminating actions that have been completed, adding new actions that have been identified since the plans adoption and reprioritizing other actions to reflect new priorities SECTIONSIX Plan Maintenance 152 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. County OES will continue to be the responsible agency for updates to the Plan. All HMWG participants will continue to be responsible to provide OES with jurisdictional-level updates to the Plan annually or when/if necessary as described above. Every five years the plan will be updated and submitted to Cal OES and FEMA for review. 6.1.4 Implementation through Existing Programs County and local jurisdictions have implemented many of the recommended action items through existing programs and procedures. Participants use the Plan as a baseline of information on the natural hazards impacting their jurisdictions. They have also been able to refer to existing institutions, plans, policies and ordinances defined for each jurisdiction in Section 5 of the Plan (e.g., General Plan, Comprehensive Plan). Participants are incorporating the Hazard Mitigation Plan into their General Plans and/or Comprehensive Plans as those plans come up for review and revision. 6.1.5 Continued Public Involvement The 2010 was posted on the Hazard Mitigation page of the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services webpage. The public was encouraged to comment on the plan online. Once approved, the revised plan will be posted on the hazard mitigation page of the County website. A dedicated email address is provided to the public to provide comments on the plan. In addition, at the beginning of the revision process a survey was posted on all participating jurisdiction’s webpages to determine the best way to meet the needs and desires of the community. The survey results are in Appendix D. 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. A copy of the Plan is available for review on the County OES website. Participating jurisdictions also have links from their website to the Plan. In addition, hard copies of the plan are catalogued and kept at all of the appropriate agencies in the county. The existence and location of these copies is also posted on the county website. To facilitate public comments, the site contains an email address for the public’s use which is monitored on a daily basis by County OES. Any questions or comments received on this website are forwarded to the appropriate member(s) of the HMWG for their review and response. County OES also tracks these public comments on the plan. A press release requesting public comments is also issued for each update, and after each evaluation. We are also using social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) to notify the public of any changes they should be aware of. These notifications direct people to the website where the public can review proposed changes. Coupled with the dedicated email address for comments, this provides the public a simple and easily accessible to allow them to express their concerns, opinions, or ideas about any updates/changes that are proposed to the Plan. The County OES will continue to be responsible for publicize any changes to the Plan and maintaining public involvement. SECTIONSIX Plan Maintenance 153 SECTIONSIX Plan Maintenance 154 This page intentionally left blank SECTIONSEVEN References 155 SECTION 7 REFERENCES ABAG Dam Failure Inundation Hazards Guide, http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure/dfguide.html Bainbridge, David 1997. The Flood Next Time. The San Diego Earth Times Web Page: http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1097/et1097s1.html California Department of Boating and Waterways and SANDAG, 1994. Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region, Volumes I and II. Edited by Reinhard E. Flick, PhD. California Earthquake History 1769-Present Earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/sca/ca_eqs.php City of Fort Collins Dam Failure Webpage, http://www.ci.fort-collins.co.us/oem/dam-failure.php California Coastal Commission Draft Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance (2013) http://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slr/guidance/CCC_Draft_SLR_Guidance_PR_10142013.pdf California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology 1990. Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake, San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area. Special Publication 100. California Department of Water Resources, Dam Safety, http://www.water.ca.gov/damsaefty/docs/fault.pdf California Environmental Protection Agency and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2013. “Indicators of Climate Change in California.” Climate Education Partners, 2014. “San Diego, 2050 Is Calling. How Will We Answer?” County of San Diego, Department of Sanitation and Flood Control. Storms in San Diego County. FEMA 2002. State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide. September 2002, FEMA 386-1. FEMA 1999. HAZUS 99 Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology User Manual-ArcView. Developed by FEMA through arrangements with National Institute of Building Sciences. Frankel, Arthur, Mueller, Charles, Barnhard, Theodore, Perkins, David, Leyendecker, E.V., Dickman, Nancy, Hanson, Stanley, and Hopper, Margaret, 1997, Seismic-hazard maps for the conterminous United States, Map C - Horizontal Peak Acceleration with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-131-C. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/data.html 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. SECTIONSEVEN References 156 Governor’s Office of Emergency Services 2003. Interim Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance for California Local Governments. Prepared for the DRC April 21-23, 2003. Hawk, R.N., and Christiansen, T.P., 1991, City of San Diego Ordinances and Regulations with Respect to Geotechnical and Geological Hazards, in Environmental Perils, San Diego Region, Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., editors, San Diego Association of Geologists 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 Institute for Business and Life Safety, Tampa FL, July 2008 Mega Fires: The Case for Mitigation, The Witch Creek Fire, October 21-31, 2007 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. Leighton & Associates, 1983, Seismic Safety Study for the City of San Diego, City of San Diego General Plan Journal of San Diego History 2002. Dry Rivers, Dammed Rivers and Floods: An Early History of the Struggle Between Droughts and Floods in San Diego. Winter 2002, Volume 48, Number 1. http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/2002-1/hill.htm National Association of Counties April 2009. “A Snapshot of the Impact of the Recession on Large, Urban Counties”. Office of Emergency Services 2014. Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization Operational Area Emergency Plan. San Diego’s Changing Climate: A Regional Wake-Up Call. A Summary of the Focus 2050 Study Presented by The San Diego Foundation San Diego Natural History Museum Web Page 2003. Faults and Earthquakes in San Diego County. Thomas A. Demere, Ph.D: Curator of Paleontology. http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/sdfaults.html Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future (2012). http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389 South Carolina Emergency Management Division. South Carolina Emergency Operations Plan Appendix 4 South Carolina Dam Failure and Preparedness Plan. February 2009 SECTIONSEVEN References 157 Stroh, Robert C. editor., 2001: Coastal processes and Engineering Geology of San Diego, California, San Diego Association of Geologists, Sunbelt Publications U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1993. Tsunamis affecting the West Coast of the United States 1806-1992. KGRD 29. 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. APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-1 APPENDIX A: HAZARD MITIGATION WORKING GROUP MEETING AGENDAS AND SUMMARIES Group Meeting #1: Wednesday February 11, 2014, 9:00 AM Meeting Summary Tom Amabile (TA) gave an introduction that discussed the working group goals. The group went around and identified themselves and their agencies. The audience consisted of representatives from the 18 incorporated cities, the County of San Diego and various local water agencies as well as from several fire protection districts. Special Districts represented were: • Alpine Fire Protection District • Lakeside Fire Protection District • Padre Dam Municipal Water District • Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District • San Diego County Water Authority • Sweetwater Authority • Valley Center Water District • Vista Irrigation District TA gave a PowerPoint™ presentation discussing the goals of the San Diego County Multi- Jurisdiction Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan), the objectives of DMA 2000, the hazard mitigation planning process and the steps involved in developing the Plan achieving the goals. The presentation included a discussion of the methodology that will be used to revise the Plan for San Diego County. It was stressed that participation from special districts, especially fire protection districts and water districts was strongly encouraged and welcome. As explained in the PowerPoint presentation the goals of the hazard mitigation planning process consists of: 1. Identifying a. Risk of loss of life and property damage due to man-made and natural disasters b. Options for mitigation to lower or eliminate those risks c. Available resources and capabilities to implement mitigation actions d. Risks to San Diego County: i. Coastal storms/erosion ii. Dam Failure iii. Drought iv. Earthquakes v. Flooding vi. Hazardous Materials\ vii. Landslides viii. Terrorism ix. Tsunamis APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-2 x. Wildfires 2. Planning Process a. Basic Steps i. Establish planning area a. Identify partnerships i. Regional organizations ii. Local governments iii. Special Districts iv. Tribal governments ii. Build the planning team a. Identify Team Members i. Board of Supervisors/City Councils ii. Code Enforcement iii. Community Development iv. Fire v. Law Enforcement vi. Emergency Management vii. Floodplain Administrators viii. GIS ix. Public Information x. Public Works xi. Special Districts xii. Stormwater Management xiii. Special Districts xiv. Transportation b. Each participating jurisdiction will have a local planning team i. Focus on issues specific to that jurisdiction ii. One or two members will also be part of the regional planning team c. Responsibilities include: i. Attend meetings ii. Collect data iii. Make decisions on the planning process and content iv. Submit required worksheets v. Review plan drafts vi. Assist with coordination of public involvement and plan adoption iii. Create an outreach strategy a. Three tiers i. Planning Team ii. Stakeholders APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-3 iii. General Public b. Successful Outreach i. Informs and educates ii. Invites interested parties tro contribute iii. Identifies conflicts iv. Incorporated different perspectives v. Provides data and information that improves the final plan vi. Ensures transparency and builds trust vii. Maximizes opportunities c. Outreach Methods i. Community Events ii. News articles iii. Presentations to local governments iv. Questionnaires/Surveys v. Public forums vi. Social media vii. Community specific meetings viii. Website d. Document the process iv. Review community capabilities a. Existing authorities, polices, programs and resources b. Core Capabilities i. Planning ii. Public information and warning iii. Operational coordination iv. Community resilience v. Long-term vulnerability reduction vi. Risk and disaster resilience assessment vii. Threats and hazards identification c. National Flood Insurance Program d. Community Capabilities i. Plans ii. Studies iii. Reports iv. Technical Information v. For each jurisdiciton v. Conduct risk assessment a. Describe hazards b. Identify community assets i. People ii. Economic iii. Built Environment iv. Cultural resources APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-4 v. Future development vi. Natural Environment c. Analyze Risk i. Exposure Analysis ii. Historical Analysis iii. Scenario Analysis iv. GIS Hazard Mapping d. Summarize vulnerability vi. Develop a mitigation strategy a. Goals –What we want to achieve b. Actions – Specific projects and activities to meet those goals\ c. Action Plan – Describes how mitigation actions will be implemented d. Develop the Plan i. Finalize goals and objectives ii. Identify mitigation measures iii. Evaluate mitigation measures iv. Prioritize mitigation measures e. Document the plan vii. Keep the plan current viii. Adopt the plan ix. Create a safe and resilient community a. Focus on quality, not quantity b. Develop strong messaging c. Encourage local champions d. Identify funding and assistance The presentation also entailed an explanation of the benefits and requirements of participating in the Hazard Mitigation Plan process. The special districts were told that this was an excellent time for them to become engaged with the hazard mitigation planning process. Because the plan was set for revision, they could become part of the process and have their plans incorporated into the multi- jurisdictional plan by simply participating and developing a plan. TA went on to describe the benefits of having a plan, specifically the ability to apply for hazard mitigation grants. He explained that the grant process was competitive and having a hazard mitigation plan did not guarantee a grant award. The schedule of work group meeting was discussed. The work group will meet monthly to begin with. The next meeting date was schedule for March 5, 2014. At that meeting all participating jurisdictions (cities, county and special districts) will begin the actual process of updating and revising the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-5 Group Meeting #2: Thursday May 28, 2009, 10:00 AM AGENDA Introductions Schedule GIS’s Role in the Planning Process Planning Process – Where Are We Now? GIS – Assessing Risks – Step 1/Identify Hazards What’s Next? Next Meeting – Time and Location June 25, 2009 0900 – 1200 OES Tom Amabile (TA) gave an introduction that discussed the working group goals. The group went around and identified themselves and their agencies. The audience consisted of representatives from the incorporated cities, the County of San Diego, various local water agencies and fire protection districts. Agencies represented at the meeting were: City of Poway City of El Cajon City of La Mesa City of Lemon Grove City of San Diego City of San Marcos City of Vista Alpine FPD Lakeside FPD Rancho Santa Fe FPD San Miquel FPD Padre Dam MWD San Diego County Water Authority Sweetwater Authority Valley Center MWD Vista Irrigation District GIS’ Role in the Planning Process Geographic Information System (GIS) is essential for hazard mitigation planning. It can incorporate multiple and diverse data sources and provide an easily understood visual presentation of even the most complex data. GIS provides a modeling capability, allowing us to ask “What If” questions. Finally, it allows the data to be easily disseminated in the form of tables, maps, charts, etc. It works by putting the available data in layers that can then be rectified and so they will overlay and allow queries to be run. APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-6 We need to identify all available data sources. There is a listing of sources in Appendix B of the current Hazmit plan. Please review them and if you have additional appropriate data files that are not currently being used for this project, please let Tom Amabile know so they can be incorporated in to the HAZUS modeling that will be done. If there are data layers identified that are no longer valid, please let Tom know that was well. Planning Process We have organized our resources by establishing a planning team, and are working towards assessing community support and engaging the public. Currently, we are assessing our risk. This is accomplished by identifying hazards and profiling them to assess likely hood of occurrence and potential severity. We can eliminate hazards with a low risk (little chance of occurrence or for damage from the event), those with little potential for mitigation and those that already have mitigation efforts underway. We will look at events that have resulted in a Local Proclamation of Emergency, a Gubernatorial Proclamation or a Presidential Declaration. They will be categorized by: Type Date Location Expenditures Damages Description We will also look at undeclared events looking for the same data above. Once that is complete we can inventory assets to determine their vulnerability to these hazards and identify potential loses. Once that is complete we will develop the mitigation plan. To do this we will identify goals and objectives, establish and prioritize mitigation measures, prepare an implementation strategy and document the plan. The final step will be to implement the plan. That will require adoption of the approved plan by all participating jurisdictions and implementation of plan recommendations. Each year we will evaluate the results and modify the recommendations to reflect completed tasks adding new tasks to the prioritized list as appropriate. It is anticipated that we will begin the next revision of the complete plan in 2019. APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-7 Assessing Risk Hazards currently addressed in the plan are: Earthquakes Wildfires Flooding Landslide Drought Tsunami Hazardous materials Coastal storm/erosion Dam failure Terrorism Potential additions to the 2015 plan are: Drought/Water Supply Extreme Heat Other extreme weather events A discussion of the identified hazards and potential new hazards took place. The consensus was that we would merge liquefaction with earthquake and merge radioactive materials release with hazardous materials release. There will also be a new hazard listed to encompass potential impacts from climate change that was identified as “Extreme Weather/Drought”. OES is finishing up a survey on Survey Monkey that will released to the public by the end of March and will be available to them for six weeks (FEMA requires a minimum response time of four weeks). This will be the start of the Public Outreach effort. We will conduct the survey upfront, before making/finalizing the plan, so ideas/comments from the public can be incorporated into the planning process and the draft plan. Each jurisdiction is requested to provide a link to the survey on their website, to allow for as much public outreach as possible. The County of San Diego will issue a press release to notify the public and encourages each jurisdiction to do the same. The County’s press release will be made available to all participating jurisdictions. What’s Next? It is expected that each jurisdiction will, with the assistance of their local hazmit working group, begin to focus on aspects specific to their jurisdiction. Part of this process will be “Ground-truthing,” I.e., each individual jurisdiction must confirm the data being used is accurate and acceptable to them. APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-8 Part of this process will be to profile the hazards. While the County’s GIS staff will model this, each city/special district will need to review the results to ensure they are appropriate for that jurisdiction. Homework Everyone is requested to: Review the data matrix in Appendix B Review the hazard maps Review FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (on the CD provided last meeting. It is also available on line at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/31598?id=7209 Complete the 4 Worksheets form the handbook Group Meeting #3: June 24, 2014, AGENDA Introductions Schedule Mitigation Strategy Goals,- Consistent with hazards identified Goals from 2010 Plan Actions Local Plans and regulations Structure/Infrastructure projects Natural Systems protection Education & Awareness programs Preparedness Actions Mitigating Actions Action Prioritization Implementation Incorporate into existing plans & Policies Integrate with other community objectives, using existing mechanisms. Think pre and post-disaster mitigation Updating Mitigation Strategy Evaluate implementation progress Explain changes in priorities Communicating Mitigation Action Plan to the Public What’s Next ? Run HAZUS analysis Develop Maps and Tables APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-9 Begin development of mitigation strategy Homework Review goals and objectives in 2010 plan Begin update local goals, objectives and actions. Next Meeting – August 26, 2014 10 AM Meeting Summary Tom Amabile gave an introduction that discussed the working group goals. Members went around the room and introduced themselves. Tom Amabile reviewed the time-line for the project. He then reviewed the goals, objects and actions that will be listed in the plan; Goals are guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. They must be consistent with the hazards identified. Objectives connect actions to the goals, and Actions are specific measurable projects and activities that help achieve the goal. Mitigation actions which include changes to local plans and regulations, structure/infrastructure projects, natural systems protection and education and awareness programs. Preparedness actions to reduce or eliminate long-term risk and lessen the need for preparedness and/or response resources in the future. These actions include mutual aid agreements, purchasing communications equipment and developing mass notification capabilities. The Action Plan describes how mitigation actions will be prioritized and implemented. Goals and Objectives identified in the current plan were presented. They are: Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets due to geologic hazards Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets due to structure fire/wildfire Reduce the possibility of losses to existing assets due to flooding/dam failure Increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation Improve hazard mitigation coordination and communication with federal, State, local and tribal governments Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets due to geologic hazards Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets due to structure fire/wildfire Reduce the possibility of losses to existing assets due to flooding/dam failure Increase public understanding and support for effective hazard mitigation Improve hazard mitigation coordination and communication with federal, State, local and tribal governments There was discussion regarding changing or modifying these goals and objectives. Each participating jurisdiction is free to modify them to meet their needs. The process for identifying mitigation actions was discussed. It includes: Review of the risk assessment APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-10 Capabilities assessment Evaluation and prioritization of mitigation actions Implementation Updating mitigation strategy Communicating the action plan to key officials and the public Action Items OES/County: Run HAZUS analysis Develop maps and tables. All jurisdictions: Begin development of Mitigation Strategy. All other meetings between individual jurisdictions were conducted via telephone or in person between the city/special district and OES. Group Meeting #4: September 16, 2014, AGENDA Introductions Schedule Survey results Review of Hazards Review of Over-arching Mitigation Goals Development of Additional Goals Homework Assignment What’s Next? Meeting Summary Tom Amabile gave an introduction that discussed the working group goals. Members went around the room and introduced themselves. Tom Amabile reviewed the time-line for the project. The results of the on-line survey were discussed: 534 people responded to the survey. Carlsbad - 44 National City - 2 Coronado - 1 Oceanside - 14 Chula Vista - 31 Poway - 28 Del Mar - 28 San Diego - 69 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-11 El Cajon - 13 San Marcos - 76 Encinitas - 17 Santee - 13 Escondido - 5 Solana Beach - 109 Imperial Beach - 0 Vista - 29 La Mesa - 9 Unincorporated - 41 Lemon Grove - 4 Other - 1 75% were unaware a regional HazMit plan exists 61% had been impacted by a disaster 86% said they were concerned about being impacted. Biggest hazards: Wildfire/Structure Fire – 41% Earthquake - 31% Drought – 8% Climate Change – 4% Coastal Storm/Erosion – 3% Next biggest hazards: Earthquake – 33% Wildfire/Structure Fire – 17% Drought – 16% Terrorism – 3% Climate Change – 3% 6.87 % live or have a business in a flood plain 9.23 % have flood insurance, 10.17 % aren’t sure if they do or not If they don’t have flood insurance it is because Not in flood plain – 58% Home/business elevated or protected – 19% Never floods – 4% Too expensive – 5% 3 Most common steps local government can take Increase awareness Conduct more exercises/drills Add resources (more fire assets, helicopters, CERT, etc.) Other concerns Getting emergency information Government needs to be eco-friendly Rated six categories on level of importance: Category Importance Very Somewhat Not Prevention 76% 21% 2% Property Protection 55% 39% 6% Public Awareness 77% 21% 2% APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-12 Nat. Resources 65% 29% 6% Emerg. Services 88% 11% 1% Structural Projects 54% 38% 8% Review of Hazards Tom Amabile reviewed the hazards in the revised plan: Coastal Storm/Erosion/Tsunami/Sea Level Rise 8 local proclamations of emergencies Coastline heavily developed/populated Prone to erosion Sea level rise predicted to be between 3 and 12 inches by 2030. Dam Failure Over 30 significant dams in the County Most over 35 years old Increased downstream development Drought Not originally in plan (reliance on imported water reduces our risk from local drought) State-wide drought puts us at risk Floods Large portions of the County within 100 year flood plain 2 proclaimed emergencies in last 15 years Moderate rainfall results in urban/flash floods on routine basis Hazardous Materials Over 100 licensed sites within the region Regional HazMat team responds to hundreds of calls each year. Landslide Landslide prone areas found throughout the county Most recent damaging landslide was 2007 in La Jolla. 111 homes evacuated, 40 found to be uninhabitable due to ground instability and 7 suffered significant damage. Terrorism Every major metropolitan area is susceptible to a terrorist event Wildfire/Structure Fire Occur frequently – significant wildfires breakout routinely 5 proclaimed emergencies due to wildfire between 2003 and 2014 Drought increases the risk due to low fuel moisture. Hazards Not in the Plan Avalanche Hailstorm Nuclear Materials Release (removed due to SONGS decommissioning) Severe Winter Storms Volcano APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-13 Windstorm Existing Objectives: Reduce vulnerability to: Geologic hazards (earthquake, landslides, liquefaction, etc.) Wildfires/structure fires Flooding/dam failure Coastal erosion/coastal bluff failure/storm surge/tsunami/sea level rise Severe Weather (including extreme heat) Increase public support for hazard mitigation Improve hazard mitigation coordination between all levels of government Promote disaster resistant existing and future development Build and support local capacity Need to develop a goal for drought Homework Review current goals and objectives for your jurisdiction Delete completed items Add new items Identify 5 to 10 priority action items Start Date Agency/department responsible Cost/Funding source Estimated completion date Short description of the project Please provide to Tom by 10/15/14 Next Meeting date to be determined. APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-14 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-15 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-16 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-17 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-18 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-19 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-20 APPENDIX A Working Group Meetings A-21 APPENDIX B Data Matrix B-1 APPENDIX B: DATA MATRIX NAME SOURCES QUERY (IF ANY)NOTES (INCL. CREDITS) Coastal Storm/Erosion HYD_FLOODPL FLD_ZONE = 'VE'Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Tsunami HYD_TSUNAMI_INUNDATION_AREA California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), University of Southern California (USC) and California Geological Survey (CGS) Dam Failure HYD_DAM_INUNDATION California Office of Emergency Services and County of San Diego 100-Year Earthquake HAZUS, USGS Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA; HAZUS); soil from U.S. Geological Survey VS30 data - http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/vs30/custom.php 500-Year Earthquake HAZUS, USGS Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA; HAZUS); soil from U.S. Geological Survey VS30 data - http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/vs30/custom.php Rose Canyon M6.9 Scenario USGS U.S. Geological Survey 100-Year Flood HYD_FLOODPL FLOOD_PLAI = 'FP100' OR FLOOD_PLAI = 'FW100'Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 500-Year Flood HYD_FLOODPL FLOOD_PLAI = 'FP500'Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Rain-Induced Landslide (High Risk)GEO_LANDSLIDE_CN soil_slip_risk = 'High' OR state_landslide_cat = 'Most Susceptible' OR GABRO_SLOPE = 'YES' State of California, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA; HAZUS) and County of San Diego Rain-Induced Landslide (Moderate Risk)GEO_LANDSLIDE_CN (soil_slip_risk = 'Moderate' OR state_landslide_cat = 'Marginally Susceptible') AND GABRO_SLOPE = '' State of California, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA; HAZUS) and County of San Diego Fire Regime Group II LANDFIRE <= 35 Year Fire Return Interval, Replacement Severity U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Fire Regime Group IV LANDFIRE 35 - 200 Year Fire Return Interval, Replacement Severity U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Extreme Heat Cal-Adapt Maximum temperature - MONTHLY - August 2020 - A2 GFDL California Energy Commission (CEC) - http://cal-adapt.org/ Sea Level Rise (Coastal Flooding)Areas inundated by unimpeded Pacific coastal flooding under a scenario of 1.4-meter (55-inch) sea-level rise Pacific Institute -- http://www2.pacinst.org/ Sea Level Rise (MHHW)Area inundated by mean higher high water (MHHW) under 1.4-meter (55-inch) sea-level rise scenario Pacific Institute -- http://www2.pacinst.org/ APPENDIX C Implementation Status C-1 APPENDIX C: IMPLEMENTATION STATUS County of San Diego Priority Action Item Number Description Status 1. 3.B.1 Update Operational Area Plan. Completed. 2. 2.D.4 Continue to develop and maintain public education and outreach programs. Completed. On-going. 3. 10.A.1 Update the County Consolidated Fire Code every three years. On-going. 4. 4.B.3 Continue to streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of efforts. On-going. 5. 2.A1 Publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation actions. Completed. On-going. 6. 6.A.1 Update Building Codes to reflect current earthquake standards. Completed. On-going 7. 2.E.1 Support public and private sector symposiums. On-going. 8. 4.A.4 Maintain multi-jurisdictional/multi-functional training and exercises to enhance hazard mitigation. Completed. On-going 9. 4.A.3 Continue to review and update plans that would include coordination with cities, special districts and County departments. Completed, on-going. 10. Attach A 1.E.1 Continue to encourage the public to prepare and maintain a 3-day preparedness kit for home and work. Completed, on-going. APPENDIX D Survey Results D-1 APPENDIX D: SURVEY RESULTS FOR SD MULTIJURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVISION There were 532 respondents for this survey. Of those people: • 271 chose to provide their name • 267 provided their e-mail • 222 provided their phone number All of the 532 Respondents provided the cities or communities in which they live and work. Although there were respondents from all areas of the county: • The majority of people stated they live and/or work in the northern part of the county (Example: Solana Beach, Del Mar, Carlsbad, Encinitas, etc.) • Western and Central San Diego (Example: City of San Diego, Point Loma, etc.) had many respondents, but much less than North County • There was only a handful of Respondents who claimed to be from the South Bay and Eastern area of the county (Example: Chula Vista, Bonita, Lakeside, Lemon Grove, etc.). Almost everyone stated they were responding to this survey as a Resident. (524 Answered; 8 Skipped) • 96.56% (506 Responders) responded as a Resident. • 2.67% (14 Responders) responded as a Community Organization. • 0.57% (3 Responders) responded as a Local Business. • 0.19% (1 Responders) responded as a Non-profit Organization. According to the responses to question 4, “Are you aware of the San Diego Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan developed in 2004 and revised in 2010?” (529 Answered; 3 Skipped) • 25.52% YES • 74.48% NO. When asked, “Have you ever experienced or been impacted by a disaster?” (529 Answered; 3 Skipped) • 4.54% answered YES • 38.94% answered NO. • 56.52% answered YES and explained what the disaster was. Of those people who provided details, earthquakes and having to evacuate their homes due to wild fires was the most common answer. Question 6 asked, “How concerned are you about the possibility of your community being impacted by a disaster?” (527 Answered; 5 Skipped) • 18.41% are Extremely Concerned • 31.31% are Very Concerned APPENDIX D Survey Results D-2 • 35.86% are Moderately concerned • 13.09% are only Slightly concerned • 1.33% are Not at all concerned Question 7 asked people to select the one hazard they think is the highest threat to their neighborhood. (523 Answered; 9 Skipped): • 41.49% - Structure/Wild Land Fires • 31.17% - Earthquake • 8.03% - Drought • 5.54% - Other (Examples: too much government regulation, Tornadoes, Power outage) • 3.63% - Climate change • 2.87% - Coastal Storms/Erosion • 1.34% - Tsunami • 1.15% - Extreme heat • 0.96% - Pandemic • 0.96% - Landslide • 0.76% - Severe Winter Storm • 0.76% - Terrorism • 0.38% - Extreme Wind • 0.19% - Nuclear accident • 0.19% - Hazardous Materials Incident • 0.19% - Dam Failure • 0.19% - Flood • 0.19 % - Oil or Gas line failure • 0.00% - Liquefaction. Question 8 had people choose the hazard they think is the second highest threat to their neighborhood. (513 Answered; 19 Skipped): • 32.55% - Earthquake • 16.96% - Structure/Wild Land Fire • 16.37% - Drought • 3.70% - Other • 3.31% - Terrorism • 3.31% - Climate Change • 3.12% - Coastal Storms/Erosion • 2.73% - Extreme Heat • 2.73% - Severe Winter Storm • 2.53% - Landslide • 2.53% - Pandemic • 2.14% - Extreme Wind APPENDIX D Survey Results D-3 •1.95% - Oil or Gasoline Failure •1.95 – Tsunami •1.56% - Flood •0.78% - Hazardous Materials Incident •0.78% - Dam Failure •0.58% - Nuclear Accident •0.39% - Liquefaction In reference to the question, “Is your home or business located in a flood plain?” (524 Answered; 8 Skipped) •6.87% of people have a home or business that is located in a floodplain •93.13% said they do not have a home or business in a flood plain The following question asked, “Do you have flood insurance?” (531 Answered; 1 Skipped) •9.23% of people said they do have flood insurance •60.80% said they do not have flood insurance •10.17% of people said they do not know if they have flood insurance When asked people why they do not have flood insurance (469 Answered; 63 Skipped) •58.21% said they do not have flood insurance because their home or business is not located in a flood plain •18.76% of people do not have flood insurance because their home/business is elevated or otherwise protected •4.26% claim it is not necessary because it never floods •4.90% said flood insurance is too expensive •3.10% said they have never really considered getting flood insurance •5.76% have “other reasons”. The majority of people who chose other as their answer explained they do not have flood insurance because they rent or because flood insurance is too expensive. When asked, “Have you taken any actions to make your home, business or neighborhood more resistant to hazards?”(526 Answered; 6 Skipped) •60.27% of people who answered said they have taken actions to make their home, business, or neighborhood more resistant to hazards •39.73% have not taken any action The following question asked if they are interested in making their home, business or neighborhood more resistant to hazards (523 Answered; 9 Skipped) •85.09% of people are interested in making their home, business, or neighborhood more resistant to hazards •14.91% are not interested APPENDIX D Survey Results D-4 When people were asked what the most effective way to receive information about how to make their home, business, or neighborhood more resistant to hazards (520 Answered; 12 Skipped): •52.12% said email •13.08% answered internet •8.85% answered Mail •7.88% said Television •7.88% Public workshops •4.81% selected Social Media •3.65% said Newspaper •1.73% said Radio The follow up question was, “Do you require assistance in receiving information?” (528 Answered; 4 Skipped) •97.92% Do not require assistance in receiving information •2.08% Require assistance Question 16 asks people to give their opinion in reference to what are some steps the local government could take to reduce or eliminate the risk of future hazard damages in their neighborhood. (405 Answered; 127 Skipped) •The 3 most common answers people gave were: Increase public emergency awareness/education, conduct more mock disaster drills, and increase emergency resources and equipment (more fire depts., helicopters, C.E.R.T., etc.). •Other steps which were suggested were: improve AlertSanDiego.org, monitor people’s water usage and inspect homes for safe property practices, and for the cities and county to better maintain land/forestry. When asked if there are any other issues regarding the reduction of risk and loss associated with hazards or disasters in the community that are important, many people continue to comment about how they are not well informed on how to react in the event of an emergency or disaster (234 Answered; 298 Skipped): •People feel there is not an effective means to disseminate emergency information. •Another common topic in people’s response to this question is their concern as to what the cities/county is doing to be eco-friendly. The final question asks people, in their opinion, to rate the level of importance of the six broad categories of community-wide activities. (529 Answered; 3 Skipped) 1. Prevention – Administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land is developed and buildings are constructed. (Example – Planning and zoning building codes, etc.) a.Very Important: 76.15% b. Somewhat Important: 21.56% c.Not Important: 2.29% APPENDIX D Survey Results D-5 2. Property Protection – Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard area (Example – Retrofits, relocation, acquisition, etc.) a.Very Important: 55.05% b. Somewhat Important: 39.43% c.Not Important: 5.52% 3. Public Education and Awareness – Actions to inform and educate residents, elected officials and property owners about the hazards and potential ways to mitigate them (Example – Outreach, real estate disclosure, school-age and adult education. a.Very Important: 76.57% b. Somewhat Important: 21.71% c.Not Important: 1.71% 4.Natural Resources Protection – Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems (Examples – Erosion control, stream restoration, etc.) a.Very Important: 64.63% b. Somewhat Important: 29.25% c.Not Important: 6.12% 5.Emergency Services – Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a disaster or hazard event (Example – Warning systems, protection of official facilities, etc.) a.Very Important: 88.80% b. Somewhat Important: 10.63% c.Not Important: 0.57% 6.Structural Projects – Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard (Example – Dams, floodwalls, seawalls, etc.) a.Very Important: 53.82% b. Somewhat Important: 37.98% c.Not Important: 8.21% 2021 Drought Update Board of Directors Meeting October 6, 2021 Andrea Carey Tenille Otero Customer Service Manager Communications Officer Otay Water District Attachment B 2021 Drought Declarations •April 21, 2021 –Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a drought emergency covering the Russian River Watershed of Sonoma and Mendocino counties •May 10, 2021 –Governor Newsom expanded the drought emergen- cy to include the Klamath River, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and Tulare Lake Watershed •July 8, 2021 –The Governor expand- ed his drought emergency procla- mation to nine additional counties and called on Californians to volun- tarily reduce water use by 15% Timeline 2014-2016 Drought Response •January 2014 –Governor Brown declared a drought emergency. Timeline •July 15, 2014 –SWRCB set emergency conser- vation regulations implementing restrictions. •August 6, 2014 –Otay declared Water Shortage Response Level 2 calling for mandatory conservation measures. •May 2016 –SWRCB replaced state mandated target method with a supply-based approach. •July 6, 2016 –Otay ended its Water Shortage Response Level 2 and approved changes to Section 39 Drought Response Conservation Program creating permanent conservation measures (required by state). 2014-2016 Drought Response •Calls & emails to customers notifying them of the state’s mandate •Letters to top 10% of residential users •Letters to potable commercial irrigation customers •Conservation message on bill envelopes, in the Pipeline newsletter, social media, the website, bill inserts, and other materials •Online target usage tracker •Leak alarm notifications District Outreach 2014-2016 Drought Response District Outreach (continued) •Water waste tracking app & door hangers for those violating conservation regulations •Water Conservation Garden outreach events •Discussions with homeowners & commercial customers on watering restrictions & rebate programs •Hired Water Authority intern to assist with outreach & develop updated educational materials •Coordinated consistent messaging with Water Authority staff 2014-2016 Drought Response •Drought rates •Penalties for water waste •Individual conservation targets Additional Ideas Discussed but Not Implemented Due to Surpassing Conservation Goals 2014-2016 Drought Response Conservation Rate from January 2015 to June 2016 Current Drought •San Diego precipitation –49% of normal •Local reservoir storage –46% of capacity •San Diego temperatures above normal for 22 of last 23 months Local Conditions Three-Month Precipitation Outlook (Oct –Dec) Current Drought Three-Month Temperature Outlook (Oct –Dec) Current Drought MWD Drought Response •August 17 –Declared a Water Supply Alert •Declaration seeks to avoid need for more severe actions •Multilingual outreach campaign, additional $1M to extend to spring 2020 •Conservation program modifications on the horizon, with an emphasis on underserved communities Current Drought Water Authority Drought Response •CWA continues to monitor state and local conditions. •Drought advocacy. •Responding to media regarding evolving drought. •Social and digital media ads supporting voluntary conservation. •Planning for WSCP Level 1 Enhanced Outreach if necessary. •Providing member agencies with new resources. Current Drought District Water Shortage Contingency Plan Current Drought •Level 1 may be declared by the District’s General Manager. •Level 2, 3, 4, or 5 conditions may be declared by resolution of the District Board. •Levels can be triggered when there are limitations on supply or on the District’s delivery system. Current Drought Current Average Water Use •From February through August 2021, the District’s average water usage was 9.6% lower than 2013 usage. Next Steps •Staff will continue to monitor current drought situation. •Staff will work with CWA and MWD on consistent messaging. •Staff will report to the board if actions are required. Questions? STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 6, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Jose Martinez 0B0B0BGeneral Manager W.O./G.F. NO: N/A DIV. NO. N/A APPROVED BY: Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: 1B1B1BGeneral Manager’s Report UUUGENERAL MANAGER • UUDistrict’s Response to COVID-19 PandemicUU –The COVID-19 pandemic emergency declarations and the social distancing orders have resulted in a portion of the District’s staff telecommuting. The District has had no impacts to its water supply and has maintained a continuity of operations and services during the challenging and dynamic environment. Staff continues to monitor and provide updates relating to responding to this pandemic, as needed, including but not limited to: water and wastewater services, supplies, operations, finances, and communication. The District is continuing to hold Board of Directors meetings via teleconference services in accordance with AB361, which provides public access to the meetings. The District remains committed to the safety of the public and its employees who continue to provide the public with essential services. A Safe Reopening Plan and a Social Distancing and Sanitation Protocol have been implemented and are updated in accordance with county health guidelines, including the recent emergency regulations discussed in this report. Staff will continue to monitor and comply with all Federal, State and Local orders and guidelines. As a note, throughout the pandemic the District has had staff reporting to the office, as needed. This was necessary to maintain the safe and reliable distribution of water and wastewater services to our customers. Given the June Cal/OSHA updates the District implemented a phased transition to a normal on-site work force. If necessary and on a case-by-case basis, the District will work with staff requiring COVID-19 related accommodations. Staff will continue to monitor and provide updates as necessary. AGENDA ITEM 9 2 UUUADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESUUU: UUGIS: • UUNew GIS Mobile SolutionUU - Using the Geocortex mobile developer tool, staff is developing a new field mobile solution that can be used by different field devices including Toughbooks, iPads, Touchpads, iPhones, etc. The new solution will focus on solving the urgent need for the Recycled group whose working computer is an iPad, while the District’s current supported platform is for windows-based applications. The new solution will provide easy and direct access to District GIS services and related applications. Testing of the new field solution is expected to be complete by the end of September and deployed for field use by the end of October. UUHuman ResourcesUU: • COVID-19 Regulations and Staffing – Staff continues to monitor legislation and implement as required. Until further notice, Administrative employees will continue to work on-site via a rotational schedule. • Open Enrollment – To be held October 12-29. In preparation, HR staff is working with IT staff and Alliant, the District’s benefits consultant. • Recruitments/New Hires/PromotionsUU – The District is or will be recruiting for the following positions: o Utility Maintenance Assistant Supervisor o Customer Service Field Representative I/II o Water System Operator I/II/III o Human Resources Assistant I/II o Construction Inspector I/II o SCADA/Senior SCADA Instrumentation Technician o Warehouse Technician The District recently filled the following position: o Utility Maintenance Supervisor (internal candidate) UUIT OperationsUU: • UUDistrict Board Room Technology EnhancementsUU - Staff deployed new audio streaming devices for the District's Audio/Video (A/V) system to improve audio performance. The new technology improves audio streaming quality throughout the Board Room and enhances the continuous live streaming broadcast for Committee and Board meetings. 3 • UUMonthly Cybersecurity SafeguardsUU - The District’s public facing cyber environment is monitored and analyzed by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). CISA evaluates the Agency's exposure to external threats once a month using external vulnerability scanning, risk assessment, and the architectural design report validation. The Agency continues to satisfy these criteria, according to the August evaluation. UUPurchasing & Facilities: • UUSalt Creek Golf Course and Central/Patzig Vegetation ManagementUU – Aztec Landscaping, Inc. has completed the annual mowing ahead of schedule and within budget. Aztec provided daily progress reports with pictures and maps indicating areas and percentages completed. A post work site review revealed a superior result over previous seasons. • Annual Fire Alarm Inspection and Testing – Over a two-day period, Albireo Energy, the District’s fire alarm monitoring and maintenance 4 contractor, completed the annual fire panel and system inspections at Administration, Operations and Warehouse. The inspections and tests consist of witnessing the operation of horns, strobes, pull stations, smoke detectors, communications, programming, and battery backup. All systems passed without comment. The annual fire alarm inspections are separate from the fire sprinkler system inspections that occur quarterly with tests conducted annually. Similarly, fire extinguishers are certified annually and inspected monthly by Facility staff. UUSafety & Security: • UUCOVID-19UU – Staff continues to monitor the Federal, State and County COVID-19 guidelines and orders, and share our business continuity operations procedures with other water member agencies. Staff also continues to answer employee COVID-19 related questions and provide guidance such as the District's face coverings, respiratory protection, and testing. Cal/OSHA is proposing a permanent COVID regulation, and an Advisory Meeting was held and attended by staff on Thursday, September 23, via videoconference, to comment on the proposal. The new proposal is a slimmed-down version of the current emergency temporary standard (ETS), with several critical provisions removed, including handwashing, cleaning, and disinfection requirements, testing of symptomatic, unvaccinated employees, and exclusion pay. • UUEmergency Management: Water Agencies Emergency Collaborative (WAEC) & Monthly WebEOC ExercisesUU – Staff facilitated the District's Monthly WebEOC Exercise Meeting virtually and conducted the September exercise. The exercise consisted of accessing the Incident Command System (ICS) 206 Medical Plan Form, completing it, and then upload/post to the Water Hub. Staff conducted a refresher training on the ICS 206 Form and how to fill it out. Then several members were asked to log into the County WebEOC and post the document as part of the monthly test. UUFINANCE: • UUCollections and Bad Debt ExposureUU – Below is information that shows lockable accounts and differentiates Owner accounts from Tenant accounts. While the District collects a portion of these balances, it is less likely to collect the tenant account balances that have become lockable. This balance is being monitored on a weekly basis to assess the potential bad debt exposure. 5 • Cost of Service Study – Staff is submitting documentation to its rate consultant, Raftelis, that they have requested in order to perform a water cost of service study. A draft study is projected to be completed in February or March of 2022. The results of the study will be incorporated into the FY 2023 budget process. • FY 2022 Operating and Capital Budget Documents – Staff is finalizing the FY 2022 Operating and Capital Budget documents which are scheduled to be submitted to the CSMFO and GFOA award programs by September 30, 2021. • COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim – In 2020 a claim for COVID-19 Business Interruption was opened with SDRMA under our insurance program. SDRMA received a notice from their excess carriers regarding the COVID-19 Business Interruption claim filed on behalf of the District. Although there was a $500,000 policy limit, this limit was also subject to an aggregate limit of $10 million nationwide. Based on those limits, SDRMA received $54,878 of which the District’s settlement will be $11,947. • FY 2021 Annual Audit Update – The final audit fieldwork was completed as scheduled. The auditors have submitted the first draft of the annual financial report to the District for review. Staff is scheduled to bring the audit results and annual report to the F&A Committee in October and to the Board in November. • Bi-Annual OPEB Valuation Report (Retiree Medical Benefits) – The District’s Actuary completed the first draft of the FY 2021 OPEB Valuation report. Staff has reviewed the draft with the Actuary and is now working on a staff report to bring the results to the F&A Committee and Board. 6 • Trust and Custody Account Update – Earlier this year, US Bancorp (US Bank) acquired the Trust & Custody line of business from MUFG-Union Bank. The acquisition was accepted by state and federal regulators and was completed in July 2021. Subsequently, US Bank provided training and system access to District staff in July and August. In September 2021, staff worked with both US Bank and District brokers to reinvest the 2010 (A) and (B) Bond Debt Reserves. The transaction was executed seamlessly without any issue. • State Water Arrearages Program – Staff completed the State Water Arrearages survey on September 9th. This survey was to assist the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to determine the total amount of drinking water delinquencies that currently exist from water service from March 4, 2020 to June 15, 2021, for residential and commercial customers. The State has given SWRCB $985 million to distribute to water systems to cover customer arrearages. The District reported arrearages of $620,000. On September 21st, the SWRCB approved the guidelines for the program. Based on results of the survey, SWRCB staff estimate the total arrearages of $330 million. Since this is under the $985 million available, all water systems are expecting to receive the total amount requested to cover customer’s potable water arrearages. Otay is currently waiting on the start of the application period to request funds. Once funds are received, credits will be issued to customers. Since there is additional money available, the SWRCB will begin working on an arrearage program for wastewater. This program will begin in early 2022. UUFinancial Reporting: • The financial reporting for August 31, 2021 is as follows: o For the second month ending August 31, 2021, there are total revenues of $21,919,702 and total expenses of $20,529,677. The revenues exceeded expenses by $1,390,025. • The financial reporting for investments for August 31, 2021 is as follows: o The market value shown in the Portfolio Summary and in the Investment Portfolio Details as of August 31, 2021 total $89,555,314 with an average yield to maturity of 0.601%. The total earnings year to date are $90,351. UUENGINEERING AND WATER SYSTEM OPERATIONSUU: UUEngineering: • 870-2 Pump Station Replacement: This project consists of a new Pump Station to replace the existing Low Head 571-1 and High Head 870-1 Pump Stations. The project also includes the replacement of the 7 existing liner and cover for the 571-1 Reservoir (36.7 MG). The Pump Station has four (4) pumps, two (2) electric motor driven and two (2) external gas engine driven motor/pump combinations. On June 29, 2020, Pacific Hydrotech, the Pump Station’s contractor, achieved substantial completion. The 7-day test was finalized, and the project accepted as complete on August 25, 2021. Unanticipated District costs, associated with the continuing repairs, have been tracked and are the subject of the final deductive change order before the Board on October 6, 2021. Project close-out and filing of the Notice of Completion are underway. (P2083 & P2562) • Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Redundancy: This project added a second pump to the District’s existing Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station (TLOPS) to provide redundancy. Substantial completion was achieved on April 5, 2021. The project is within budget and a Notice of Completion was recorded with the County of San Diego on August 5, 2021. Retention payment has been released and the District received Tharsos’ certified claim on August 30, 2021 for COVID impacts to recoup the $121K collected in liquidated damages. Per the contract specification, the Engineer’s Final Determination was provided to Tharsos on Friday, September 17, 2021. Tharsos, per the contract, notified the District on September 24, 2021 of their objection to the final determination and has filed a request for Non-Binding Mediation. The American Arbitration Association will review the request and associated claim and (if all requirements are met) will assign a case manager who will contact both parties for mediator selection. (P2619) • Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement: This project includes replacement of the existing Pump Station, which serves the small 1530 Pressure Zone, containing approximately thirty-seven (37) potable water meters and four (4) hydrants. District staff has been working with the design consultant, Murraysmith, to develop and select a replacement concept for preliminary design coordinated with a separate CIP project (P2680) to replace distribution piping in Vista Diego Road. District staff provided comments on Murraysmith’s revised preliminary design report on August 9, 2021. This project is on schedule and within budget. (P2639) • 1090-1 Pump Station Renovation: This project includes renovation of the existing Pump Station, including pump replacement and addition of a third pump, which serves the small 1090 Pressure Zone, containing approximately thirty-three (33) potable water meters and seven (7) hydrants. Award of the contract to Cora Constructors was authorized at the November 2020 Board Meeting. Notice to proceed was issued on January 8, 2021. The procurement of long-lead items occurred initially, and construction began on May 20, 2021. Pump motors were damaged during transportation, which is expected to delay completion of the work. During the electrical service replacement, the District will have the trailer mounted motor driven Pioneer pump available in 8 the event the work is not completed in a timely manner. This project is currently on schedule and within budget. (P2174) • RWCWRF Disinfection System Improvements: The project involves the replacement of the chlorine gas disinfection system with an ultraviolet (UV) process at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility. Consultant selection for design and construction support to Carollo Engineers was approved by the Board at the June 2021 Board Meeting. Design work initiated in July 2021. Monitoring of ultraviolet transmittance is in progress for sizing the proposed system. Initial contact with the regulating state agencies has been made. Information on available equipment manufacturers has been received and is being reviewed with further investigations by staff. (R2117) • Melrose Ave and Oleander Ave PRSs and 980 Reservoirs Altitude Valve Vaults: This project involves the replacement of two (2) 1960’s era pressure reducing stations in Chula Vista. The 340 Pressure Zone is a closed system with no storage, requiring pressure relief capabilities at each station. The project was advertised in February 2021 with it packaged with renovations to the 980-1 & -2 Reservoirs altitude valve vaults. The valves and piping have significant corrosion impacts, with new corrosion protection included in the design. The Board approved awarding a contract to CCL Contracting at the May Board Meeting. Submittal review started in June and a Notice to Proceed was issued on July 1, 2021, with a project completion date of March 28, 2022. This project is currently on schedule and within budget. (P2605, P2627, & P2671) • Olympic Parkway Recycled Water Line Replacement: Several main breaks within the past year of the 20-inch recycled water line in Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road and La Media Road resulted in the establishment of this Capital Improvement Program Project at the May 2021 Board meeting. The engineering firm, NV5, has been selected to design the replacement waterline using the District’s As-Needed Engineering Design Services contract. A preliminary design report is in progress, with alternatives for potentially using trenchless installation being considered. (R2159) • 850-1 & 1200-1 Reservoirs Interior/Exterior Coating and Upgrades: This project consists of removing and replacing the interior and exterior coatings of the 850-1 (1.15 MG) and the 1200-1 (1.0 MG) Reservoirs, along with providing structural upgrades, to ensure the tanks comply with both state and federal OSHA standards as well as the American Water Works Association and the Health Department standards. Capital Industrial Coatings, Inc. (Capital) completed the structural work, interior, and exterior coating on the 850-1 Reservoir. The contractor is performing final cleanup and the Reservoir is expected to be returned to service in October 2021. Capital has completed the structural upgrades, and the internal 9 coating replacement on the 1200-1 Reservoir. Containment has been erected in preparation for the 1200-1 external coating removal. The project is on schedule and within budget. (P2543 & P2533) • 1655-1 Reservoir & Rancho Jamul Hydropneumatic Pump Station: This project consists of constructing a new 0.5 MG prestressed concrete potable water tank in Jamul and modifying the existing Rancho Jamul Hydropneumatic Pump Station (HPS) to become the permanent Pump Station to feed the new 1655-1 Reservoir. The project also includes replacing approximately 1,500 linear feet of existing pipe that will be experiencing pressure over the rated pressure class under the new configuration. At the May 2021 Board Meeting, Richard Brady and Associates (Brady) was awarded a professional services agreement to be the design engineer on the project. A Kickoff Meeting was held on June 9, 2021, and the design is estimated to be completed in the summer of 2022. Brady has begun the survey and utility requests from the other agencies. The Pump Station analysis has also begun. The project is on schedule and within budget. (P2040 & P2642) • Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project: Wier Construction (Wier) submitted a claim binder on July 13, 2021, with a total claim of $3,252,075.87 for construction items, administrative costs, and estimated attorney fees associated with the completed Campo Road Sewer project. The project was accepted as complete on June 26, 2020, and the Notice of Completion was filed with the County on July 20, 2020. All seven (7) change orders were signed by Wier Construction and all fifty-five (55) weekly meeting agendas documented that Wier stated, “no disputed work or claims”. The Legal Counsel approved claim denial was sent to Wier on August 3, 2021. The Wier requested meet and confer meeting was held on August 31, 2021. A claim denial response to the meet and confer meeting was sent to Wier Construction via certified mail on September 10, 2021. (S2024) • 458-1 & Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating and Upgrades: This project consists of removing and replacing the interior and exterior coatings of the 458-1 (0.8 MG) Reservoir, along with providing structural upgrades, to ensure the tank complies with both state and federal OSHA standards as well as the American Water Works Association and the Health Department standards. The design was completed in August 2021 and was advertised for construction on September 9, 2021. The bid opening is scheduled for September 30, 2021 and is expected to be awarded for construction at the November 3, 2021 Board meeting. The project is on schedule and within budget. (P2593) • Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) and Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) Update: The WFMP is periodically updated to identify and provide planning and design data for future potable and recycled water capital improvement projects. The current (2015) WFMP and associated Final PEIR was approved by the District’s Board of 10 Directors on January 4, 2017. A professional engineering services agreement to update the current WFMP and PEIR was awarded to Hazen and Sawyer at the September 1, 2021 Board Meeting. (P1210) • As-needed Strategic Project Funding Coordination Consulting Services: The District will be entering into a contract with Hoch Consulting to provide as-needed services for identification of funding opportunities, application assistance, and post-award administration. Hoch Consulting has assisted several agencies in southern California in procuring grants, including SDCWA, Olivenhain MWD, Rainbow MWD, and the City of Oceanside. As soon as their contract is signed, they will be helping the District prepare an application for a Water & Energy Efficiency Grant under the Bureau of Reclamation’s WaterSMART program. (various CIPs) • FY 2022 Sewage Flows to Metro vs Planned Capacity: The Amended and Restated Agreement was signed by the City on July 22, 2021. The effective date of the agreement is August 22, 2021, one month after the agreement was signed. Per the terms of the agreement, tracking for flow, chemical oxygen demand, and suspended solids begin Fiscal Year 2023, the year after the effective date of the agreement. The treatment plant was operating normally to begin the new fiscal year. At this time, no planned interruptions of operation are expected to cause the District to exceed the planned Metro capacity of 139 MG (0.38 MGD) that goes into effect with the Metro amended agreement. 11 • Summary of Budgeted and Sold Meters and EDUs for Fiscal Year 2022 up through August 31, 2021: UUWater System Operations (reporting for August): • On Wednesday, August 11th, staff loaded, flushed, and sampled the new section of main at Otay Ranch Village 8, West Phase 1 in Chula Vista. Neighborhood N. Development now has water service. • On Thursday, August 12th, staff started working on shutdown plans and dates to replace valves for CIP on Thrush Street in Chula Vista. • On Tuesday, August 17th, staff performed a mock shutdown on a 24-inch water main on Otay Mesa Road in Otay Mesa for a future shutdown to delete an un-needed water service. This had minimal leak by. • On Thursday, August 19th, Sweetwater Authority requested the Douglas interconnect be opened to take water due to a main break on their side. • The following events occurred on Wednesday, August 25thPP: o Staff attended a Sweetwater Authority well/treatment plant facility tour to focus on LAS liquid ammonia sulfate. o Staff tested the Heritage interconnect with the City of San Diego and test went well with nothing noted. o Operations Department accepted 870-2 Pump Station after passing the seven-day test. After the seven-day test, the one-year warranty begins. As a background, the new pump station had a catastrophic failure to pump P104 engine driven pump during its initial seven-day test period, which then extended the test period. • The following events occurred on Thursday, August 26th: o Staff isolated the leaking 16-inch potable main on Olympic Parkway, between East Palomar and the 125 FWY, in Chula Vista. Repair was scheduled for Saturday, August 28th, in which staff repaired the leaking CLMC joint by welding a butt strap. After the repairs, staff loaded, flushed, and sampled the 16-inch main on Olympic Parkway. Date Meters (Budgeted) Meters Sold (Actual) EDUs (Budgeted) EDUs Sold (Actual) Total $ Collected (Budgeted) Total $ Collected (Actual) August 2021 15 7 25.3 20.5 $256,458 $238,012 Totals FY 2022 30 19 50.5 104 $512,917 $1,245,171 12 o JCI informed the District that they will be increasing the cost of chlorine from $875 per ton to $1,045 per ton. Source of the increase is from Westlake Chemical fighting supply and demand balance and chlorine derivatives; this is in addition to the previously announced price increases. • On Saturday, August 28th, staff responded to a six-inch main break caused by a six-inch split bell on Maria Avenue in Spring Valley. 16 meters were affected, and the outage lasted for eight and a half hours. One water trailer was available on site for those affected. • On Monday, August 30th, staff reported a recycled discharge to regulatory agencies for a hit four-inch air vac on Eastlake Parkway in Chula Vista. • On Tuesday, August 31st, staff isolated a 20-inch recycled main on Olympic Parkway in Chula Vista. Staff transferred eight irrigation meters to a potable highline. The 20-inch recycled PVC main has experienced several failures in the last few years, causing extensive road damage. The District has a CIP plan in place to repair/replace the recycled main. The timeline will be determined on whether the main will be inner lined or replaced. UUPurchases and Change OrdersUU: • The following table summarizes purchases and Change Orders issued during the period from August 16 through September 15, 2021, that were within staff’s signatory authority: Date Action Amount Contractor/ Consultant Project 8/16/2021 PO $18,776.00 Nintex USA, Inc Annual Workflow & Forms Software License 8/20/2021 CO #1 $28,209.94 Capital Industrial Coatings, LLC 850-1 & 1200-1 Reservoir Coatings/Upgrades Project (P2533 & P2543) 8/24/2021 PO $7,500.00 Corelogic Solutions, LLC Annual Data Services 8/26/2021 PO $10,000.00 Workterra Annual Employee Benefits 8/26/2021 PO $10,265.16 Industrial Scientific Corp Annual Gas Detection Program (Sys Ops, TP, Etc.) 9/10/2021 PO $6,110.00 Southcoast Heating & Air Regulatory AC Split Unit Chlorination Room Replacement 9/14/2021 PO $1,836.00 Watchlight Corporation Gate RFID Decommission 13 UUWater Conservation and SalesUU: • Water Conservation – August 2021 usage was 11% lower than August 2013 usage. Since August 2020, customers have saved an average of 7% over 2013 levels. • Conservation 2020 vs 2021 – On July 8, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom called on Californians to voluntarily reduce water use by 15%. The chart below shows the difference in usage for July and August 2020 and July and August 2021. Total conservation between 2020 and 2021 is 1%. 14 • Potable Water Purchases – The August potable water purchases were 3,060 acre-feet which is 2% above the budget of 5,771 acre-feet. There were 0.23 inches of recordable rainfall in August which has a historical average rainfall of 0.04 inches. Actual year-to-date rainfall of 0.23 inches exceeded the 0.08 inches of historic average rainfall by 187%. • Recycled Water Purchases – The August recycled water purchases from the City of San Diego and production at the District’s treatment facility were 501 acre-feet which is nearly equivalent to the budget of 502 acre-feet. Year-to-date recycled purchases and production through August were 1,002 acre-feet which is 4% above the budget of 967 acre-feet. There were 0.23 inches of recordable rainfall in August which has a historical average rainfall of 0.04 inches. 15 UUPotable, Recycled, and Sewer (Reporting up to the month of August): • Total number of potable water meters: 51,347. • Total number of sewer connections: 4,740. • Recycled water consumption for the month of August: o Total consumption: 473.95 acre-feet or 154,429,836 gallons. o Average daily consumption: 4,981,607 gallons per day. o Total cumulative recycled water consumption since August 1, 2020: 1,008.6 acre-feet. o Total number of recycled water meters: 761. o Wastewater flows for the month of August: o Total basin flow: 1,562,710 gallons per day. ▪ This is a decrease of 4.7 percent from August 2020. o Spring Valley Sanitation District flow to Metro: 520,595 gallons per day. o Total Otay flow: 1,042,129 gallons per day. o Flow processed at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility: 871,710 gallons per day. o Flow to Metro from Otay Water District: 170,419 gallons per day. o By the end of August there were 6,752 wastewater EDUs. Exhibit A Annual YTD REVENUES: Budget Actual Budget Variance Var % Potable Water Sales 55,548,600$ 12,209,390$ 11,415,000$ 794,390$ 7.0% Recycled Water Sales 9,681,500 2,547,055 2,458,200 88,855 3.6% Potable Energy Charges 2,574,900 559,654 525,900 33,754 6.4% Potable System Charges 17,393,000 2,843,347 2,838,000 5,347 0.2% Potable MWD & CWA Fixed Charges 13,505,000 2,209,274 2,208,000 1,274 0.1% Potable Penalties and Other Fees 912,000 141,361 152,000 (10,639) (7.0%) Total Water Sales 99,615,000 20,510,081 19,597,100 912,981 4.7% Sewer Charges 3,068,000 504,846 496,000 8,846 1.8% Meter Fees 74,000 19,964 12,400 7,564 61.0% Capacity Fee Revenues 1,976,000 361,041 329,400 31,641 9.6% Non-Operating Revenues 2,219,500 385,467 370,100 15,367 4.2% Tax Revenues 4,969,000 88,803 105,700 (16,897) (16.0%) Interest 236,000 49,500 39,400 10,100 25.6% Total Revenues 112,157,500$ 21,919,702$ 20,950,100$ 969,602$ 4.6% EXPENSES: Potable Water Purchases 40,446,000$ 8,501,539$ 7,992,400$ (509,139)$ (6.4%) Recycled Water Purchases 4,865,000 1,312,016 1,312,016 - 0.0% CWA-Infrastructure Access Charge 3,080,000 511,920 512,000 80 0.0% CWA-Customer Service Charge 1,817,000 294,560 294,600 40 0.0% CWA-Reliability Charge 2,867,000 464,300 464,300 - 0.0% CWA-Emergency Storage Charge 4,595,000 746,618 746,620 2 0.0% MWD-Capacity Res Charge 765,000 114,404 114,420 16 0.0% MWD-Readiness to Serve Charge 653,000 108,895 108,800 (95) (0.1%) Subtotal Water Purchases 59,088,000 12,054,252 11,545,156 (509,096) (4.4%) Power Charges 3,485,000 749,707 741,900 (7,807) (1.1%) Payroll & Related Costs 22,048,500 3,345,447 3,327,000 (18,447) (0.6%) Material & Maintenance 3,987,900 691,660 664,800 (26,860) (4.0%) Administrative Expenses 6,890,800 934,979 1,155,680 220,701 19.1% Legal Fees 657,000 90,432 109,500 19,068 17.4% Expansion Reserve 2,066,900 344,500 344,500 - 0.0% Betterment Reserve 735,000 122,500 122,500 - 0.0% Replacement Reserve 11,986,900 1,997,800 1,997,800 - 0.0% OPEB Trust 1,100,000 183,300 183,300 - 0.0% General Fund Reserve 90,500 15,100 15,100 - 0.0% Rate Stabilization Reserve 21,000 - - - 0.0% Total Expenses 112,157,500$ 20,529,677$ 20,207,236$ (322,441)$ (1.6%) EXCESS REVENUES(EXPENSE) -$ 1,390,025$ 742,864$ 647,161$ OTAY WATER DISTRICT COMPARATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY FOR THE TWO MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 31, 2021 F:/MORPT/FS2022-P2 9/22/2021 1:53 PM COMPARATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY NET REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE TWO MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 31, 2021 ‐$1,400,000 ‐$1,200,000 ‐$1,000,000 ‐$800,000 ‐$600,000 ‐$400,000 ‐$200,000 $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN YTD Actual Net Revenues YTD Budget Net Revenues YTD Variance in Net Revenues The year-to-date actual net revenues through August show a positive variance of $1,390,025. $1,844,589 2.06% $83,878,719 93.86% $3,650,807 4.08% Otay Water District Investment Portfolio: 08/31/2021 Banks (Passbook/Checking/CD)Pools (LAIF & County)Agencies & Corporate Notes Total Cash and Investments: $89,374,115 (Book Value) July FY20 Aug FY20 Sep FY20 1st Qtr FY20 Oct FY20 Nov FY20 Dec FY20 2nd Qtr FY20 Jan FY20 Feb FY20 Mar FY20 3rd Qtr FY20 Apr FY20 May FY20 Jun FY20 4th Qtr FY20 Jul FY21 Aug FY21 Sep FY21 1st Qtr FY21 Oct FY21 Nov FY21 Dec FY21 2nd Qtr FY21 Jan FY21 Feb FY21 Mar FY21 3rd Qtr FY21 Apr FY21 May FY21 June FY21 4th Qtr FY21 July FY22 Aug FY22 LAIF 2.38 2.34 2.28 2.33 2.19 2.10 2.04 2.11 1.97 1.91 1.79 1.89 1.65 1.36 1.22 1.41 0.92 0.78 0.69 0.80 0.62 0.58 0.54 0.58 0.46 0.41 0.36 0.41 0.34 0.32 0.26 0.31 0.22 0.22 Otay 1.91 1.90 1.93 1.92 1.94 1.97 1.92 1.95 1.90 1.86 1.71 1.83 1.51 1.31 1.19 1.34 0.95 0.93 0.82 0.91 0.81 0.87 0.77 0.82 0.72 0.70 0.65 0.70 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.57 0.59 Difference -0.47 -0.44 -0.35 -0.42 -0.25 -0.13 -0.12 -0.16 -0.07 -0.05 -0.08 -0.06 -0.14 -0.05 -0.03 -0.07 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.19 0.29 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.35 0.30 0.35 0.37 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Re t u r n o n I n v e s t m e n t s Month Performance Measure FY-22 Return on Investment LAIF Otay Difference Target: Meet or Exceed 100% of LAIF OTAY WATER DISTRICT INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REVIEW August 31, 2021 INVESTMENT OVERVIEW & MARKET STATUS: At the Federal Reserve Board’s regular scheduled meeting on March 15, 2020, the Committee lowered the target range for the federal funds rate from 1.50-1.750% to 0-0.25% in light of the effects of the coronavirus which harmed communities and disrupted economic activity in many countries, including the United States. There have been no further changes made to the federal funds rate at the most recent meeting which was held on September 22, 2021. The Committee anticipates maintaining the target range of 0-0.25% until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee’s assessment of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time. The Committee will continue to observe the effects of incoming information for the economic outlook. In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, they went on to say: “the Committee would be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy as appropriate if risks emerge that could impede the attainment of the Committee’s goals. The Committee’s assessments will take into account a wide range of information, including readings on public health, labor market conditions, inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments.” The District’s effective rate of return for the month of August 2021 was .59%, which was two basis points higher than the previous month. LAIF return on deposits remains the same as the previous month, reaching an average effective yield of .22 for the month of August 2021. Based on our success at maintaining a competitive rate of return on our portfolio during this extended period of low interest rates, no changes in investment strategy regarding returns on investment are being considered at this time. In accordance with the District’s Investment Policy, all District funds continue to be managed based on the objectives, in priority order, of safety, liquidity, and return on investment. PORTFOLIO COMPLIANCE: August 31, 2021 Investment State Limit Otay Limit Otay Actual 8.01: Treasury Securities 100% 100% 0 8.02: Local Agency Investment Fund (Operations) $75 Million $75 Million $27.44 Million 8.03: Federal Agency Issues 100% 100% $ 3.65 Million 8.04: Certificates of Deposit 30% 15% 0 8.05: Short-Term Commercial Notes 25% 10% 0 8.06: Medium-Term Commercial Debt 30% 10% 0 8.07: Money Market Mutual Funds 20% 10% 0 8.08: San Diego County Pool 100% 100% 63.15% 12.0: Maximum Single Financial Institution 100% 50% 2.06% Month End Portfolio Management August 31, 2021 Portfolio Summary % of Portfolio Book ValueInvestmentsMarket Value Par Value Days toMaturityTerm YTM360 Equiv.YTM365 Equiv. Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3,650,806.98 7364.17 1.45493,652,117.003,650,000.00 1.474 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)27,437,331.83 131.35 0.218127,439,608.3127,437,331.83 0.221 San Diego County Pool 56,441,387.03 164.48 0.720156,619,000.0056,441,387.03 0.730 87,529,525.84 100.00%Investments 87,710,725.3187,528,718.86 32 1 0.593 0.601 Cash (not included in yield calculations)Passbook/Checking 1,844,589.11 1 0.41211,844,589.111,844,589.11 0.418 89,374,114.95Total Cash and Investments 89,555,314.4289,373,307.97 32 1 0.593 0.601 Current Year August 31 45,487.09 Fiscal Year To Date 90,350.93 Average Daily Balance Effective Rate of Return 90,135,213.59 91,024,264.06 0.58%0.59% Total Earnings Month Ending I hereby certify that the investments contained in this report are made in accordance with the District Investment Policy Number 27 adopted by the Board of Directors on May 05, 2021. The market valueinformation provided by Interactive Data Corporation. The investments provide sufficient liquidity to meet the cash flow requirements of the District for the next six months of expenditures. __________________________________________________ ____________________Joseph Beachem, Chief Financial Officer Portfolio OTAY NL! APData Updated: SET_ME8: 09/22/2021 11:37 Reporting period 08/01/2021-08/31/2021 Run Date: 09/22/2021 - 11:37 PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 09/23/2021 YTM360 Page 1 Par Value Book Value MaturityDateStatedRateMarket Value August 31, 2021 Portfolio Details - Investments AverageBalanceIssuer Portfolio Management Month End Days toMaturityS&PCUSIPInvestment #PurchaseDate Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 1.454Federal Home Loan Bank2384 1,005,000.00 1,005,222.20 09/10/20212.37509/05/2019 1,005,582.90 AA313378JP7 9 1.454Federal Home Loan Bank2385 2,645,000.00 2,645,584.78 09/10/20212.37509/05/2019 2,646,534.10 AA313378JP7 9 3,650,806.983,652,117.003,650,000.003,652,065.17Subtotal and Average 1.454 9 BOND PROCEEDS (LAIF) 0.218STATE OF CALIFORNIA9015 0.00 0.00 0.2210.00LAIF 2018 1 0.000.000.0063,587.80Subtotal and Average 0.000 0 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 0.218STATE OF CALIFORNIA9001 27,437,331.83 27,437,331.83 0.22127,439,608.31LAIF 1 27,437,331.8327,439,608.3127,437,331.8328,040,557.64Subtotal and Average 0.218 1 San Diego County Pool 0.720San Diego County9007 56,441,387.03 56,441,387.03 0.73056,619,000.00SD COUNTY POOL 1 56,441,387.0356,619,000.0056,441,387.0356,439,702.98Subtotal and Average 0.720 1 90,135,213.59 87,528,718.86 0.593 187,710,725.31 87,529,525.84Total and Average Portfolio OTAY NL! APData Updated: SET_ME8: 09/22/2021 09:52 Run Date: 09/22/2021 - 09:53 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 YTM360 Page 2 Par Value Book Value StatedRateMarket Value August 31, 2021 Portfolio Details - Cash AverageBalanceIssuer Portfolio Management Month End Days toMaturityS&PCUSIPInvestment #PurchaseDate Union Bank 0.001STATE OF CALIFORNIA9002 9,127.43 9,127.43 0.0019,127.43UNION MONEY 1 0.000STATE OF CALIFORNIA9003 2,950.00 2,950.002,950.00PETTY CASH 1 0.444STATE OF CALIFORNIA9004 1,708,221.24 1,708,221.24 0.4501,708,221.24UNION OPERATING 1 0.000STATE OF CALIFORNIA9005 29,545.43 29,545.4307/01/2021 29,545.43PAYROLL 1 0.030STATE OF CALIFORNIA9010 22,039.87 22,039.87 0.03022,039.87RESERVE-10 COPS 1 0.030STATE OF CALIFORNIA9011 52,816.79 52,816.79 0.03052,816.79RESERVE-10 BABS 1 0.000STATE OF CALIFORNIA9014 19,888.35 19,888.3507/01/2021 19,888.35UBNA-FLEX ACCT 1 0.00 90,135,213.59 89,373,307.97 0.593 1 1Average Balance 89,555,314.42 89,374,114.95Total Cash and Investments Portfolio OTAY NL! APData Updated: SET_ME8: 09/22/2021 09:52 Run Date: 09/22/2021 - 09:53 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Month End Activity Report Sorted By Issuer August 1, 2021 - August 31, 2021 Current Rate Transaction Date BalanceBeginning Balance Ending Par Value Percent of Portfolio Par Value CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchases orDeposits Redemptions orWithdrawals Issuer: STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOND PROCEEDS (LAIF) STATE OF CALIFORNIA9015 77,201.980.221 256,403.96LAIF 2018 256,403.96179,201.98 0.00Subtotal and Balance 77,201.98 Union Bank STATE OF CALIFORNIA9002 0.060.001 0.00UNION MONEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA9004 736.630.450 320,520.40UNION OPERATING STATE OF CALIFORNIA9010 0.000.030 1,062.15RESERVE-10 COPS STATE OF CALIFORNIA9011 0.610.030 2,794.47RESERVE-10 BABS STATE OF CALIFORNIA9014 1,028.56 12,194.15UBNA-FLEX ACCT 336,571.172,179,394.42 1,844,589.11Subtotal and Balance 1,765.86 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) STATE OF CALIFORNIA9001 6,700,000.000.221 7,600,000.00LAIF 7,600,000.0028,337,331.83 27,437,331.83Subtotal and Balance 6,700,000.00 6,778,967.84 8,192,975.1330,695,928.23 29,281,920.9432.764%Issuer Subtotal Issuer: Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3,650,000.00 3,650,000.00Subtotal and Balance 0.00 0.003,650,000.00 3,650,000.004.084%Issuer Subtotal Issuer: San Diego County San Diego County Pool San Diego County9007 6,525.710.730 0.00SD COUNTY POOL 0.0056,434,861.32 56,441,387.03Subtotal and Balance 6,525.71 6,525.71 0.0056,434,861.32 56,441,387.0363.152%Issuer Subtotal 90,780,789.55 89,373,307.97Total8,192,975.136,785,493.55100.000% Portfolio OTAY NL! APData Updated: SET_ME8: 09/22/2021 09:52 Run Date: 09/22/2021 - 09:53 DA (PRF_DA) 7.2.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 Month End Duration Report Sorted by Investment Type - Investment Type Through 08/31/2021 Investment #Security ID Issuer Investment Class Book Value Par Value Market Value Current Rate YTM Current Yield Maturity/ Call Date DurationModified360Fund Federal Home Loan Bank238499 1,005,000.00 1,005,582.90313378JP7 2.258 09/10/2021 0.0241,005,222.20 1.454Fair2.375000 Federal Home Loan Bank238599 2,645,000.00 2,646,534.10313378JP7 2.258 09/10/2021 0.0242,645,584.78 1.454Fair2.375000 STATE OF CALIFORNIA901599 0.00 0.00LAIF 2018 0.221 0.0000.00 0.218Fair.2210000 STATE OF CALIFORNIA900199 27,437,331.83 27,439,608.31LAIF 0.221 0.00027,437,331.83 0.218Fair.2210000 San Diego County900799 56,441,387.03 56,619,000.00SD COUNTY 0.730 0.00056,441,387.03 0.720Fair.7300000 0.634 0.00087,529,525.84 87,528,718.86 87,710,725.31Report Total Portfolio OTAY NL! APPage 1Data Updated: SET_ME8: 09/22/2021 09:52 Run Date: 09/22/2021 - 09:53 DU (PRF_DU) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.5 OTAY GASB 31 Compliance Detail Sorted by Fund - Fund August 1, 2021 - August 31, 2021 Investment #Maturity Date BeginningInvested Value Purchaseof Principal InvestmentClassFundCUSIP Adjustment in Value EndingInvested ValueAdditionto Principal Redemptionof Principal AmortizationAdjustment Change inMarket Value Fund: Treasury Fund 2385 2,651,533.15Fair Value 09/10/2021 -4,999.0599 2,646,534.10313378JP70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2384 1,007,482.35Fair Value 09/10/2021 -1,899.4599 1,005,582.90313378JP70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9004 2,028,005.01Amortized 0.0099 1,708,221.24UNION OPERATING 0.00 736.63 320,520.40 0.00 9005 29,545.43Amortized 0.0099 29,545.43PAYROLL0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9001 28,339,682.98Fair Value -74.6799 27,439,608.31LAIF0.00 6,700,000.00 7,600,000.00 0.00 9011 55,610.65Amortized 0.0099 52,816.79RESERVE-10 BABS 0.00 0.61 2,794.47 0.00 9010 23,102.02Amortized 0.0099 22,039.87RESERVE-10 COPS 0.00 0.00 1,062.15 0.00 9014 31,053.94Amortized 0.0099 19,888.35UBNA-FLEX ACCT 0.00 1,028.56 12,194.15 0.00 9015 179,216.85Fair Value -14.8799 0.00LAIF 2018 0.00 77,201.98 256,403.96 0.00 9002 9,127.37Amortized 0.0099 9,127.43UNION MONEY 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 9003 2,950.00Amortized 0.0099 2,950.00PETTY CASH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9007 56,493,000.00Fair Value 119,474.2999 56,619,000.00SD COUNTY POOL 0.00 6,525.71 0.00 0.00 90,850,309.75Subtotal 112,486.25 89,555,314.420.00 6,785,493.55 8,192,975.13 0.00 90,850,309.75Total 89,555,314.42112,486.250.00 6,785,493.55 8,192,975.13 0.00 Portfolio OTAY AP Run Date: 09/22/2021 - 16:58 GD (PRF_GD) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.5 Month End Interest Earnings Sorted by Fund - Fund August 1, 2021 - August 31, 2021 Yield on Beginning Book Value Maturity Date Current Rate Ending Par Value EndingSecurityTypeFundBook ValueBeginningBook Value Adjusted Interest Earnings AccretionAmortization/EarningsAdjusted InterestAnnualized YieldCUSIPInvestment #Interest Earned Fund: Treasury Fund 2,645,584.7823852,645,000.00 2.375FAC09/10/2021 5,234.90 -1,949.28 3,285.621.461992,647,534.06313378JP7 1,005,222.2023841,005,000.00 2.375FAC09/10/2021 1,989.07 -740.65 1,248.421.461991,005,962.85313378JP7 1,708,221.2490041,708,221.24 0.450PA1 683.31 0.00 683.310.397992,028,005.01UNION OPERATING 27,437,331.83900127,437,331.83 0.221LA1 5,263.18 0.00 5,263.180.2199928,337,331.83LAIF 52,816.79901152,816.79 0.030PA1 1.41 0.00 1.410.0309955,610.65RESERVE-10 BABS 22,039.87901022,039.87 0.030PA1 0.59 0.00 0.590.0309923,102.02RESERVE-10 COPS 0.0090150.00 0.221LA2 11.93 0.00 11.930.07899179,201.98LAIF 2018 9,127.4390029,127.43 0.001PA1 0.01 0.00 0.010.001999,127.37UNION MONEY 56,441,387.03900756,441,387.03 0.730LA3 34,992.62 0.00 34,992.620.7309956,434,861.32SD COUNTY POOL 89,320,924.19Subtotal 89,321,731.17 0.590 45,487.09-2,689.9348,177.0290,720,737.09 89,320,924.19Total 89,321,731.17 0.590 45,487.09-2,689.9348,177.0290,720,737.09 Portfolio OTAY NL! APData Updated: SET_ME8: 09/22/2021 09:52 Run Date: 09/22/2021 - 09:53 IE (PRF_IE) 7.2.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 Check Total 3,138.50 5,588.82 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/19/2021 - 9/22/2021 Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 2056638 09/22/21 15416 24 HOUR ELEVATOR INC 107668 09/01/21 ELEVATOR GENERAL MAINT (SEPT 2021)552.68 552.68 2056515 08/25/21 15416 24 HOUR ELEVATOR INC 105971 08/01/21 ELEVATOR GENERAL MAINT (AUG 2021)552.68 552.68 2056639 09/22/21 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 10429 09/16/21 SHAREPOINT & INTRANET SUPPORT SVCS 750.00 750.00 2056640 09/22/21 18122 ACC BUSINESS 212253865 08/27/21 INTERNET CIRCUIT SERVICES FY20-22 1,013.64 1,013.64 2056516 08/25/21 20892 ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS INC 6001 06/23/21 INVENTORY 5,520.85 5,520.85 2056578 09/08/21 17989 ADS CORP 22446.22-0821 08/21/21 SEWER FLOW MONITORING FY22 750.00 750.00 2056641 09/22/21 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 9117234067 09/02/21 AS-NEEDED AQUA AMMONIA FY22 1,795.50 9117233921 09/03/21 AS-NEEDED AQUA AMMONIA FY22 569.00 9117233920 09/02/21 AS-NEEDED AQUA AMMONIA FY22 387.00 9117234066 09/02/21 AS-NEEDED AQUA AMMONIA FY22 387.00 2056517 08/25/21 14256 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC 1696629 07/14/21 INSURANCE CONSULTING Q3 2021 7,250.01 7,250.01 2056550 09/01/21 19121 APUY, MELISSA MA083021 08/30/21 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 725.00 725.00 2056518 08/25/21 03492 AQUA-METRIC SALES COMPANY 0083951 08/05/21 INVENTORY 11,122.55 11,122.55 2056519 08/25/21 17264 ARTIANO SHINOFF ABED 305246 08/19/21 PROF SERV - JULY 2021 44,311.29 44,311.29 2056579 09/08/21 07785 AT&T 000016876077 08/12/21 TELEPHONE SERVICES (7/12/2021 - 8/11/2021)9,497.41 9,497.41 2056642 09/22/21 11519 BACKFLOW APPARATUS & VALVE CO 119597 08/25/21 BACKFLOW PARTS 5,041.45 119458 08/25/21 BACKFLOW PARTS 547.37 2056551 09/01/21 20899 BETSY DAUPHIN Ref002637888 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000241307 43.67 43.67 2056520 08/25/21 08156 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER 855418 08/14/21 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY CONSULTING SERV 2,870.00 2,870.00 2056612 09/15/21 08156 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER 857998 09/09/21 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY CONSULTING SERV 2,624.00 2,624.00 2056643 09/22/21 14112 BSE ENGINEERING INC 754101715 04/30/21 ELECTRICAL DESIGN (APR 2021)1,078.00 1,078.00 2056521 08/25/21 20374 CALBURTON INC CAL467 07/31/21 UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES (JULY 2021)16,470.00 16,470.00 2056644 09/22/21 20374 CALBURTON INC CAL485 08/31/21 UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES (AUG 2021)25,573.75 25,573.75 2056522 08/25/21 02989 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL 21080302 08/03/21 DEBT STATEMENT 525.00 525.00 2056613 09/15/21 20410 CAPITAL INDUSTRIAL 508202021 08/20/21 850-1 & 1200-1 RES COAT PROJ (AUG 2021)356,750.17 356,750.17 2056645 09/22/21 20245 CB PACIFIC INC.IP821125905 08/30/21 RX3I PLC MODULES 4,434.84 4,434.84 2056580 09/08/21 20245 CB PACIFIC INC.IP821125849 08/23/21 RX3I PLC MODULES 17,254.39 17,254.39 Page 1 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/19/2021 - 9/22/2021 Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 5,924.00 2,519.00 35,063.62 2056552 09/01/21 20245 CB PACIFIC INC.IP821125676 08/09/21 RX3I PLC MODULES 33,400.56 33,400.56 2056523 08/25/21 18170 CED INDUSTRIAL & LIGHT 7125-1089694 08/06/21 FUEL ISLAND EMERGENCY SHUTOFF 916.73 916.73 2056646 09/22/21 06418 CHULA VISTA ELECTRIC CO 15243 08/30/21 PUMP STATION POWER REPAIRS 18,750.00 18,750.00 2056524 08/25/21 04119 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC 22104 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/27/21-7/28/21)936.00 22102 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/20/21-7/21/21)744.00 22105 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/6/21)620.00 22106 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/21/21)500.00 22108 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/29/21-7/31/21)472.00 22101 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/14/21-7/15/21)438.00 22103 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/20/21-7/21/21)432.00 22094 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/7/21)312.00 21692 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (6/30/21)302.00 22096 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/13/21)252.00 22100 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/15/21)238.00 22095 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/12/21)216.00 22097 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/14/21 198.00 22098 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/14/21)138.00 22099 07/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (7/15/21)126.00 2056647 09/22/21 04119 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC 22583 08/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (8/3/21-8/4/21)744.00 22587 08/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (8/31/21)611.00 22584 08/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (8/4/21-8/5/21)444.00 22586 08/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (8/31/21)276.00 22585 08/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (8/16/21)228.00 22582 08/31/21 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (8/2/21)216.00 2056648 09/22/21 16030 CORA CONSTRUCTORS INC 207312021 08/24/21 1090-1 PS RENOVATION (JULY 2021)126,388.00 126,388.00 2056581 09/08/21 18331 CORE & MAIN LP O281169 08/12/21 INVENTORY 8,487.75 8,487.75 2056649 09/22/21 18331 CORE & MAIN LP P008326 08/27/21 INVENTORY 12,601.09 P514412 09/03/21 INVENTORY 11,558.23 P515017 09/01/21 INVENTORY 10,904.30 2056525 08/25/21 15049 CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS LLC 82091971 07/31/21 DATA SERVICES 540.75 540.75 2056553 09/01/21 15049 CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS LLC 82091880 07/31/21 DATA SERVICES 623.15 623.15 2056650 09/22/21 15049 CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS LLC 82095492 08/31/21 DATA SERVICES 540.75 540.75 Page 2 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/19/2021 - 9/22/2021 Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 100.00 3,742.00 2,597.60 1,007.80 2056582 09/08/21 00099 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DPWMWD0721 08/19/21 EXCAVATION PERMITS (JULY 2021)2,974.60 2,974.60 2056651 09/22/21 00134 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO P2593091621 09/16/21 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 50.00 P2612091621 09/16/21 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 50.00 2056652 09/22/21 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 5364081721 08/17/21 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (10/31/21-10/31/22)1,514.00 5363081721 08/17/21 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (10/31/21-10/31/22)1,198.00 5365081721 08/17/21 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (10/31/21-10/31/22)515.00 1354081421 08/17/21 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (10/31/21-10/31/22)515.00 2056653 09/22/21 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 193E635370821 09/04/21 SHUT DOWN TEST (8/24/21)841.50 193E635160821 09/04/21 SHUT DOWN TEST (8/2/21-8/31/21)765.00 193E602370821 09/04/21 SHUT DOWN TEST (8/25/21)255.00 193E602240821 09/04/21 SHUT DOWN TEST (8/25/21)255.00 193E602120821 09/04/21 SHUT DOWN TEST (8/20/21)255.00 193E602340821 09/04/21 SHUT DOWN TEST (8/31/21)149.60 193E603850821 09/04/21 SHUT DOWN TEST (8/16/21)76.50 2056554 09/01/21 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEH210107OHP 07/30/21 INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE SERVICES 846.16 846.16 2056555 09/01/21 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 193E635370621 08/19/21 SHUT DOWN TEST (6/24/21)841.50 841.50 2056526 08/25/21 03086 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO LC21-28 07/01/21 OTHER AGENCY FEES - LAFCO 57,358.66 57,358.66 2056556 09/01/21 07494 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 0011083021 08/16/21 SEWER SERVICE (2021/2022)6,265.38 6,265.38 2056527 08/25/21 07494 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 0341082021 08/16/21 OWD PUMP STATION SEWER SVC CHARGES 474.65 474.65 2056583 09/08/21 04443 CSI SERVICES INC 10764 08/14/21 COATING INSPECT SERV (7/12/21-7/29/21)10,525.00 10,525.00 2056557 09/01/21 04443 CSI SERVICES INC 10730 07/31/21 COATING INSPECT SERV (7/30/21)3,975.00 3,975.00 2056528 08/25/21 04497 D & R CRANE INC 16163 08/05/21 CRANE MAINTENANCE 420.00 420.00 2056654 09/22/21 11797 D&H WATER SYSTEMS INC 2021-0933 08/24/21 ACUTEC 35 MONITORS 3,433.72 3,433.72 2056584 09/08/21 11797 D&H WATER SYSTEMS INC 2021-0693 06/30/21 TANK SENSORS 1,065.60 1,065.60 2056529 08/25/21 11797 D&H WATER SYSTEMS INC 2021-0863 08/06/21 BLUE-WHITE PUMP PARTS 984.95 2021-0821 07/29/21 W&T ANALYZER PARTS 22.85 2056614 09/15/21 20911 DOUGLAS PAYNE Ref002638042 09/13/21 UB Refund Cst #0000058133 35.24 35.24 2056585 09/08/21 02447 EDCO DISPOSAL CORPORATION 5458083121 08/31/21 RECYCLED WASTE SERVICE FY22 107.11 107.11 2056558 09/01/21 13825 ENRIQUEZ, LUIS 080921081221 08/19/21 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 440.50 440.50 Page 3 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/19/2021 - 9/22/2021 Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 1,336.20 6,685.26 22,148.39 6,243.98 266.83 125.13 2056530 08/25/21 03725 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH 94079064 07/25/21 ESRI SOFTWARE LICENSE & SUPPORT 50,000.00 50,000.00 2056559 09/01/21 20511 EYEMED (FIDELITY)164878723 07/20/21 VISION BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION (CY2021)1,268.26 1,268.26 2056615 09/15/21 20511 EYEMED (FIDELITY)164918853 08/20/21 VISION BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION (CY2021)1,314.62 164839470 06/20/21 VISION BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION (CY2021)10.79 164880154 07/20/21 VISION BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION (CY2021)10.79 2056531 08/25/21 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0768152 08/04/21 INVENTORY 5,292.70 0766711-1 08/04/21 INVENTORY 872.34 0767353 07/29/21 INVENTORY 520.22 2056586 09/08/21 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0769580 08/18/21 INVENTORY 11,554.90 0768560 08/11/21 HYDRANT PARTS 5,490.92 0769596 08/17/21 INVENTORY 2,115.08 0768152-1 08/11/21 INVENTORY 1,587.17 0768323 08/13/21 INVENTORY 1,400.32 2056655 09/22/21 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0771944 09/02/21 INVENTORY 3,186.64 0768560-1 08/31/21 HYDRANT PARTS 2,178.27 0769596-1 08/31/21 INVENTORY 581.85 0771626 08/31/21 INVENTORY 297.22 2056656 09/22/21 17888 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 9003400821 08/31/21 DOCUMENT SERVICE (MONTHLY)99.00 99.00 2056532 08/25/21 17888 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 9003400721 07/31/21 DOCUMENT SERVICE (MONTHLY)99.00 99.00 2056533 08/25/21 02591 FITNESS TECH 11913 08/01/21 GYM EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 135.00 135.00 2056616 09/15/21 20918 FJ WILLERT CONSTRUCTION CO INC Ref002638049 09/13/21 UB Refund Cst #0000268559 1,388.00 1,388.00 2056617 09/15/21 20919 FJ WILLERT CONSTRUCTION CO INC Ref002638050 09/13/21 UB Refund Cst #0000268560 1,853.86 1,853.86 2056534 08/25/21 11962 FLEETWASH INC 2281643 08/06/21 FLEET WASH SERVICES FY 22 141.75 2271550 07/30/21 FLEET WASH SERVICES FY 22 125.08 2056587 09/08/21 11962 FLEETWASH INC 2292723 08/20/21 FLEET WASH SERVICES FY 22 91.78 2286232 08/13/21 FLEET WASH SERVICES FY 22 33.35 2056618 09/15/21 20481 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2639019 09/16/21 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 25.00 25.00 2056560 09/01/21 20481 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2637929 09/02/21 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 25.00 25.00 2056588 09/08/21 18333 GEOCON INCORPORATED 121070217 08/10/21 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (6/14/21-7/11/21)440.00 440.00 2056657 09/22/21 20930 GLORIA GONZALEZ 8756092021 09/20/21 CUSTOMER REFUND 184.23 184.23Page 4 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/19/2021 - 9/22/2021 Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 3,079.28 19,005.80 11,406.33 2056657 09/22/21 20930 GLORIA GONZALEZ 8756092021 09/20/21 CUSTOMER REFUND 184.23 184.23 2056589 09/08/21 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 21061 08/16/21 LANDSCAPING SERVICES 9,689.00 9,689.00 2056619 09/15/21 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 20188 12/21/20 LANDSCAPING SERVICES 9,542.50 9,542.50 2056535 08/25/21 00174 HACH COMPANY 12575554 08/03/21 HACH PM SERVICE 5500SC ANALYZERS 7,002.00 7,002.00 2056590 09/08/21 00174 HACH COMPANY 12596145 08/17/21 FY22 MONOCHLORAMINE ANALYZER SUPP 1,922.66 12600633 08/19/21 FY22 MONOCHLORAMINE ANALYZER SUPP 744.77 12598375 08/18/21 HACH 5500AMC MONOCHLORAMINE 279.74 12574684 08/02/21 HACH 5500AMC MONOCHLORAMINE 132.11 2056658 09/22/21 00174 HACH COMPANY 12618416 08/30/21 HACH ANNUAL PM SERVICE 15,920.00 12613373 08/26/21 FY22 MONOCHLORAMINE ANALYZER SUPP 1,715.16 12611588 08/25/21 FY22 MONOCHLORAMINE ANALYZER SUPP 715.06 12624049 09/02/21 HACH 5500AMC MONOCHLORAMINE 298.21 12613374 08/26/21 HACH 5500AMC MONOCHLORAMINE 283.94 12615889 08/27/21 FY22 MONOCHLORAMINE ANALYZER SUPP 73.43 2056536 08/25/21 19978 HASA INC.768975 08/09/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 2,084.92 766769 07/30/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 1,786.04 768045 08/05/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 1,666.97 767108 08/02/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 1,440.98 768044 08/05/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 850.49 766768 07/30/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 799.46 766767 07/30/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 692.54 768042 08/05/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 552.82 766765 07/30/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 546.75 768043 08/05/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 303.75 766770 07/30/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 228.42 768046 08/05/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 160.38 767631 08/04/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 137.29 766766 07/30/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 94.77 768041 08/05/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 60.75 2056591 09/08/21 19978 HASA INC.770510 08/16/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 2,818.78 772127 08/23/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 2,429.98 771379 08/19/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 1,530.89 769973 08/13/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 1,172.47 Page 5 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/19/2021 - 9/22/2021 Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 12,453.64 10,123.31 8,361.45 2,883.75 769974 08/13/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 971.99 769972 08/13/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 850.49 769975 08/13/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 789.74 771380 08/19/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 577.12 771382 08/19/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 499.36 769795 08/12/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 309.82 771053 08/18/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 183.46 769971 08/13/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 170.10 771381 08/19/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 149.44 2056659 09/22/21 19978 HASA INC.773952 08/30/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 1,867.44 773106 08/26/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 1,822.49 775117 09/02/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 1,457.99 775118 09/02/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 1,106.86 773101 08/26/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 634.22 775121 09/02/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 633.01 773105 08/26/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 607.50 773102 08/26/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 560.11 775119 09/02/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 471.42 773104 08/26/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 279.45 773103 08/26/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 243.00 775116 09/01/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 166.45 775120 09/02/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 151.87 773100 08/26/21 AS-NEEDED SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FY22 121.50 2056620 09/15/21 00169 HAWTHORNE POWER SYSTEMS S43679011 06/11/21 TRAILER MOUNTED ENGINE & PUMP 81,484.86 81,484.86 2056537 08/25/21 00169 HAWTHORNE POWER SYSTEMS PS000916381 07/27/21 927-1#5 REPLACEMENT CYLINDER HEAD 8,130.99 PS010261611 07/27/21 927-1#5 REPLACEMENT CYLINDER HEAD 230.46 2056660 09/22/21 18436 HAZEN AND SAWYER DPC 2009400219 08/25/21 POTABLE PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS - PROJECT 1,503.75 2009400410 08/25/21 ASSET MANAGEMENT SVCS (JULY 2021)1,380.00 2056661 09/22/21 02008 HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL 109434 08/27/21 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (AUG 2021)3,426.25 3,426.25 2056538 08/25/21 02008 HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL 109009 07/30/21 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (JULY 2021)4,455.41 4,455.41 2056621 09/15/21 20914 HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL CONST GRP Ref002638045 09/13/21 UB Refund Cst #0000244582 373.07 373.07 2056539 08/25/21 20895 HERNON, KYLE KH081621 08/16/21 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 175.50 175.50 2056622 09/15/21 20912 HOMEFED SH OTAY LLC Ref002638043 09/13/21 UB Refund Cst #0000242972 1,373.72 1,373.72Page 6 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/19/2021 - 9/22/2021 Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 6,942.30 18,563.35 19,819.76 4,068.00 2056622 09/15/21 20912 HOMEFED SH OTAY LLC Ref002638043 09/13/21 UB Refund Cst #0000242972 1,373.72 1,373.72 2056662 09/22/21 15622 ICF JONES & STOKES INC 0157559 09/02/21 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (JULY 2021)895.72 895.72 2056623 09/15/21 15622 ICF JONES & STOKES INC 0157235 08/20/21 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (JULY 2021)3,837.50 0157233 08/20/21 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (JULY 2021)1,540.00 0157232 08/20/21 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (JULY 2021)1,520.00 0157257 08/20/21 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (JULY 2021)44.80 2056592 09/08/21 17816 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP 2450674 08/12/21 GAS DETECTION PROGRAM 316.93 316.93 2056663 09/22/21 17816 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP 2453666 08/31/21 GAS DETECTION PROGRAM 855.43 855.43 2056540 08/25/21 08969 INFOSEND INC 195730 07/30/21 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES FY22 11,393.29 195729 07/30/21 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES FY22 4,526.31 196233 08/02/21 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES FY22 2,643.75 2056664 09/22/21 08969 INFOSEND INC 197533 08/28/21 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES FY22 11,444.60 197532 08/28/21 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES FY22 5,405.96 198331 09/03/21 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES FY22 2,662.13 198081 08/31/21 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES FY22 307.07 2056624 09/15/21 20752 IWG TOWERS ASSETS II LLC 408547009 08/01/21 ANTENNA SUBLEASE (AUG 2021)2,034.00 408639471 09/01/21 ANTENNA SUBLEASE (SEPT 2021)2,034.00 2056561 09/01/21 20897 JACQUELINE MARTIN Ref002637886 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000092954 35.63 35.63 2056593 09/08/21 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 863914 08/12/21 CHLORINE GAS 2,812.93 2,812.93 2056625 09/15/21 20910 JOHN JOLLIFFE Ref002638041 09/13/21 UB Refund Cst #0000003188 1,059.09 1,059.09 2056562 09/01/21 20906 JOHN MEDINA Ref002637896 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000267262 28.02 28.02 2056626 09/15/21 20917 KAWAID ABD ALSATTAR MAHDI Ref002638048 09/13/21 UB Refund Cst #0000268365 18.43 18.43 2056665 09/22/21 14808 KOEPPEN, KEVIN 092121 09/21/21 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 295.00 295.00 2056594 09/08/21 15615 LAYFIELD USA CORPORATION E09854 08/20/21 FLOATING COVER REPAIRS 2,136.06 2,136.06 2056563 09/01/21 20903 LINDSEY BISSETT Ref002637893 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000264393 9.59 9.59 2056564 09/01/21 20905 LUCERO PEREZ Ref002637895 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000265878 49.86 49.86 2056627 09/15/21 20915 MARIA BROOKS Ref002638046 09/13/21 UB Refund Cst #0000256201 74.69 74.69 2056565 09/01/21 20900 MARIA ROMO RIOS Ref002637889 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000243895 201.21 201.21 2056666 09/22/21 20929 MARTHA SOTO 7313092021 09/20/21 CUSTOMER REFUND 760.15 760.15 Page 7 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/19/2021 - 9/22/2021 Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 157.93 106,920.40 2056666 09/22/21 20929 MARTHA SOTO 7313092021 09/20/21 CUSTOMER REFUND 760.15 760.15 2056667 09/22/21 06648 MEASUREMENT CONTROL 224583 08/27/21 TEMP METER AND BACKFLOWS 8,039.15 8,039.15 2056595 09/08/21 20878 MESA REPROGRAPHICS 0000703783 08/18/21 FACILITY MAP BOOKS 9,535.23 9,535.23 2056566 09/01/21 20902 NELLIE BAGGETT Ref002637892 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000264237 33.74 33.74 2056668 09/22/21 18172 NIGHTCODERS 267 09/16/21 WEBSITE MAINT SUPP & CONSULT SERV 3,139.00 3,139.00 2056596 09/08/21 00761 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL 251921 08/17/21 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (6/25/21-7/30/21)4,185.30 4,185.30 2056541 08/25/21 16834 ON-SITE TECHNICAL SVCS INC 10378 08/04/21 IN-PLANT INSPECTION SERVICES (JULY 2021)13,373.81 13,373.81 2056669 09/22/21 16834 ON-SITE TECHNICAL SVCS INC 10401 09/02/21 IN-PLANT INSPECTION SERVICES (AUG 2021)13,461.36 13,461.36 2056567 09/01/21 20852 PACIFIC COAST COMMUNITIES Ref002637891 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000259795 180.20 180.20 2056568 09/01/21 20907 PACIFIC COAST COMMUNITIES Ref002637897 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000267328 180.20 180.20 2056597 09/08/21 19310 PALM LAUNDRY INC 92 09/01/21 TOWEL LAUNDRY SERVICE FY22 345.60 345.60 2056598 09/08/21 18454 PAMCO MACHINE WORKS INC I-42828 08/19/21 REBUILD GEARHEAD 927-1 #1 PUMP 10,880.10 10,880.10 2056542 08/25/21 10819 PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE 212311 08/06/21 VIBRATION TESTING PROGRAM 7,500.00 7,500.00 2056599 09/08/21 20836 PSI WATER TECHNOLOGIES INC 0005433 08/16/21 PAX PARTS 5,063.84 5,063.84 2056600 09/08/21 02923 RICHARD BRADY & ASSOCIATES 2107118 08/16/21 1665-1 RES/RANCHO JAMUL PS (JULY 2021)8,525.00 8,525.00 2056543 08/25/21 04542 ROBAK, MARK 070121073121 07/31/21 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (JULY 2021)12.32 12.32 2056628 09/15/21 04542 ROBAK, MARK 80121083121EX 08/31/21 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (AUG 2021)126.01 080121083121 08/31/21 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (AUG 2021)31.92 2056670 09/22/21 19377 SAGEVIEW ADVISORY GROUP LLC 202120781 09/15/21 INVEST ADVISOR SVCS - DEFERRED COMP 5,750.00 5,750.00 2056569 09/01/21 20904 SAMANTHA CHAVEZ Ref002637894 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000265221 44.49 44.49 2056601 09/08/21 02586 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR 202100680 09/02/21 ASSESSOR DATA (MONTHLY)125.00 125.00 2056602 09/08/21 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 083021 08/30/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)75,683.04 083121 08/31/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)27,939.03 083021A 08/30/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)3,298.33 2056629 09/15/21 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 090721 09/07/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)55,822.71 55,822.71 2056544 08/25/21 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 082021 08/20/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)31.32 31.32 2056570 09/01/21 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 082521 08/25/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)53,516.61 Page 8 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/19/2021 - 9/22/2021 Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 95,330.95 214,621.93 19,248.31 082721 08/27/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)40,830.32 082621 08/26/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)984.02 2056671 09/22/21 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 091421A 09/14/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)124,280.48 091721A 09/17/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)31,639.87 091721 09/17/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)24,958.99 091421B 09/14/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)19,648.62 091421 09/14/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)13,831.51 091321 09/16/21 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)262.46 2056571 09/01/21 20896 SANDRA CAMPBELL Ref002637885 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000041406 53.99 53.99 2056545 08/25/21 14785 SEW-EURODRIVE INC 8701763134 07/30/21 SEW GEAR DRIVE 1,976.04 1,976.04 2056630 09/15/21 20913 SHEA HOMES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Ref002638044 09/13/21 UB Refund Cst #0000243658 1,505.87 1,505.87 2056631 09/15/21 15176 SOUTHCOAST HEATING & AIR 1240853 09/09/21 AC SPLIT UNIT CHLORINATION ROOM REPLACE 6,110.00 6,110.00 2056632 09/15/21 05755 STATE WATER RESOURCES 31473091321 09/13/21 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL 60.00 60.00 2056572 09/01/21 05755 STATE WATER RESOURCES 083021AJD3 08/30/21 CERTIFICATION RECIPROCITY D3 120.00 120.00 2056573 09/01/21 05755 STATE WATER RESOURCES 083021AJT3 08/30/21 CERTIFICATION RECIPROCITY T3 120.00 120.00 2056633 09/15/21 20916 STEPHANIE CARDINALE Ref002638047 09/13/21 UB Refund Cst #0000264827 45.59 45.59 2056634 09/15/21 15974 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 38166090121 09/01/21 LIFE INSURANCE AND STD/LTD (SEPT 2021)10,621.76 10,621.76 2056603 09/08/21 10339 SUPREME OIL COMPANY 405163 08/23/21 UNLEADED FUEL & DIESEL 12,284.43 405357 08/23/21 UNLEADED FUEL & DIESEL 6,963.88 2056546 08/25/21 18376 SVPR COMMUNICATIONS LLC 1426 07/30/21 COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING SERVICES 2,500.00 2,500.00 2056672 09/22/21 18376 SVPR COMMUNICATIONS LLC 1437 08/31/21 COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING SERVICES 2,500.00 2,500.00 2056604 09/08/21 17704 T&T JANITORIAL INC 2018-6978 08/17/21 JANITORIAL SERVICES (JULY 2021)5,330.00 5,330.00 2056673 09/22/21 17704 T&T JANITORIAL INC 2018-7029 08/31/21 JANITORIAL SERVICES (AUG 2021)5,330.00 5,330.00 2056574 09/01/21 20898 TERESA BORQUEZ Ref002637887 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000184202 263.06 263.06 2056575 09/01/21 19272 THARSOS INC 00018571 08/20/21 RETAINAGE RELEASE 79,920.06 79,920.06 2056605 09/08/21 13714 THE EAST COUNTY CALIFORNIAN 00108951 08/13/21 OUTSIDE SERVICES - ADVERTISING 315.00 315.00 2056606 09/08/21 13564 THE STAR NEWS PUBLISHING CO 00108949 08/13/21 OUTSIDE SERVICES - ADVERTISING 230.62 230.62 2056576 09/01/21 20901 TYRONE ODOM Ref002637890 08/30/21 UB Refund Cst #0000259777 92.88 92.88 Page 9 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/19/2021 - 9/22/2021 Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 1,028.80 1,172.35 972.76 20,711.00 1,268.54 5,858.26 5,153.84 6,576.00 6,576.00 2056674 09/22/21 20837 UGSI CHEMICAL FEED INC 0019652 08/31/21 ENCORE700 PUMP PARTS 5,635.12 5,635.12 2056547 08/25/21 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 720210511 08/01/21 UNDERGROUND ALERTS (MONTHLY)605.65 dsb20203867 08/01/21 DIG SAFE BOARD FEES (MONTHLY)423.15 2056675 09/22/21 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 820210505 09/01/21 UNDERGROUND ALERTS (MONTHLY)749.20 dsb20204423 09/01/21 DIG SAFE BOARD FEES (MONTHLY)423.15 2056635 09/15/21 20409 UNIFIED FIELD SERVICES CORP 00018911 07/14/21 RETAINAGE RELEASE 21,256.99 21,256.99 2056607 09/08/21 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 114-12326550 08/25/21 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 576.40 114-12326532 08/25/21 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 150.00 114-12326531 08/25/21 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 127.64 114-12315662 08/23/21 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 118.72 2056676 09/22/21 08028 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SD030507 09/04/21 CMIS (7/1/21-8/31/21)12,516.00 SD222102 09/04/21 CMIS (7/10/21-8/31/21)8,195.00 2056608 09/08/21 20877 VERTIGIS NORTH AMERICA LTD VGNA-00001652 08/11/21 GEOCORTEX MOBILE LICENSE 6,000.00 6,000.00 2056636 09/15/21 20909 VOLT WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS 44561531 08/22/21 WATER INTERNS (08/16/21- 08/22/21)842.14 44577412 08/29/21 WATER INTERNS (08/23/21 - 08/29/21)426.40 2056677 09/22/21 20909 VOLT WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS 44592046 09/05/21 WATER INTERNS (08/30/21 - 09/05/21)1,279.20 1,279.20 2056678 09/22/21 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 732134 09/15/21 SECURITY ALARM MONITORING FY22 2,576.92 723101 07/01/21 GATE RFID DECOMMISSION 1,836.00 726476 07/21/21 1090-1 PUMP STATION SECURITY GATE 1,445.34 2056609 09/08/21 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 728498 08/15/21 SECURITY ALARM MONITORING FY22 2,576.92 724747 07/15/21 SECURITY ALARM MONITORING FY22 2,576.92 2056679 09/22/21 15726 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 5959 08/31/21 HYDRAULIC MODELING (AUG 2021)912.50 912.50 2056680 09/22/21 20739 WATERTALENT LLC 2746 08/30/21 TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE SERVICES FY22 3,288.00 3,288.00 2056610 09/08/21 20739 WATERTALENT LLC 2720 08/16/21 TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE SERVICES FY22 3,288.00 2732 08/23/21 TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE SERVICES FY22 3,288.00 2056548 08/25/21 20739 WATERTALENT LLC 2707 08/09/21 TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE SERVICES FY22 3,288.00 2694 08/02/21 TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE SERVICES FY22 3,288.00 2056611 09/08/21 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL INC 45989 08/19/21 AS-NEEDED BEE REMOVAL 125.00 125.00 2056681 09/22/21 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL INC 46048 08/24/21 AS-NEEDED BEE REMOVAL 125.00 125.00 Page 10 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/19/2021 - 9/22/2021 Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 2056682 09/22/21 20611 WIMMER YAMADA AND CAUGHEY 0011398 08/31/21 ADMIN LANDSCAPE DESIGN REFRESH 3,400.00 3,400.00 2056549 08/25/21 19866 WOOD RODGERS INC 148579 07/31/21 HYDRAULIC MODELING (JULY 2021)1,155.00 1,155.00 2056637 09/15/21 08023 WORKTERRA 0100856 08/31/21 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (AUG 2021)810.00 810.00 2056577 09/01/21 08023 WORKTERRA 0100645 07/31/21 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (JULY 2021)802.50 802.50 Amount Pd Total:1,977,572.86 Check Grand Total:1,977,572.86 Page 11 of 11