HomeMy WebLinkAboutOWD Final 2020 WSCP_Complete_for DWR
Otay Water District
Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Prepared by
WSC Inc. & Otay Water District
6/30/2021
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 255CoronadoNumber1216028Exposure (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 145EscondidoNumber5227383Exposure (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 88OceansideNumber574918124Exposure (x$1000)220 15 15 250PowayNumber259034Exposure (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 149SanteeNumber1715133Exposure (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, critical facilities/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 and tribal governments.
6. Promote disaster resistant existing and future development.
7. Build and support local capacity and commitment to continuously become less vulnerable to 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 bluff failure/storm surge/Tsunami. 9. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, including people, critical facilities/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 responsible development 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%