Agenda, first session — Fairfield City Council, March 1, 2022 (part 1 of 4)

For individuals with hearing or speaking limitations, dial 711 or (800) 7352922 (English). For Spanish, Tagalog or other language, please dial (800) 8553000 and provide the communication assistant with the following City telephone number: (707) 3994010.

Pursuant to AB 361 regarding public meetings held during the COVID19 emergency, councilmembers may attend via teleconference. Members of the public can observe the meeting on Comcast Cable Channel 26, ATT UVerse 99 and webstreamed live at www.youtube.com/user/FFCATV/live .

The public may join the meeting via Zoom at https://fairfieldca.zoom.us/j/84183030545 ? pwd=Wlh0NktTbTl3c0RyeVp6T1ZQMkNuZz09 or by phone at (669) 9006833 Webinar ID:
841 8303 0545 Passcode: 7074287400
CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Councilmember Pam Bertani
Councilmember Cat Moy
Councilmember Doriss Panduro
Councilmember Chuck Timm
Councilmember Scott Tonnesen
ViceMayor Rick Vaccaro
Mayor Harry Price
INVOCATION Leon Roberson, Cornerstone Apostolic Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COUNCIL REPORTS
Packet Page 1 of 1095

PRESENTATIONS

1.Proclamation Declaring March as American Red Cross Month Contact:Karen L. Rees, (707) 4287767
a
PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons wishing to address the City Council on subjects not on the agenda but within the jurisdiction of the council may do so at this time. The council cannot discuss or take action on matters not on the agenda for this meeting, but councilmembers may briefly respond to statements made or questions raised by the public, ask for clarification from staff, refer the matter to staff, request staff to report back to the council at a subsequent meeting, or place the matter on a future agenda. To speak on an agenda item, please complete a speaker's card and give it to the city clerk before the meeting, or at the latest, prior to the time for public comments on that item. When joining via Zoom, please use the “raise your hand” feature or press *9 on your phone to request to speak. Speakers are limited to three minutes per item.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are to be approved with one motion unless a member of the City Council or the public requests that separate action be taken on a specific item.

2.Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 202204 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Adopting the Official Council District Map to Establish Boundaries for the City Council Districts Following the Decennial Federal Census
Recommended Action
Adopt ordinance.

Funding Source
N/A
Contact:Amber Alexander, (707) 4287402
a

3.Resolution 202231 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Reconsidering and Authorizing Public Meetings to be Held Via Teleconferencing Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and Making Findings and Determinations Regarding the Same Recommended Action
Adopt resolution.

Funding Source
N/A
Contact:Amber Alexander, (707) 4287402
a

4.Resolution 202232 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Opposing California Statewide Ballot Initiative 210042A1
Packet Page 2 of 1095

4.Resolution 202232 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Opposing California Statewide Ballot Initiative 210042A1
Recommended Action
Adopt resolution.

Funding Source
N/A
Contact:David Gassaway, (707) 4287398
a

5.Resolution 202233 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving an Amended and Restated Agreement for Legal Services with Richards, Watson and Gershon for City Attorney Services and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute Said Agreement on Behalf of the City
Recommended Action
Adopt resolution.

Funding Source
N/A
Contact:David Gassaway,(707) 4287398
a

6.Resolution 202234 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield to Adopt the Updated Solano MultiJurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
Recommended Action
Adopt resolution.

Funding Source
N/A
Contact:John Sturdee, (707) 4367228
a

7.Resolution 202235 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving a Lease Agreement for Multifunction Copiers with Canon Solutions America, Inc.

Recommended Action
Adopt resolution.

Funding Source
$500,200; Computer Services Fund
Contact:Savita Chaudhary, (707) 4287582
a

8.Resolution 202236 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing Execution of the Improvement Agreement for the Canon Station Planning Area 4 – Backbone Phase 2 Canon Bridge
Recommended Action
Adopt resolution.

Funding Source
N/A
Contact:Alvin Lei, (707) 4287476
a

9.Resolution 202237 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing a Loan and Budget Transfer From the Intergovernmental Loan Fund to Each of Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts No. 7 – Rolling Hills, No. 11 – Paradise Valley North, and No. 13 – North Cordelia for Increased Landscape Maintenance Services Through Fiscal Year 20222023 and Updating the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Budget
Recommended Action
Packet Page 3 of 1095

CITY OF FAIRFIELDFAIRFIELD CITY COUNCILREGULAR MEETINGTUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2022; 6:00 PMCOUNCIL CHAMBER, 1000 WEBSTER STREET, FAIRFIELD,CA 94533 OR VIA ZOOMAGENDANotice to PublicThe City of Fairfield is committed to providing meeting facilities that areaccessible to persons with disabilities and/or have language barriers. To requestmeeting materials in alternative formats, or to request a sign languageinterpreter, realtime captioning, or other accommodation, please contact AmberAlexander, Deputy Clerk, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting at (707)4287402.For individuals with hearing or speaking limitations, dial 711 or (800) 7352922(English). For Spanish, Tagalog or other language, please dial (800) 8553000and provide the communication assistant with the following City telephonenumber: (707) 3994010.Pursuant to AB 361 regarding public meetings held during the COVID19 emergency,councilmembers may attend via teleconference. Members of the public can observe the meeting onComcast Cable Channel 26, ATT UVerse 99 and webstreamed live at www.youtube.com/user/FFCATV/live.The public may join the meeting via Zoom at https://fairfieldca.zoom.us/j/84183030545?pwd=Wlh0NktTbTl3c0RyeVp6T1ZQMkNuZz09 or by phone at (669) 9006833 Webinar ID:841 8303 0545 Passcode: 7074287400CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PMROLL CALLCouncilmember Pam Bertani Councilmember Cat MoyCouncilmember Doriss PanduroCouncilmemberChuck TimmCouncilmember Scott Tonnesen ViceMayor Rick VaccaroMayor Harry PriceINVOCATION Leon Roberson, Cornerstone Apostolic ChurchPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCECOUNCIL REPORTSCITY MANAGER REPORTCITY ATTORNEY REPORTCITY CLERK REPORTPRESENTATIONS1.Proclamation Declaring March as American Red Cross MonthContact:Karen L. Rees, (707) 4287767aPUBLIC COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTSPersons wishing to address the City Council on subjects not on the agenda but within the jurisdictionof the council may do so at this time. The council cannot discuss or take action on matters not on theagenda for this meeting, but councilmembers may briefly respond to statements made or questionsraised by the public, ask for clarification from staff, refer the matter to staff, request staff to report backto the council at a subsequent meeting, or place the matter on a future agenda. To speak on anagenda item, please complete a speaker's card and give it to the city clerk before the meeting, or atthe latest, prior to the time for public comments on that item. When joining via Zoom, please use the“raise your hand” feature or press *9 on your phone to request to speak. Speakers are limited tothree minutes per item.CONSENT CALENDARAll matters listed on the Consent Calendar are to be approved with one motion unless a member ofthe City Council or the public requests that separate action be taken on a specific item.2.Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 202204 of the City Council of the City of FairfieldAdopting the Official Council District Map to Establish Boundaries for the City Council DistrictsFollowing the Decennial Federal CensusRecommended ActionAdopt ordinance.Funding SourceN/AContact:Amber Alexander, (707) 4287402a3.Resolution 202231 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Reconsidering and AuthorizingPublic Meetings to be Held Via Teleconferencing Pursuant to Government Code Section54953(e) and Making Findings and Determinations Regarding the SameRecommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding SourceN/AContact:Amber Alexander, (707) 4287402a4.Resolution 202232 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Opposing California StatewideBallot Initiative 210042A1Recommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding SourceN/AContact:David Gassaway, (707) 4287398a5.Resolution 202233 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving an Amended andRestated Agreement for Legal Services with Richards, Watson and Gershon for City AttorneyServices and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute Said Agreement on Behalf ofthe CityRecommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding SourceN/AContact:David Gassaway,(707) 4287398a6.Resolution 202234 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield to Adopt the Updated SolanoMultiJurisdiction Hazard Mitigation PlanRecommended ActionAdopt resolution. Funding SourceN/AContact:John Sturdee, (707) 4367228a7.Resolution 202235 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving a Lease Agreement forMultifunction Copiers with Canon Solutions America, Inc.Recommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding Source$500,200; Computer Services FundContact:Savita Chaudhary, (707) 4287582a8.Resolution 202236 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing Execution of theImprovement Agreement for the Canon Station Planning Area 4 – Backbone Phase 2 CanonBridgeRecommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding SourceN/AContact:Alvin Lei, (707) 4287476a9.Resolution 202237 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing a Loan and BudgetTransfer From the Intergovernmental Loan Fund to Each of Landscaping and LightingMaintenance Districts No. 7 – Rolling Hills, No. 11 – Paradise Valley North, and No. 13 – NorthCordelia for Increased Landscape Maintenance Services Through Fiscal Year 20222023 and Updating the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Budget
Recommended Action
Adopt resolution.

Funding Source
$805,000, Intergovernmental Loan Fund
Contact:Chris Lewis, (707) 4287089
a

10.Resolution 202238 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Funding Agreement Between the City of Fairfield and Solano Transportation Authority for Landscape Improvements on State Route 12 at Webster Street, Jackson Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue (Clean California) And Updating the Fiscal Year 20212022 Budget Recommended Action
Adopt resolution.

Funding Source
$255,000; AB 1600 Urban Design Fund
Contact:David Vong, (707) 4287784
a

11.Resolution 202239 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing the City Manager, Acting as Director of Emergency Services, to Temporarily Exempt Providers of Mobile COVID 19 Testing Sites From the Fairfield Municipal Code and to Adopt Rules of Operation Recommended Action
Adopt resolution.

Funding Source
N/A
Contact:Jonathan Luong, (707) 4287463
a
NEW BUSINESS

12.First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 202203 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Amending Section 2.24.1 of the Fairfield Municipal Code to Limit the Number of Absences Planning Commissioners Are Permitted Within Twelve Months Recommended Action
Waive full reading, read by title only; and introduce ordinance for first reading.

Funding Source
N/A
Contact:Jonathan Luong, (707) 4287463
a

13.Resolution 202240 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield to Adopt the City of Fairfield Emergency Operations Plan
Recommended Action
Adopt resolution.

Funding Source
N/A
Contact:John Sturdee, (707) 4367228
a

14.Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Organic Waste Collection and Disposal Agreement Introduction and Overview
Recommended Action
Receive presentation and provide direction to staff.

Packet Page 4 of 1095

CITY OF FAIRFIELDFAIRFIELD CITY COUNCILREGULAR MEETINGTUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2022; 6:00 PMCOUNCIL CHAMBER, 1000 WEBSTER STREET, FAIRFIELD,CA 94533 OR VIA ZOOMAGENDANotice to PublicThe City of Fairfield is committed to providing meeting facilities that areaccessible to persons with disabilities and/or have language barriers. To requestmeeting materials in alternative formats, or to request a sign languageinterpreter, realtime captioning, or other accommodation, please contact AmberAlexander, Deputy Clerk, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting at (707)4287402.For individuals with hearing or speaking limitations, dial 711 or (800) 7352922(English). For Spanish, Tagalog or other language, please dial (800) 8553000and provide the communication assistant with the following City telephonenumber: (707) 3994010.Pursuant to AB 361 regarding public meetings held during the COVID19 emergency,councilmembers may attend via teleconference. Members of the public can observe the meeting onComcast Cable Channel 26, ATT UVerse 99 and webstreamed live at www.youtube.com/user/FFCATV/live.The public may join the meeting via Zoom at https://fairfieldca.zoom.us/j/84183030545?pwd=Wlh0NktTbTl3c0RyeVp6T1ZQMkNuZz09 or by phone at (669) 9006833 Webinar ID:841 8303 0545 Passcode: 7074287400CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PMROLL CALLCouncilmember Pam Bertani Councilmember Cat MoyCouncilmember Doriss PanduroCouncilmemberChuck TimmCouncilmember Scott Tonnesen ViceMayor Rick VaccaroMayor Harry PriceINVOCATION Leon Roberson, Cornerstone Apostolic ChurchPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCECOUNCIL REPORTSCITY MANAGER REPORTCITY ATTORNEY REPORTCITY CLERK REPORTPRESENTATIONS1.Proclamation Declaring March as American Red Cross MonthContact:Karen L. Rees, (707) 4287767aPUBLIC COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTSPersons wishing to address the City Council on subjects not on the agenda but within the jurisdictionof the council may do so at this time. The council cannot discuss or take action on matters not on theagenda for this meeting, but councilmembers may briefly respond to statements made or questionsraised by the public, ask for clarification from staff, refer the matter to staff, request staff to report backto the council at a subsequent meeting, or place the matter on a future agenda. To speak on anagenda item, please complete a speaker's card and give it to the city clerk before the meeting, or atthe latest, prior to the time for public comments on that item. When joining via Zoom, please use the“raise your hand” feature or press *9 on your phone to request to speak. Speakers are limited tothree minutes per item.CONSENT CALENDARAll matters listed on the Consent Calendar are to be approved with one motion unless a member ofthe City Council or the public requests that separate action be taken on a specific item.2.Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 202204 of the City Council of the City of FairfieldAdopting the Official Council District Map to Establish Boundaries for the City Council DistrictsFollowing the Decennial Federal CensusRecommended ActionAdopt ordinance.Funding SourceN/AContact:Amber Alexander, (707) 4287402a3.Resolution 202231 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Reconsidering and AuthorizingPublic Meetings to be Held Via Teleconferencing Pursuant to Government Code Section54953(e) and Making Findings and Determinations Regarding the SameRecommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding SourceN/AContact:Amber Alexander, (707) 4287402a4.Resolution 202232 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Opposing California StatewideBallot Initiative 210042A1Recommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding SourceN/AContact:David Gassaway, (707) 4287398a5.Resolution 202233 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving an Amended andRestated Agreement for Legal Services with Richards, Watson and Gershon for City AttorneyServices and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute Said Agreement on Behalf ofthe CityRecommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding SourceN/AContact:David Gassaway,(707) 4287398a6.Resolution 202234 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield to Adopt the Updated SolanoMultiJurisdiction Hazard Mitigation PlanRecommended ActionAdopt resolution. Funding SourceN/AContact:John Sturdee, (707) 4367228a7.Resolution 202235 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving a Lease Agreement forMultifunction Copiers with Canon Solutions America, Inc.Recommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding Source$500,200; Computer Services FundContact:Savita Chaudhary, (707) 4287582a8.Resolution 202236 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing Execution of theImprovement Agreement for the Canon Station Planning Area 4 – Backbone Phase 2 CanonBridgeRecommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding SourceN/AContact:Alvin Lei, (707) 4287476a9.Resolution 202237 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing a Loan and BudgetTransfer From the Intergovernmental Loan Fund to Each of Landscaping and LightingMaintenance Districts No. 7 – Rolling Hills, No. 11 – Paradise Valley North, and No. 13 – NorthCordelia for Increased Landscape Maintenance Services Through Fiscal Year 20222023 andUpdating the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 BudgetRecommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding Source$805,000, Intergovernmental Loan FundContact:Chris Lewis, (707) 4287089a10.Resolution 202238 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing the City Manager toExecute a Funding Agreement Between the City of Fairfield and Solano Transportation Authorityfor Landscape Improvements on State Route 12 at Webster Street, Jackson Street, andPennsylvania Avenue (Clean California) And Updating the Fiscal Year 20212022 BudgetRecommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding Source$255,000; AB 1600 Urban Design FundContact:David Vong, (707) 4287784a11.Resolution 202239 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing the City Manager,Acting as Director of Emergency Services, to Temporarily Exempt Providers of Mobile COVID19 Testing Sites From the Fairfield Municipal Code and to Adopt Rules of Operation Recommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding SourceN/AContact:Jonathan Luong, (707) 4287463aNEW BUSINESS12.First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 202203 of the City Council of the City of FairfieldAmending Section 2.24.1 of the Fairfield Municipal Code to Limit the Number of AbsencesPlanning Commissioners Are Permitted Within Twelve MonthsRecommended ActionWaive full reading, read by title only; and introduce ordinance for first reading.Funding SourceN/AContact:Jonathan Luong, (707) 4287463a13.Resolution 202240 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield to Adopt the City of FairfieldEmergency Operations PlanRecommended ActionAdopt resolution.Funding SourceN/AContact:John Sturdee, (707) 4367228a14.Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Organic Waste Collection and Disposal AgreementIntroduction and Overview Recommended Action
Receive presentation and provide direction to staff.

Funding Source
N/A
Contact:Corey Beavers, (707) 4287528
a

15.Allan Witt Court Renovation Project Update
Recommended Action
Receive presentation and provide direction to staff.

Funding Source
N/A
Contact:Paul Kaushal, (707) 4287477 and Kristina Chamberlin, (707) 4287470 a
PUBLIC HEARINGS

16.Continued Public Hearing;
and First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 202205 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Amending Chapter 12B of the Fairfield Municipal Code to Modify the Hours of One Lake Park
Recommended Action
Continue public hearing; waive full reading, read by title only; and introduce ordinance for first reading.

Funding Source
N/A
Contact:Jonathan Luong, (707) 4287463
a
ADJOURN TO TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2022, 6:00 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBER OR VIA ZOOM.

Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the City of Fairfield to all or a majority of the Fairfield City Council less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at City Hall, in the 4th floor lobby, 1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, California during normal business hours.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
I, Amber Alexander, Deputy City Clerk, do hereby certify that I have caused a true copy of the above notice and agenda to be delivered to each of the members of the Fairfield City Council, at the time and in the manner prescribed by law and that this agenda was posted at City Hall, 1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, California on [Insert Date with pen icon] Packet Page 5 of 1095

Agenda Item No: 2.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:March 1, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 202204 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Adopting the Official Council District Map to Establish Boundaries for the City Council Districts Following the Decennial Federal Census RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt ordinance.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Every ten years, local governments use new census data to redraw their district lines to reflect how local populations have changed. The finalized map will define the six City of Fairfield district borders, and these new districts will impact how councilmembers are elected for the next 10 years. To effectuate the change in district boundaries the City must adopt an ordinance to accept a new map.

DISCUSSION
Redistricting determines which neighborhoods and communities are grouped together into a district for purposes of electing Councilmembers. The City Council sought input in selecting the next district map for electing Councilmembers. The public had an opportunity to share with the City Council how they thought district boundaries should be drawn to best represent their community either during the public hearings or by submitting comments by email.

The City held four public hearings and one community meeting to hear the public’s comments. The first predraft map public hearing was held on August 17, 2021, where the City provided information on the redistricting process and solicited the public’s input on communities of interest to identify neighborhood and secondary areas. The City received no input from the public.

The second predraft public hearing was held on September 21, 2021, where again the City provided information on the redistricting process and solicited the public’s input on communities of interest to identify neighborhood and secondary areas. The City received no input from the public.

On October 7, 2021, the City held a community meeting to receive public input and answer questions.

Two members of the public attended the meeting and were presented with mapping tools.

Packet Page 6 of 1095

Agenda Item No: 2.AGENDA REPORTDATE:March 1, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 202204 of the City Council of the City ofFairfield Adopting the Official Council District Map to Establish Boundaries for the CityCouncil Districts Following the Decennial Federal CensusRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt ordinance.STATEMENT OF ISSUEEvery ten years, local governments use new census data to redraw their district lines to reflect how localpopulations have changed. The finalized map will define the six City of Fairfield district borders, andthese new districts will impact how councilmembers are elected for the next 10 years. To effectuate thechange in district boundaries the City must adopt an ordinance to accept a new map.DISCUSSIONRedistricting determines which neighborhoods and communities are grouped together into a district forpurposes of electing Councilmembers. The City Council sought input in selecting the next district mapfor electing Councilmembers. The public had an opportunity to share with the City Council how theythought district boundaries should be drawn to best represent their community either during the publichearings or by submitting comments by email.The City held four public hearings and one community meeting to hear the public’s comments. The firstpredraft map public hearing was held on August 17, 2021, where the City provided information on theredistricting process and solicited the public’s input on communities of interest to identify neighborhoodand secondary areas. The City received no input from the public.The second predraft public hearing was held on September 21, 2021, where again the City providedinformation on the redistricting process and solicited the public’s input on communities of interest toidentify neighborhood and secondary areas. The City received no input from the public.On October 7, 2021, the City held a community meeting to receive public input and answer questions.

Two members of the public attended the meeting and were presented with mapping tools.

The third public hearing was held on November 16, 2021. The first draft map, Map 201, was presented to the public and the council. The map was drafted by the demographer at National Demographics Corporation. No maps from the public were submitted. The City received feedback from the public and the council regarding the draft map. They requested that the ranch area in Cordelia (the Ranch) not change districts.

The fourth and final public hearing was held on January 18, 2022. The demographer presented three additional draft maps. Map 201B was similar to the original map except for the Ranch was minimally impacted with only 700 residents changing districts instead of the original 1700. Map 202 demonstrated what it would look like if the public and council’s wishes were followed and all of the Ranch. This map was noncompliant and showed that it was not legally possible to not have the Ranch change districts. Map 204 showed what it would look like if all districts had a nearzero population deviation.

The council received no public input at this public hearing and voted 70 to adopt map 201 with Districts 1, 3, and 5 to be in the 2022 election cycle, and Districts 2, 4, and 6 to be in the 2024 election cycle. The election cycle remains the same as it was previously.

The council received sufficient input through the above referenced process and the next step to effectuate the change in district boundaries to introduce the attached ordinance. The proposed council district maps were prepared in accordance with all applicable laws, including provisions of the California Voting Rights Act, and the Federal Voting Rights Act.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no specific fiscal impact associated with the proposed recommendation.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
First reading of the ordinance was approved on February 15, 2022.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
None recommended as the deadline for the adoption is April 18, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT
Amber Alexander, Deputy City Clerk
(707) 4287402
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Ordinance
Map 201
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Alexander, Amber Approved 2/17/2022 9:16 AM
Packet Page 7 of 1095

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-04

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD ADOPTING THE OFFICIAL

COUNCIL DISTRICT MAP TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS

FOLLOWING THE DECENNIAL FEDERAL CENSUS

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This Ordinance is adopted with respect to the following purposes:

(a) On February 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2020-02 (i) to amend Chapter 2A of the Fairfield Municipal Code to provide for the election of six members to the City Council by district and the election of the Mayor City-wide and (ii) to adopt a map to establish the boundaries and identification number of each district (the “2020 Official Council District Map”).

(b) Pursuant to Section 21601 of the California Elections Code and Section 2A.05 of the Fairfield Municipal Code, following each decennial federal census, the City Council shall adopt boundaries for all City Council districts so that the districts are substantially equal in population as required by the United States Constitution.

SECTION 2. The map attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby approved and adopted as the official “Council District Map” referenced in Section 2A.02 of the Fairfield Municipal Code and such map shall replace the 2020 Official Council District Map as the official Council District Map to be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days following its adoption by the City Council.

A summary of this Ordinance shall, within fifteen (15) days after passage, be published in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California with the names of the City Council members voting for and against it.

SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Fairfield hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

Packet Page 8 of 1095Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2

ORD. NO. 2022-04

Page 2 ends

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fairfield on the 15th day of February, 2022, and

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

_________________________

CITY CLERK
Packet Page 9 of 1095Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2

6808080Cannon Dr
G re e n Va lle y R d
R an c h S ol an o Pk y Hangar AveN Texas StSummerset DrOakbrook DrTravis BlvdBeck Ave Chadbourne Rd
O liver RdPennsylvania AveAir Base PkyHilborn RdPeabody RdDover Ave532416�2021 CALIPERElection Dates:November 2022Districts 1, 3, 5November 2024Districts 2, 4, 6Packet Page 10 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 1 of 2

NDC 201
District 1
Total Pop 20,253
Deviation from ideal 223
% Deviation 1.11%
% Hisp 18.9%
% NH White 30%
% NH Black 10%
% Asian-American 36%
Total 12,247
% Hisp 18%
% NH White 39%
% NH Black 12%
% Asian/Pac.Isl.27%
Total 12,425
% Latino est.23%
% Spanish-Surnamed 21%
% Asian-Surnamed 8%
% Filipino-Surnamed 8%
% NH White est.47%
% NH Black 14%
Total 10,357
% Latino est.22%
% Spanish-Surnamed 20%
% Asian-Surnamed 8%
% Filipino-Surnamed 8%
% NH White est.48%
% NH Black 14%
Total 6,450
% Latino est.19%
% Spanish-Surnamed 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 6%
% Filipino-Surnamed 6%
% NH White est.53%
% NH Black est.15%
ACS Pop. Est.Total 17,817
age0-19 27%
age20-60 54%
age60plus 20%
immigrants 22%
naturalized 78%
english 70%
spanish 10%
asian-lang 16%
other lang 4%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well"11%
hs-grad 45%
bachelor 28%
graduatedegree 11%
Child in Household child-under18 43%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+employed 66%
income 0-25k 7%
income 25-50k 6%
income 50-75k 13%
income 75-200k 55%
income 200k-plus 20%
single family 98%
multi-family 2%
rented 17%
owned 83%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 20,639
609

3.04%
48%
20%
14%
13%
12,007
29%
37%
20%
12%
8,790
31%
29%
4%
4%
43%
19%
6,134
29%
27%
4%
4%
44%
18%
3,932
26%
25%
4%
3%
46%
18%
21,070
30%
57%
14%
27%
40%
54%
38%
5%
4%
21%
54%
12%
4%
42%
66%
15%
26%
18%
38%
3%
62%
38%
56%
44%
3 20,007
-23
-0.11%
28%
34%
16%
15%
13,995
19%
48%
16%
16%
11,670
20%
18%
3%
3%
57%
17%
9,160
18%
17%
3%
3%
58%
16%
6,452
15%
15%
3%
3%
61%
16%
19,684
25%
53%
23%
18%
58%
71%
17%
8%
3%
10%
50%
20%
7%
33%
66%
9%
17%
16%
48%
9%
75%
25%
38%
62%
4 19,868
-162
-0.81%
20%
35%
17%
22%
14,172
13%
44%
17%
23%
13,667
18%
16%
6%
5%
53%
19%
11,322
17%
16%
6%
4%
54%
19%
8,122
15%
14%
5%
4%
57%
19%
18,936
20%
52%
27%
23%
69%
75%
7%
14%
4%
10%
45%
27%
12%
28%
64%
8%
13%
11%
50%
18%
81%
19%
32%
68%
5 19,898
-132
-0.66%
47%
16%
20%
12%
11,017
28%
24%
31%
15%
8,178
29%
27%
2%
3%
30%
36%
5,731
27%
25%
2%
3%
31%
37%
3,552
23%
22%
2%
3%
33%
38%
20,262
34%
53%
14%
24%
35%
54%
36%
6%
4%
19%
55%
9%
4%
45%
67%
18%
24%
21%
35%
2%
55%
45%
60%
40%
6 19,513
-517
-2.58%
21%
30%
17%
25%
11,821
17%
38%
19%
22%
9,314
21%
20%
5%
8%
42%
23%
7,254
20%
19%
6%
8%
42%
23%
4,069
17%
16%
4%
7%
46%
24%
17,604
30%
57%
13%
16%
69%
77%
10%
11%
3%
6%
45%
23%
11%
52%
69%
10%
12%
18%
49%
12%
93%
7%
37%
63%
Total
120,178
1,126

5.62%
31%
28%
16%
20%
75,259
21%
39%
19%
19%
64,044
23%
21%
5%
5%
47%
20%
49,958
21%
20%
5%
5%
48%
20%
32,577
18%
17%
4%
4%
52%
20%
115,373
28%
54%
18%
22%
56%
66%
20%
10%
4%
13%
49%
20%
8%
40%
66%
11%
17%
16%
45%
10%
76%
24%
41%
59%
11/09/2021 10:35 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
Packet Page 11 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 2 of 2

Agenda Item No: 3.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:March 1, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 202231 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Reconsidering and Authorizing Public Meetings to be Held Via Teleconferencing Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and Making Findings and Determinations Regarding the Same RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Government Code 54953(e) is new legislation that amends the Brown Act to allow local agencies to meet remotely during declared emergencies under certain conditions. The code requires that the City Council reconsider and reauthorize these provisions every 30 days following initial authorization.

DISCUSSION
On October 5, 2021, the council adopted provisions of AB 361, urgency legislation that amends the Brown Act to allow local agencies to meet remotely during declared emergencies under certain conditions. AB 361 authorizes local agencies to continue meeting remotely without following the Brown Act’s standard teleconferencing provisions, including the requirement that meetings be conducted in physical locations if the meeting is held during a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor and either of the following applies:

1. State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or

2. The agency has already determined whether, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of the attendee.

Council has utilized teleconferencing options throughout the pandemic, including remote appearances by Councilmembers and public comments from citizens via Zoom, email, or teleconference.

AB requires the council to reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency every 30 days following the adoption of the law and make specific findings that either of the following cases exists:

1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet in person Packet Page 12 of 1095

Agenda Item No: 3.AGENDA REPORTDATE:March 1, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Acting City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 202231 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Reconsidering andAuthorizing Public Meetings to be Held Via Teleconferencing Pursuant to GovernmentCode Section 54953(e) and Making Findings and Determinations Regarding the SameRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEGovernment Code 54953(e) is new legislation that amends the Brown Act to allow local agencies tomeet remotely during declared emergencies under certain conditions. The code requires that the CityCouncil reconsider and reauthorize these provisions every 30 days following initial authorization.DISCUSSIONOn October 5, 2021, the council adopted provisions of AB 361, urgency legislation that amends theBrown Act to allow local agencies to meet remotely during declared emergencies under certainconditions. AB 361 authorizes local agencies to continue meeting remotely without following the BrownAct’s standard teleconferencing provisions, including the requirement that meetings be conducted inphysical locations if the meeting is held during a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor andeither of the following applies:1. State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or2. The agency has already determined whether, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person wouldpresent imminent risks to the health or safety of the attendee.Council has utilized teleconferencing options throughout the pandemic, including remote appearancesby Councilmembers and public comments from citizens via Zoom, email, or teleconference.AB requires the council to reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency every 30 days following the adoption of the law and make specific findings that either of the following cases exists:

1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet in person safely; or

2. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is little to no fiscal impact by this action. City staff is already utilizing many of the procedures for teleconferencing in recent council meetings and other meetings of the legislative bodies.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
None.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The council may choose not to reauthorize these procedures, in which case they would no longer be able to teleconference into council meetings without meeting the notice requirements for teleconferencing that existed before the State of Emergency. Public comment via remote access would also be curtailed at council meetings.

STAFF CONTACT
Amber Alexander, Deputy City Clerk
(707) 4287402
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Alexander, Amber Approved 2/14/2022 3:43 PM
Packet Page 13 of 1095

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-31

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD RECONSIDERING AND

AUTHORIZING PUBLIC MEETINGS TO BE HELD VIA TELECONFERENCING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(E) AND MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS

REGARDING THE SAME

WHEREAS, the Fairfield City Council (the City Council) is committed to public access and participation in its meetings while balancing the need to conduct public meetings in a manner that reduces the likelihood of exposure to COVID-19; and

WHEREAS, all meetings of the City Council are open and public, as required by the Ralph M.

Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code 54950 – 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City Council conduct its business; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, signed by Governor Newsom and effective on September 16, 2021, legislative bodies of local agencies may hold public meetings via teleconferencing pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e), without complying with the requirements of Government Code Section 54953(b)(3), if the legislative body complies with certain enumerated requirements in any of the following circumstances:

1. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.

2. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

3. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees ; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3), the City Council must reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency and make specific finding every 30 d ays after enacting the provisions of Government Code Section 54953(e) by making the following findings:

1. The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency; and

2. Either of the following circumstances exist:

A. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to safely meet in person; or
B. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

Packet Page 14 of 1095Attachment 1 Page 1 of 3

RES. NO. 2022-31

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a declared a State of Emergency pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (the Emergency); and

WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continue to advise that COVID- 19 spreads more easily indoors than outdoors and that people are more likely to be exposed to COVID-19 when they are closer than 6 feet apart from others for longer periods of time; and

WHEREAS, the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) and the CDC caution that the Delta variant of COVID-19, currently the dominant strain of COVID-19 in the country, is more transmissible than prior variants of the virus, may cause more severe illness, an d that even fully vaccinated individuals can spread the virus to others resulting in rapid and alarming rates of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations; and

WHEREAS, the CDC has established a “Community Transmission” metric with 4 tiers designed to reflect a community’s COVID-19 case rate and percent positivity; and

WHEREAS, Solano County currently has a Community Transmission metric of “high” which is the most serious of the tiers; and

WHEREAS, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the need to promote social distancing to reduce the likelihood of exposure to COVID-19, the City Council intends to hold public meetings via teleconferencing pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e); and

WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, the City Council adopted the provisions of Government Code Section 54953(e) for the first time by resolution and majority vote.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The Recitals provided above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference.

Section 2. The City Council hereby determines that, as a result of the Emergency, meeting in person presents imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

Section 3. The City Council shall conduct its meetings pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e) and authorizes its boards and commissions to do likewise.

Section 4. The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.

Packet Page 15 of 1095Attachment 1 Page 2 of 3

RES. NO. 2022-31

Page 3 ends

Section 5. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the City Council members to meet safely in person.

Section 6. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

Section 7. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to continue to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this resolution including, conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisi ons of the Brown Act.

Section 8. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and must be reconsidered within 30 days to stay in effect.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK

Packet Page 16 of 1095Attachment 1 Page 3 of 3

Agenda Item No: 4.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:March 1, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David J. Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 202232 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Opposing California Statewide Ballot Initiative 210042A1
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
An association representing California’s wealthiest corporations – including oil, insurance, banks, and drug companies – is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot.

Their measure seeks to create new loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their fair share and jeopardize vital local and state services.

DISCUSSION
In 2018, the “Tax Fairness, Transparency and Accountability Act” was circulated to qualify for the November 2018 statewide ballot. That initiative would have drastically limited local revenue authority.

However, through successful work and advocacy of the League of California Cities and a local government coalition, the measure’s proponents withdrew the initiative from the ballot.

On January 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” and is currently in the process of gathering signatures for the placement of Initiative 210042A1 on the November general election ballot. This measure is far more detrimental to cities than the measure filed in 2018, as it would decimate vital local and state revenues to the benefit of wealthy corporations.

The proposed measure would limit voters’ authority, adopts new and more strict rules for raising taxes and fees, and makes it more challenging to hold violators of state and local laws accountable.

Specifically, the measure would:

1. Limit voter authority and accountability
Limits voter input. Prohibits local voters from providing direction on how local tax dollars should be spent by prohibiting local advisory measures.

Packet Page 17 of 1095

Invalidates the Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes.

Taxes proposed by the initiative process are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council.

All local tax measures passed between January 2022 and November 2022 would be invalidated unless reenacted within 12 months, costing taxpayers more for additional elections.

2. Restrict local fee authority to provide local services Impacts franchise fees. Sets new standard for fees and charges paid for local and state government property use. The standard may significantly restrict the amount that oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, and other corporations pay for the use of local public property, including roads.

Rentals or sale of local government property must be “reasonable” which must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.”
Places new restrictions on setting local fees and charges for services under threat of legal challenge. Major examples of affected fees and charges are:

Nuisance abatement charges for things such as weeds, rubbish, code enforcement, etc.

Emergency response fees such as in connection with DUI.

Transit fees, parking fees, and facility use charges for parks or recreation centers.

3. Restrict authority of state and local governments to issue fines and penalties for violations of law Requires voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties.

4. Restricts local tax authority to provide local services Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes to new territory (e.g., annexation).

New taxes can only be collected for a specified time period.

5. Other changes
No fee, charge, or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy, potentially severely limiting steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions in response to global warming.

The League of California Cities (Cal Cities), along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly oppose this initiative. Cal Cities requests local leaders to take a stand against an affront to local control and adopt a resolution to demonstrate how harmful this measure would be to local communities.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
This measure puts billions of dollars of currently dedicated state and local revenues at risk, potentially forcing cuts to essential services such as public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, code enforcement, affordable housing, and support for the homeless.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
None
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The City Council may choose not to adopt the resolution and oppose ballot initiative 210042A1.

STAFF CONTACT
Packet Page 18 of 1095

Agenda Item No: 4.AGENDA REPORTDATE:March 1, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David J. Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 202232 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Opposing CaliforniaStatewide Ballot Initiative 210042A1RECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEAn association representing California’s wealthiest corporations – including oil, insurance, banks, anddrug companies – is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot.Their measure seeks to create new loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their fair shareand jeopardize vital local and state services. DISCUSSIONIn 2018, the “Tax Fairness, Transparency and Accountability Act” was circulated to qualify for theNovember 2018 statewide ballot. That initiative would have drastically limited local revenue authority.However, through successful work and advocacy of the League of California Cities and a localgovernment coalition, the measure’s proponents withdrew the initiative from the ballot. On January 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the “Taxpayer Protection and GovernmentAccountability Act” and is currently in the process of gathering signatures for the placement of Initiative210042A1 on the November general election ballot. This measure is far more detrimental to cities thanthe measure filed in 2018, as it would decimate vital local and state revenues to the benefit of wealthycorporations. The proposed measure would limit voters’ authority, adopts new and more strict rules for raising taxesand fees, and makes it more challenging to hold violators of state and local laws accountable. Specifically, the measure would: 1. Limit voter authority and accountabilityLimits voter input. Prohibits local voters from providing direction on how local tax dollarsshould be spent by prohibiting local advisory measures. Invalidates the Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes.Taxes proposed by the initiative process are subject to the same rules as taxes placed onthe ballot by a city council. All local tax measures passed between January 2022 and November 2022 would beinvalidated unless reenacted within 12 months, costing taxpayers more for additionalelections. 2. Restrict local fee authority to provide local servicesImpacts franchise fees. Sets new standard for fees and charges paid for local and stategovernment property use. The standard may significantly restrict the amount that oilcompanies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, andother corporations pay for the use of local public property, including roads. Rentals or sale of local government property must be “reasonable” which must be proved by“clear and convincing evidence.” Places new restrictions on setting local fees and charges for services under threat of legalchallenge. Major examples of affected fees and charges are: Nuisance abatement charges for things such as weeds, rubbish, codeenforcement, etc. Emergency response fees such as in connection with DUI. Transit fees, parking fees, and facility use charges for parks or recreationcenters. 3. Restrict authority of state and local governments to issue fines and penalties for violations of law Requires voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property ownersthat violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used toimpose the fines and penalties. 4. Restricts local tax authority to provide local servicesRequires voter approval to expand existing taxes to new territory (e.g., annexation). New taxes can only be collected for a specified time period. 5. Other changesNo fee, charge, or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition ofproperty development or occupancy, potentially severely limiting steps to curb greenhouse gasemissions in response to global warming. The League of California Cities (Cal Cities), along with a broad coalition of local governments, laborand public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly oppose this initiative. CalCities requests local leaders to take a stand against an affront to local control and adopt a resolution todemonstrate how harmful this measure would be to local communities. FINANCIAL IMPACTThis measure puts billions of dollars of currently dedicated state and local revenues at risk, potentiallyforcing cuts to essential services such as public schools, fire and emergency response, lawenforcement, code enforcement, affordable housing, and support for the homeless. PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONNoneALTERNATIVE ACTIONThe City Council may choose not to adopt the resolution and oppose ballot initiative 210042A1.

STAFF CONTACT
David J. Gassaway, Interim City Manager
(707) 4287398
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
League of CA Cities Fact Sheet
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Alexander, Amber Approved 2/14/2022 2:43 PM
Packet Page 19 of 1095

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-32

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD OPPOSING CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE BALLOT INITIATIVE 21-0042A1

WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot; and

WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources; and

WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and

WHEREAS, the measure makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and

WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to state and local services at risk and could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and

WHEREAS, the measure would also reduce funding for critical infrastructures like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, and utilities.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The City of Fairfield opposes California Statewide Ballot Initiative 21-0042A1.

Section 2. The City of Fairfield will join the ‘No on Initiative 21-0042A1’ coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, labor, local governments, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state.

Packet Page 20 of 1095Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2

RES. NO. 2022-32

Page 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK

Packet Page 21 of 1095Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2

Stop the Corporate Loopholes Scheme
Deceptive Proposition Allows Major Corporations to Avoid Paying their Fair Share and Evade Enforcement when they Violate Environmental, Health & Safety Laws An association representing California’s wealthiest corporations — including oil, insurance, banks and drug companies — is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot. Their measure would create major new loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities; while also allowing corporations to evade enforcement when they violate environmental, health, safety and other state and local laws. Here’s why a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses oppose the Corporate Loophole Scheme:

Gives Wealthy Corporations a Major Loophole to Avoid Paying their Fair Share - Forcing Local Residents and Taxpayers to Pay More • The measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources – shifting the burden and making individual taxpayers pay more.

Allows Corporations to Dodge Enforcement When They Violate Environmental, Health, Public Safety and Other Laws
• The deceptive scheme creates new loopholes that makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods.

Jeopardizes Vital Local and State Services
• This far-reaching measure puts at risk billions of dollars currently dedicated to critical state and local services.
• It could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services and more. • It would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, utilities and more.

Opens the Door for Frivolous Lawsuits, Bureaucracy and Red Tape that Will Cost Taxpayers and Hurt Our Communities
• The measure will encourage frivolous lawsuits, bureaucracy and red tape that will cost local taxpayers millions — while significantly delaying and stopping investments in infrastructure and vital services.

Packet Page 22 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 1 of 6

Undermines Voter Rights, Transparency, and Accountability • This misleading measure changes our constitution to make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and local infrastructure.
• It also includes a hidden provision that would retroactively cancel measures that were passed by local voters — effectively undermining the rights of voters to decide for themselves what their communities need.
• It would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures, where voters provide direction to politicians on how they want their local tax dollars spent.

Packet Page 23 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 2 of 6

CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Fiscal and Program Effects of
Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments

If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
 Billions of local government fee and charge revenues placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for transportation, and public facility use.  Hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax and bond measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and November 9, 2022 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative.
 Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements.  The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations and associated impacts on housing and commercial development.
 Service and infrastructure impacts including in fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services.

1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proceeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against measures.  Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval (Upland).
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxes approved by majority vote (Upland) is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through November 8, 2022 would be void after November 9, 2023.
 Requires that tax measures include a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed. This seems to require that all tax increases or extensions contain a sunset (end date). o This would require additional tax measures to extend previously approved taxes at additional cost to taxpayers.
 Requires that a tax or bond measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2022) that was not adopted in accordance with the measure be readopted in compliance with the measure or will be void twelve months after the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2023).
o If past election patterns are an indication, dozens of tax and bond measures approving hundreds of millions of annual revenues may not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment.

Most will be taxes without a specific end date. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, measures not in compliance would need to be placed on a special election ballot for approval before November 9, 2023 or the tax will be void after that date. General tax measures would require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev. January 7, 2022
Packet Page 24 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 3 of 6

– 2 – rev January 7, 2022

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
 Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new territory (annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities. o If a tax is "extended" to an annexed area without a vote after January 1, 2022, it will be void 12 months later until brought into compliance. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, such extensions for general taxes would, under current law, each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void after November 9, 2023.

1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk1 In 2020, voters in California approved 293 local tax and bond measures for cities, counties, special districts and schools (95 in March and 198 in November). The approved measures enacted $3.85 billion in new annual taxes including $1.3 billion for cities, $302 million for counties, $208 million for special districts (fire, wastewater, open space and transit districts), and $2.037 billion for schools (including for school bonds).

Most tax measures go to the ballot during a presidential or gubernatorial primary or general election in an even year. However, some tax measures are decided at other times. During 2019, there were 45 approved tax and bond measures (24 city, 14 special district, 7 school) adopting $154.0 million in new annual taxes ($124.0 million city, $10.5 million special district and $19.2 million school).

Most tax and bond measures comply with the new rules in Initiative 21-0042Amdt#1 except:
 Dozens of taxes would require end dates. This would require additional measures in future years to extend the taxes further. Very few extensions of existing local taxes fail.  Majority vote general tax measures could not be accompanied on the same ballot with an advisory, non-binding measure as to use of tax proceeds.  Special taxes placed on the ballot via citizen initiative would require two-thirds voter approval.

Bond measures have fixed terms. Historically, about 20 percent of other tax measures have included specific durations (i.e. sunsets). Advisory measures as to use of revenues are uncommon. I do not expect the provisions of 21-0042A1 to have any substantial effect on passage rates. However, some 2022 approved measures would likely have to put back on the ballot.

Based on history, a reasonable estimate of the annualized tax revenues estimated to be approved by

1 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.

Packet Page 25 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 4 of 6

– 3 – rev January 7, 2022

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
voters in 2022 and placed at risk by this initiative is at least $1.5 billion, including $1.0 billion from cities and $500 million from counties and special districts.2

1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions In addition to service delays and disruption due to new tax revenues placed at greater legal risk, there will be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The deterrence of taxes for annexations will delay and deter municipal annexations.

2. “Exempt Charges” (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a new "actual cost” test defined as “(i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service to the payor, and (ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In addition, subjects these same charges to a new, undefined, “reasonable” standard.
 Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test.  Subjects a challenged fee or charge to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.  Prohibits a levy, charge or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled, imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.

2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk3 Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, the amount of local government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is about $1 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of this $1 billion, about $570 million is for special districts, $450 million is cities, and $260 million is counties.4
Major examples of affected fees and charges are:

1. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.

2. Commercial franchise fees.

3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.

4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.

5. Document processing and duplication fees.

6. Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, public airport and harbor use fees.

7. Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees.

In addition to fees and charges, the measure puts fines and penalties assessed for the violation of state and

2 This does not include citizen initiative special tax approved by majority but not two-thirds. Because this approach is new, the number of these measures and amount of revenue involved cannot be estimated. 3 Source: California State Controller Annual Reports of Financial Transactions concerning cities, counties and special districts, summarized with an assumed growth due to fee rate increases (not population) of 2 percent annually. 4 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison.

Packet Page 26 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 5 of 6

– 4 – rev January 7, 2022

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
local law at risk, making them taxes subject to voter approval under certain circumstances.

2.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Fee/Charge Provisions In addition to service delays and disruptions due to fee and charge revenues placed at greater legal risk, there would be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The risk to fees and charges will make infrastructure financing more difficult and will deter new residential and commercial development.

***********
mc
Packet Page 27 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 6 of 6

Agenda Item No: 5.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:March 1, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 202233 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving an Amended and Restated Agreement for Legal Services with Richards, Watson and Gershon for City Attorney Services and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute Said Agreement on Behalf of the City
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Richards, Watson and Gershon (RWG) has provided high quality legal services to the City of Fairfield since 1997. Greg Stepanicich has been the appointed city attorney under contract for the entirety of RWG’s service to the city. Mr. Stepanicich has retired from providing full time legal services and the City Council must appoint a new city attorney.

DISCUSSION
In 1997, after a competitive selection process, the City of Fairfield selected RWG to provide contract legal services. Since 1997, RWG has provided the City with high quality and comprehensive legal services. In 1999, 2002, 2007, and 2019, the City and RWG amended and restated the contract for legal services to allow for expansion of services and adjust billing rates. For the entirety of the contract, Greg Stepanicich has been the appointed city attorney.

In 2021, Mr. Stepanicich notified the City of his intent to retire from providing full time legal services. To ensure continuity, Mr. Stepanicich introduced RWG Senior Attorney David Lim, who took on an increasing role over the course of 2021. Since fall of 2021, Mr. Lim has served as acting city attorney full time. Mr. Lim has performed satisfactorily, providing competent and timely legal advice in service to the City.

In accordance with Fairfield Municipal Code Section 2.14.3, selection or dismissal of the City Attorney is subject to final approval of the City Council. The proposed resolution appoints David G. Lim as City Attorney and authorizes the mayor and city manager to execute an Amended and Restated Agreement for Legal Services.

Packet Page 28 of 1095

Agenda Item No: 5.AGENDA REPORTDATE:March 1, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 202233 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving an Amendedand Restated Agreement for Legal Services with Richards, Watson and Gershon forCity Attorney Services and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute SaidAgreement on Behalf of the CityRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUERichards, Watson and Gershon (RWG) has provided high quality legal services to the City of Fairfieldsince 1997. Greg Stepanicich has been the appointed city attorney under contract for the entirety ofRWG’s service to the city. Mr. Stepanicich has retired from providing full time legal services and the CityCouncil must appoint a new city attorney.DISCUSSIONIn 1997, after a competitive selection process, the City of Fairfield selected RWG to provide contractlegal services. Since 1997, RWG has provided the City with high quality and comprehensive legalservices. In 1999, 2002, 2007, and 2019, the City and RWG amended and restated the contract forlegal services to allow for expansion of services and adjust billing rates. For the entirety of the contract,Greg Stepanicich has been the appointed city attorney. In 2021, Mr. Stepanicich notified the City of his intent to retire from providing full time legal services. Toensure continuity, Mr. Stepanicich introduced RWG Senior Attorney David Lim, who took on anincreasing role over the course of 2021. Since fall of 2021, Mr. Lim has served as acting city attorneyfull time. Mr. Lim has performed satisfactorily, providing competent and timely legal advice in service tothe City.In accordance with Fairfield Municipal Code Section 2.14.3, selection or dismissal of the City Attorneyis subject to final approval of the City Council. The proposed resolution appoints David G. Lim as CityAttorney and authorizes the mayor and city manager to execute an Amended and Restated Agreement for Legal Services.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
RWG currently has a monthly retainer amount of $60,666 for 300 hours of general legal services. For Fiscal Year 2021/22, RWG did not implement the costofliving adjustment authorized under Section 6.d of the current agreement for legal services. Under the Amended and Restated Agreement for Legal Services, RWG is eligible for a costofliving adjustment, not to exceed 5%, starting July 1, 2022. For any general legal services beyond 300 hours, RWG bills at $225 per hour. Staff researched the retainer and hourly bill rates of other contract law firms and found RWG to be cost competitive within the market.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
None.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Council may choose to not appoint David Lim as city attorney and instead provide alternative direction to staff. Potential alternatives include seeking a different attorney from RWG.

STAFF CONTACT
David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
(707) 4287400
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
Proposed Agreement
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Alexander, Amber Approved 2/14/2022 2:44 PM
Packet Page 29 of 1095

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-33

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD APPROVING AN AMENDED

AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH RICHARDS, WATSON AND GERSHON

FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY

WHEREAS, Richards, Watson and Gershon (RWG) has served as city attorney for the City of Fairfield since 1997 under agreement for legal services; and

WHEREAS, under Resolutions 99-171, 2002-113, 2007-272, and 2019-147 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield, the agreement for legal services has been amended and restated to add services and adjust billing rates as appropriate; and

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield wishes to retain the services of RWG to perform the duties of city attorney under the terms of an Amended and Restated Agreement for Legal Services; and

WHEREAS, RWG wishes to continue to work as city attorney under the terms of an Amended and Restated Agreement for Legal Services; and

WHEREAS, Gregory Stepanicich, who has served as city attorney on behalf of RWG since 1997, has retired from providing full time legal services; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 2.14.3 of the Fairfield Municipal Code the City Council must approve the appointment of the city attorney; and

WHEREAS, it is recommended that David G. Lim of RWG be appointed city attorney.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The Amended and Restated Agreement for Legal Services, attached hereto, is approved.

Section 2. The mayor and city manager are authorized to execute the Amended and Restated Agreement for Legal Services on behalf of the City.

Section 3. David G. Lim is appointed City Attorney effective March 1 ,2022.

Packet Page 30 of 1095Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2

RES. NO. 2022-33

Page 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK

Packet Page 31 of 1095Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2

Packet Page 32 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 1 of 7

Packet Page 33 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 2 of 7

Packet Page 34 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 3 of 7

Packet Page 35 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 4 of 7

Packet Page 36 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 5 of 7

Packet Page 37 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 6 of 7

Packet Page 38 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 7 of 7

Agenda Item No: 6.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:March 1, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 202234 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield to Adopt the Updated Solano MultiJurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Along with participating jurisdictions, Solano County developed the first countywide multijurisdictional hazard mitigation plan to reduce losses resulting from natural disasters.

DISCUSSION
Developed over the past 18 months, the Solano MultiJurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) outlines the use of longterm actions to reduce the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage resulting from a disaster. All participating jurisdictions, the MJHMP Planning Committee, and the public have reviewed the MJHMP. Participating jurisdictions' boards and councils are now being asked to adopt the Solano MJHMP.

The plan was developed by consultant Dynamic Planning + Science and the MJHMP Planning Committee (comprised of staff from participating jurisdictions) to advise on hazard mitigation action priorities within Solano County.

A current and approved hazard mitigation plan is a prerequisite for jurisdictions wishing to pursue funding under FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program (HMA). The Solano County MJHMP must be updated every five (5) years to comply with regulations and Federal mitigation grant conditions.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The development of the Solano MJHMP was at no cost to the City of Fairfield. Staff time for participating representatives was reimbursable through Solano County's grant to create a multi jurisdiction plan.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
Through Solano County, the plan was reviewed by the public from July 29October 26, 2021, and all Packet Page 39 of 1095

Agenda Item No: 6.AGENDA REPORTDATE:March 1, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 202234 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield to Adopt the UpdatedSolano MultiJurisdiction Hazard Mitigation PlanRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolution. STATEMENT OF ISSUEAlong with participating jurisdictions, Solano County developed the first countywide multijurisdictionalhazard mitigation plan to reduce losses resulting from natural disasters.DISCUSSIONDeveloped over the past 18 months, the Solano MultiJurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)outlines the use of longterm actions to reduce the loss of life, personal injury, and property damageresulting from a disaster. All participating jurisdictions, the MJHMP Planning Committee, and the publichave reviewed the MJHMP. Participating jurisdictions' boards and councils are now being asked toadopt the Solano MJHMP. The plan was developed by consultant Dynamic Planning + Science and the MJHMP PlanningCommittee (comprised of staff from participating jurisdictions) to advise on hazard mitigation actionpriorities within Solano County.A current and approved hazard mitigation plan is a prerequisite for jurisdictions wishing to pursuefunding under FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program (HMA). The Solano County MJHMP mustbe updated every five (5) years to comply with regulations and Federal mitigation grant conditions.FINANCIAL IMPACTThe development of the Solano MJHMP was at no cost to the City of Fairfield. Staff time forparticipating representatives was reimbursable through Solano County's grant to create a multijurisdiction plan.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
Through Solano County, the plan was reviewed by the public from July 29October 26, 2021, and all comments were addressed. The MJHMP has also been reviewed by the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA issued a December 16, 2021 letter confirming that the MJHMP is approvable, pending adoption.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
If the City Council chooses not to approve the Solano MJHMP, then the City will forego potential funding under FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program in the future.

STAFF CONTACT
Taylor Armour, Administration Division Manager
(707) 4287593
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Attorney's Office, City Manager's Office, Police Department, Public Works Department ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
Solano MJHMP Volume 1
Solano MJHMP Fairfield Annex
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Armour, Taylor Approved 2/14/2022 2:19 PM
Armour, Taylor Approved 2/14/2022 3:08 PM
Armour, Taylor Approved 2/14/2022 4:05 PM
Alexander, Amber Approved 2/17/2022 4:28 PM
Alexander, Amber Approved 2/17/2022 4:29 PM
Packet Page 40 of 1095

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-34

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD TO ADOPT THE UPDATED

SOLANO MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield, a political subdivision of the State of California, is an official participating jurisdiction in the updated Solano Multi -Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP); and

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield recognizes the updated MJHMP as the official hazard mitigation plan for participating jurisdictions; and

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield has gathered information and prepared the updated MJHMP in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements at 44 CFR § 201.6; and

WHEREAS, Volume 1 of the updated MJHMP recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property Solano County-wide; and

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield’s Annex to Volume 1 of the updated MJHMP provides additional information specific to the City of Fairfield with a focus on providing additional details on the planning process, risk assessment, and mitigation strategy for this community; and

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield has reviewed Volume 1 of the updated MJHMP and its Annex and affirms that the plan actions in Volume 1 and its Annex should reduce the potential for harm to people and property from future hazard occurrences within the community ; and

WHEREAS, the U. S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Disaster Mitigation Act) emphasizing the need for pre-disaster mitigation of potential hazards; and

WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act made available mitigation grants to state and local governments; and

WHEREAS, an adopted hazard mitigation plan is required as a condition of future funding for mitigation projects under multiple FEMA pre-and post-disaster mitigation grant programs; and

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield fully participated in the FEMA-prescribed mitigation planning process to prepare this updated MJHMP; and

Packet Page 41 of 1095Attachment 1 Page 1 of 3

RES. NO. 2022-34

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, the residents were afforded opportunities to comment and provide input in the updated MJHMP and the mitigation actions in the Plan; and

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield, as a fully participating jurisdiction of the updated MJHMP, is an eligible sub-applicant to the State of California under FEMA’s hazard mitigation grant program guidance; and

WHEREAS, the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the FEMA Region IX officials have reviewed the updated MJHMP and approved it contingent upon this official adoption by the participating governing body; and

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield desires to comply with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act and to augment its emergency planning efforts by formally adopting the updated MJHMP; and

WHEREAS, adoption by the governing body for the City of Fairfield demonstrates the jurisdiction’s commitment to fulfilling the mitigation goals and objectives outlined in this updated MJHMP; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of this plan helps to coordinate the responsible agencies to carry out their responsibilities under the updated MJHMP.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The City of Fairfield City Council finds the facts mentioned above to be true and further finds that the City Council has jurisdiction to consider, approve, and adopt the subject of this Resolution.

Section 2. The City of Fairfield City Council does hereby adopt the updated Solano County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 and its Annex, as approved by FEMA and Cal OES, as the official mitigation plan for the City of Fairfield.

Section 3. The City of Fairfield City Council authorizes the Solano County Emergency Services Manage to submit an approved and signed copy of this adoption resolution to the California Office of Emergency Services and FEMA Region IX officials to enable the plan's final approval in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

Packet Page 42 of 1095Attachment 1 Page 2 of 3

RES. NO. 2022-34

Page 3 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK

Packet Page 43 of 1095Attachment 1 Page 3 of 3

Packet Page 44 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 1 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ii

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 45 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 2 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
iii
Solano County
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Volume 1
Planning-Area-Wide Elements

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... xi What is a hazard mitigation plan? ............................................................................................................................................................................... xii Why have a hazard mitigation plan? .......................................................................................................................................................................... xii Why is the plan updated so often? ............................................................................................................................................................................. xiii Who participated in this plan? ..................................................................................................................................................................................... xiii Plan Development and Update Methods ............................................................................................................................................. xiii Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................................................ xiv Hazard Exposure and Damage Estimation .............................................................................................................................................................. xv Population and Asset Exposure .................................................................................................................................................................................... xv Damage Assessments ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... xvi Summary of Vulnerable Assets: People, Property Value, and Infrastructure ..........................................................................................xvii Mitigation Goals ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... xxii Mitigation Strategy ...................................................................................................................................................................................... xxii County-Wide Mitigation Actions .......................................................................................................................................................... xxiii Mitigation Action Implementation ...................................................................................................................................................... xxvi Section 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-3

1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.2 Background and Scope .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Participating Jurisdictions .................................................................................................................................................................. 1-4

1.4 Why Update This Plan? ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-4 Purposes for Planning .............................................................................................................................................................................................1-5

1.5 Who Will Benefit from This Plan? ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-6

1.6 How to Use This Plan.............................................................................................................................................................................. 1-6 Section 2. What’s New ............................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Participating Jurisdictions in the 2014 HMP vs MJHMP Update ......................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Mitigation Actions ..................................................................................................................................................................................2-2 FINAL for adoption Packet Page 46 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 3 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN iv

2.3 New Analysis and Risk Assessment Methodology ...................................................................................................................2-3

2.4 Successful Mitigation Activities .......................................................................................................................................................2-3

2.5 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms ....................................................................................................................... 2-5 Section 3. Planning Process..................................................................................................................... 3-1 STEP 1: Organize Resources ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 STEP 2: Assess the Risk ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-13 STEP 3: Develop a Mitigation Strategy ................................................................................................................................................. 3-15 STEP 4: Adopt and Implement the Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 3-19 Section 4. Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Hazard Identification and Screening .............................................................................................................................................. 4-1 Hazard Screening ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Past Major Hazard Events .................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-4 Compounding Hazard Events ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4-6

4.2 Hazard Prioritization ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4-6

4.3 Solano County Geographic and Demographic Profile ............................................................................................................. 4-8 Geography ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-8 Transportation Routes .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-8 Climate ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-10 Demographics and Vulnerable Populations .............................................................................................................................................. 4-10 Economy .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4-24 Past and Future Trends in Development ................................................................................................................................................... 4-26

4.4 Vulnerability Assessment Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 4-29 Population and Asset Inventory ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-29 Hazard Exposure and Damage Estimation ............................................................................................................................................... 4-32 Climate Vulnerability Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................... 4-34

4.5 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards .................................................................................................................................................. 4-36 Wildfire Hazard Profile ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-37 Flood Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4-59 Earthquake Hazard Profile ..............................................................................................................................................................................4-105 Extreme Weather Hazard Profile ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-147 Drought Hazard Profile ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-159 Slope Failure Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4-171 Climate Change Hazard Profile .....................................................................................................................................................................4-183 FINAL for adoption Packet Page 47 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 4 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
v
Section 5. Mitigation Strategy ................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Mitigation Alternatives .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Identifying the Problem ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5-8

5.3 Identifying Benefits ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5-8

5.4 Capabilities and Adaptive Capacity Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 5-9 Planning and Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities .................................................................................................................................... 5-10 Administrative and Technical Capabilities ............................................................................................................................................... 5-13 Financial Capabilities .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-14 Education and Outreach..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-15 Capability and Adaptive Capacity Opportunities..................................................................................................................................... 5-16 Federal and State Funding Opportunities .................................................................................................................................................. 5-16

5.5 Mitigation Goals .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-20

5.6 County-Wide Mitigation Actions ................................................................................................................................................... 5-20 Prioritization of Mitigation Actions ............................................................................................................................................................... 5-21 Mitigation Action Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-24 Section 6. Plan Implementation and Maintenance ........................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Plan Adoption ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6-1 Steering Committee ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6-2

6.3 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the MJHMP ..................................................................................................................6-2 Schedule....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-2 Mitigation Action Support Tool (MAST) Updates ....................................................................................................................................... 6-3 Process ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-3 Continuing Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6-4 HMA Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-5 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms ....................................................................................................................................... 6-7 Planning Integration Processes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6-8 Section 7. Works Cited ............................................................................................................................... 7-1

Appendix A. Analysis Methodology ..................................................................................................... A-1 A.1. Natural Hazard Exposure ................................................................................................................................................................... A-2 Damage Estimation with Hazus ...................................................................................................................................................................... A-2 Distinguishing Results – Natural Hazard Exposure Analysis vs Hazus Results ....................................................................... A-4 FINAL for adoption Packet Page 48 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 5 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN vi
A.2. Analysis Data ......................................................................................................................................................................................... A-4 Assets, Value, and Population .......................................................................................................................................................................... A-4 Natural Hazard Data ............................................................................................................................................................................................ A-6 Methodology Overview .................................................................................................................................................................................... A-13 Real Property Damage Estimations ............................................................................................................................................................ A-14 Insured Assets Roll ............................................................................................................................................................................................ A-36 Data Dictionary .................................................................................................................................................................................................... A-38 Appendix B. Process Documentation ................................................................................................... B-1 Appendix C. Climate Vulnerability Assessment (CVA) ................................................................... C-1

List of Figures
Figure ES 1: Risk Assessment Methodology Summary ................................................................................................................... xv Figure ES 2: Exposure Explanation Graphic ........................................................................................................................................ xvi Figure ES 3: Hazus Damage Estimation Example ............................................................................................................................. xvi Figure ES 4: Sea-Level Risk Exposure Summary ............................................................................................................................ xvii Figure ES 5: Wildfire and FEMA Flood Risk Exposure Summaries ......................................................................................... xviii Figure ES 6: Area Protected by Levee and Concord-Green Valley EQ Exposure Summaries .........................................xix Figure ES 7: Hayward-Rodger’s Creek EQ and Areas with Potential for Liquefaction Exposure Summaries ........... xx Figure ES 8: Tsunami Runup Area and Landslide Risk Exposure Summaries .....................................................................xxi Figure ES-9: Process for Conferring Mitigation Project Benefits ............................................................................................ xxiii

Figure 1-1: Participating Jurisdiction Map ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 3-1: Solano County MHJHMP Planning Process ..................................................................................................................3-2 Figure 3-2: Sample Graphic from Survey ............................................................................................................................................ 3-12 Figure 3-3: RAMP Access at mitigatehazards.com ........................................................................................................................ 3-14 Figure 3-4: RAMP Example of Properties Exposed to FEMA 100-Year Flood Risk in Portions of Vacaville ........... 3-15 Figure 3-5: Categories of Issues Addressed in Problem Statements ....................................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3-6: MAST Elements and Cal OES Grant Applications ................................................................................................... 3-20 Figure 4-1: Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix for Solano County .................................................................................... 4-7 Figure 4-2. Solano County – Geographic Overview ........................................................................................................................ 4-9 Figure 4-3: Total Households & Populations ..................................................................................................................................... 4-11 Figure 4-4: Owners and Renters ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-12 Figure 4-5: Poverty and Median Income ............................................................................................................................................. 4-13 Figure 4-6: Households with Minors and Elders ............................................................................................................................. 4-16 Figure 4-7: Median Household Income Distribution ...................................................................................................................... 4-17 Figure 4-8: Population Under Age 18 .................................................................................................................................................... 4-18 Figure 4-9: Population Over Age 65 ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-19 Figure 4-10: Household Language ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-20 FINAL for adoption Packet Page 49 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 6 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
vii
Figure 4-11: Hispanic Population ........................................................................................................................................................... 4-20 Figure 4-12: Solano County Race Distribution in 2014-2018 ........................................................................................................ 4-21 Figure 4-13: Public Transportation Dependence & Disabilities ................................................................................................. 4-23 Figure 4-14: Solano County Estimated Percentage Change (%) in Jobs by Industry Sector, 2019 to 2030 .............. 4-28 Figure 4-15: Data Source and Method .................................................................................................................................................. 4-29 Figure 4-16: Critical Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................. 4-31 Figure 4-17: Hazard Exposure Explanation Graphic ..................................................................................................................... 4-33 Figure 4-18: Hazus Damage Estimation Example .......................................................................................................................... 4-34 Figure 4-19. Climate Change Vulnerability Scoring Matrix ....................................................................................................... 4-35 Figure 4-20: 2020 LNU Lightning Complex Fires ........................................................................................................................... 4-43 Figure 4-21: Historic Fire Occurrence Map (Fires Greater than 100 Acres, 2000 -2020) .................................................. 4-45 Figure 4-22: Mean Wildfire Return Intervals .................................................................................................................................... 4-47 Figure 4-23: Wildfire Risk Exposure .................................................................................................................................................... 4-48 Figure 4-24: Population Exposed to Wildfire Risk .......................................................................................................................... 4-51 Figure 4-25: Exposure Wildfire Vulnerability and Snapshot Map ........................................................................................... 4-52 Figure 4-26: Solano County Flood Exposure .................................................................................................................................... 4-68 Figure 4-27: Area Protected by Levee .................................................................................................................................................. 4-70 Figure 4-28: BAM 200-YR Flooding and Awareness Zones........................................................................................................ 4-72 Figure 4-29. Repetitive Loss Areas and Loss Data Summary ................................................................................................... 4-74 Figure 4-30: Snug Harbor Repetitive Loss Area .............................................................................................................................. 4-76 Figure 4-31: Howard’s Landing Repetitive Loss Area.................................................................................................................... 4-77 Figure 4-32: Heather Lane Repetitive Loss Area ............................................................................................................................ 4-79 Figure 4-33: Hartly Road Repetitive Loss Area ................................................................................................................................ 4-80 Figure 4-34: Sweeney Creek Repetitive Loss Area ......................................................................................................................... 4-81 Figure 4-35: Population Exposure to Flood (Unincorporated County) ................................................................................... 4-89 Figure 4-36: FEMA Flood Risk Exposure and Snapshot Map .................................................................................................... 4-90 Figure 4-37: Area Protected by Levee (NLD) Exposure .................................................................................................................. 4-91 Figure 4-38: 100-YR Flood Damage Estimation by Occupancy ................................................................................................ 4-99 Figure 4-39: 500-YR Flood Damage Estimation by Occupancy Type ................................................................................... 4-100 Figure 4-40: 100-YR Coastal Flood Damage by Occupancy Type ........................................................................................... 4-101 Figure 4-41: Earthquake Faulting ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-105 Figure 4-42 Solano County Liquefaction Overview .................................................................................................................... 4-106 Figure 4-43: Zones of Required Investigation ................................................................................................................................. 4-111 Figure 4-44: Fault Probability Map for Solano County ................................................................................................................ 4-113 Figure 4-45: Earthquake Shaking Potential ..................................................................................................................................... 4-114 Figure 4-46: M6.8 Concord-Green Valley .......................................................................................................................................... 4-116 Figure 4-47: M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek ..................................................................................................................................... 4-117 Figure 4-48 Solano County Tsunami Runup ................................................................................................................................... 4-119 Figure 4-49: Concord-Green Valley Exposure and Snapshot Map ........................................................................................ 4-122 Figure 4-50: Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Exposure and Snapshot Map ................................................................................... 4-123 Figure 4-51: Population Exposure to M6.8 Concord-Green Valley Scenario (Unincorporated County) ................. 4-124 Figure 4-52: Population Exposure to M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Scenario (Unincorporated County) ............ 4-125 FINAL for adoption Packet Page 50 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 7 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN viii
Figure 4-53: M6.8 Concord Green Valley Damage Estimation by Occupancy .................................................................. 4-143 Figure 4-54: M7.1 Hayward Rodger's Creek Damage Estimation by Occupancy ............................................................. 4-144 Figure 4-55: Solano County - Average Annual Precipitation................................................................................................... 4-150 Figure 4-56: Annual Average Wind Speed (Power Class) ........................................................................................................... 4-151 Figure 4-57: 30-Year Normal Maximum Temperature for July .............................................................................................. 4-152 Figure 4-58: Dried Up Lake Bed at Lagoon Valley Park in Vacaville .................................................................................... 4-163 Figure 4-59: Solano County Drought Severity Timeline 2000-2021 ...................................................................................... 4-165 Figure 4-60: Landslide Risk Exposure............................................................................................................................................... 4-175 Figure 4-61: Landslide Risk Exposure Snapshot ........................................................................................................................... 4-177 Figure 4-62: Landslide Prevention Post-Wildfire .......................................................................................................................... 4-181 Figure 4-63: Sea-Level Rise Potential............................................................................................................................................... 4-192 Figure 4-64: Annual Average Maximum Temperature (RCP 4.5 Scenario) ....................................................................... 4-193 Figure 4-65: Annual Average Maximum Temperature (RCP 8.5 Scenario) ........................................................................ 4-193 Figure 4-66: Current Average Max Temperature .......................................................................................................................... 4-194 Figure 4-67: Projected Average Max Temperature RCP 4.5 2100 ........................................................................................... 4-195 Figure 4-68: Projected Average Max Temperature RCP 8.5 2100 .......................................................................................... 4-196 Figure 4-69: Annual Average Maximum Temperature .............................................................................................................. 4-197 Figure 4-70: Population Exposure to Sea-Level Rise (Unincorporated County) ............................................................. 4-200 Figure 4-71: Sea-Level Rise Vulnerability and Exposure Snapshot ......................................................................................4-202 Figure 5-1: Process to Mitigation Project Benefits ............................................................................................................................ 5-9 Figure 5-2: Mitigation Action Application .......................................................................................................................................... 5-21 Figure 5-3: Mitigation Action Number Key ....................................................................................................................................... 5-24 Figure 6-1: Diagram of MAST Viewing Details ................................................................................................................................... 6-4 Figure 6-2: MAST and Cal OES Grant Applications ......................................................................................................................... 6-6 Figure 6-3: HMGP Timeline ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6-6 Figure 7-1: Hazard Exposure .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 7-2: Flood Depth and Damage Curves .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 7-3: Hazus Damage Estimations .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 7-4: Data Analysis Methodology .................................................................................................................................................. 13 List of Tables
Table 1-1. Date of Jurisdictional Adoptions ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 2-1: Participating Jurisdictions .................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Table 2-2: Cancelled Previous Mitigation Actions ............................................................................................................................2-2 Table 2-3: Completed Previous Mitigation Actions ..........................................................................................................................2-3 Table 3-1: MJHMP Steering Committee ................................................................................................................................................. 3-3 Table 3-2: MJHMP Planning Committee .............................................................................................................................................. 3-4 Table 3-3: MJHMP Update Consultant Team .................................................................................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-4: Planning Committee Meeting Summary ....................................................................................................................... 3-11 Table 3-5: Planning Process Library ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-17 Table 4-1: Document Review Crosswalk .............................................................................................................................................. 4-2 Table 4-2: Hazard Prioritization............................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 FINAL for adoption Packet Page 51 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 8 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
ix
Table 4-3: Disaster Declarations in Solano County 1953 to Present ......................................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-4: Household Income and Poverty Levels ......................................................................................................................... 4-14 Table 4-5: Elderly Households ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-15 Table 4-6: Households with Minors and Single Parents............................................................................................................... 4-16 Table 4-7: Disability Status of Non-Institutionalized Population in Solano County in 2014-2018.............................. 4-23 Table 4-8: Industry by Occupation for the Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over ..................................... 4-26 Table 4-9: Unincorporated Solano County Parcel Counts and Value ..................................................................................... 4-32 Table 4-10: Fire Perimeter Sizes and Dates (100 Acres or Greater 2000-2020) ................................................................... 4-42 Table 4-11 Populations Exposed to Wildfire Risk (Unincorporated County) ........................................................................ 4-51 Table 4-12: Improved Parcel and Content within Wildfire Severity Zones (Unincorporated County) ...................... 4-53 Table 4-13: Critical Facility Exposure to Wildfire Severity Zones (Unincorporated County) ....................................... 4-54 Table 4-14: Lifelines in Wildfire Severity Zones (Unincorporated County) ......................................................................... 4-55 Table 4-15 Wildfire Problem Statements ........................................................................................................................................... 4-56 Table 4-16: Flood Insurance Statistics for Solano County (County-Wide) ........................................................................... 4-63 Table 4-17: Solano County Flood Events Since 2000 ..................................................................................................................... 4-66 Table 4-18: Summary of Discharges in Solano County ................................................................................................................ 4-83 Table 4-19: Summary Population Exposure to Flood (Unincorporated County) ................................................................ 4-89 Table 4-20: Summary Population Exposure to Levee Failure (Unincorporated County) ............................................... 4-89 Table 4-21: Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones (Unincorporated County) ...................................................................... 4-92 Table 4-22: Parcels Exposed to Levee Failure (Unincorporated County).............................................................................. 4-92 Table 4-23: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain ................................................................................................................... 4-93 Table 4-24: Critical Facility Points in Area Protected by Levee ............................................................................................... 4-94 Table 4-25: Lifelines in the Floodplain (Unincorporated County) ........................................................................................... 4-96 Table 4-26: Lifelines in Areas Protected by Levee (Unincorporated County) ..................................................................... 4-97 Table 4-27: 100-YR Flood Damage Estimation by Occupancy Type ....................................................................................... 4-98 Table 4-28: Damage Estimation Summary for 500-YR. Floodplain ...................................................................................... 4-100 Table 4-29: Damage Estimation Summary for 100-YR. Coastal Floodplain ....................................................................... 4-101 Table 4-30 Flood Problem Statements.............................................................................................................................................. 4-103 Table 4-31: Moment Magnitude Scale ............................................................................................................................................... 4-107 Table 4-32: Modified Mercalli Intensity Level Descriptions .................................................................................................... 4-108 Table 4-33: Modified Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration ................................................................................... 4-109 Table 4-34: Earthquakes in or Near Solano County 4.5 Magnitude or Greater Since 2005 ........................................... 4-110 Table 4-35: Population Exposure to M6.8 Concord-Green Valley Scenario (Unincorporated County) ................... 4-124 Table 4-36: Population Exposure to M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Scenario (Unincorporated County) .............. 4-125 Table 4-37: Population Count of Required Investigation and Liquefaction Susceptibility .......................................... 4-126 Table 4-38: Seismic Benchmark Years ............................................................................................................................................. 4-127 Table 4-39: Definitions of FEMA Building Types .......................................................................................................................... 4-128 Table 4-40: Parcel Exposure to M6.8 Concord-Green Valley (Unincorporated County) ............................................... 4-129 Table 4-41: Parcel Exposure to M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek (Unincorporated County) ........................................... 4-129 Table 4-42: Parcel Count of Required Investigation and Liquefaction Susceptibility ................................................... 4-130 Table 4-43: Critical Facility Exposure to M6.8 Concord-Green Valley Scenario (Unincorporated County) .......... 4-131 Table 4-44: Critical Facility Exposure to M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Scenario (Unincorporated County) .... 4-132 FINAL for adoption Packet Page 52 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 9 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN x
Table 4-45: Critical Infrastructure in Zone of Required Investigation and Susceptible to Liquefaction ............... 4-133 Table 4-46: Lifeline Exposure M6.8 Concord-Green Valley Scenario (Unincorporated County) .............................. 4-135 Table 4-47: Lifeline Exposure M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Scenario (Unincorporated County).......................... 4-136 Table 4-48: Critical Lines in Zone of Required Investigation and Susceptible to Liquefaction ................................. 4-137 Table 4-49: Hazus Building Damage Descriptions ....................................................................................................................... 4-142 Table 4-50: Loss Estimations for M6.8 Concord-Green Valley Scenario ............................................................................ 4-143 Table 4-51: Loss Estimations for M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Scenario ........................................................................ 4-144 Table 4-52 Earthquake Problem Statements ................................................................................................................................. 4-146 Table 4-53: Classes of Wind Power Density at 10 m and 50 ma ............................................................................................... 4-149 Table 4-54 Extreme weather Problem Statements ...................................................................................................................... 4-157 Table 4-55: USDA Drought Disaster Declarations for Solano County, 2012 - 2021 ........................................................... 4-163 Table 4-56: Drought Classifications and Impacts for California ............................................................................................ 4-164 Table 4-57: Drought Problem Statements ........................................................................................................................................ 4-170 Table 4-58: Population Exposure to Landslide Susceptibility ................................................................................................. 4-176 Table 4-59: Property Value Exposed to Landslides ...................................................................................................................... 4-178 Table 4-60: Critical Facility Points with Slope Failure Hazard Risk (Unincorporated County) ................................. 4-178 Table 4-61: Critical Facilities (Linear) with Slope Failure Hazard Risk (Unincorporated County) ........................... 4-180 Table 4-62 Slope Failure Problem Statements .............................................................................................................................. 4-182 Table 4-63: Climate Change-Related Hazards and Cross-References in MJHMP .......................................................... 4-183 Table 4-64: Probability of Exceeding Global Mean Sea-level Rise (Median Value) Scenarios in 2100 ................... 4-190 Table 4-65: Population Exposure to Sea-Level Rise (Unincorporated County) ............................................................... 4-200 Table 4-66: Property Values Exposed to Sea-level Rise ............................................................................................................. 4-201 Table 4-67: Critical Infrastructure Points in Sea -Level Rise Regions (Unincorporated County) ..............................4-203 Table 4-68: Miles of Critical Infrastructure (Linear) in Sea-Level Rise Regions (Unincorporated County) ......... 4-204 Table 4-69: Climate Change Problem Statements .......................................................................................................................4-206 Table 5-1: Solano County Planning and Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities ....................................................................... 5-10 Table 5-2: Solano County Administrative and Technical Capabilities ................................................................................... 5-13 Table 5-3: Solano County Fiscal Capabilities Summary ............................................................................................................... 5-14 Table 5-4: Solano County Education/ Outreach Capabilities Summary ................................................................................ 5-15 Table 5-5: Federal and State Funding Opportunities ..................................................................................................................... 5-16 Table 5-6: County Wide Mitigation Action Tracker ....................................................................................................................... 5-25 Table 7-1: Wildfire Hazard Severity Classification .............................................................................................................................. 12 Table 7-2: 100-YR Flood Damage Estimations for Improved Assets ........................................................................................... 14 Table 7-3: 500-YR Flood Damage Estimations for Improved Assets ........................................................................................... 15 Table 7-4. EQ M6.8 Concord Green Valley Damage Estimations for Improved Assets........................................................ 17 Table 7-5: EQ M7.1 Hayward Rodger’s Creek Flood Damage Estimations for Improved Assets ...................................... 26 Table 7-6: Unincorporated County Insured Asset Roll ..................................................................................................................... 36 Table 7-7: Critical Facility Data Dictionary ........................................................................................................................................... 38

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 53 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 10 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
xi

Executive Summary

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 54 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 11 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN xii
Solano County prepared this hazard mitigation plan to guide county and city officials in protecting the people and property within the county from the effects of natural disasters and hazard events. This plan demonstrates Solano County’s commitment to reducing risk from natural hazards through mitigation and serves as a tool to direct county resources to achieve optimum results with available administrative, technical, and financial resources.

The term “hazard mitigation” refers to actions or strategies that can reduce or eliminate long-term risks caused by natural disasters. Mitigation activities can be developed, planned, and implemented before or after a disaster occurs. After disasters, repairs and reconstruction often are completed in such a way as to simply restore damaged property to pre-disaster conditions. These efforts may return property and infrastructure to “the norm”, but the replication of pre-disaster conditions may result in a repetitive cycle of damage and reconstruction. Hazard mitigation planning in Solano County can break this repetitive cycle by reducing vulnerability to hazards through smart construction and proper planning of future development and critical infrastructure. Hazard mitigation activities can be conducted through a wide variety of mitigation strategies, such as construction of regional flood control projects or implementing fuel reduction around buildings within high wildfire risk areas.

What is a hazard mitigation plan?
This hazard mitigation plan provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the county. It also describes how hazards may affect the county and participating jurisdictions differently based upon various relationships to natural hazards. This plan identifies risks to vulnerable assets, both people and property.

Most importantly, the mitigation strategy presented in this plan responds to the identified vulnerabilities within each community and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest risk reduction based upon available resources. Solano County and participating jurisdictions intend to save lives, reduce injuries, reduce property damage, and protect natural resources for future generations through mitigation activities.

Why have a hazard mitigation plan?
The purpose of this Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) is twofold. First, it provides the county and participating jurisdictions continued access to grant funding from FEMA to conduct hazard mitigation activities for participating jurisdictions. Secondly, it provides resources for residents wishing to conduct hazard mitigation efforts by identifying areas of extreme risk and providing financial and technical mitigation resources based upon current gaps.

The passage of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requires proactive pre-disaster planning as a condition of receiving certain federal financial assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Act. DMA 2000 encourages state and local authorities to work together on pre-disaster planning to assist local governments FINAL for adoption Packet Page 55 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 12 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
xiii
to accurately assess mitigation needs, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more cost-effective risk reduction projects under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance program.

Why is the plan updated so often?
Jurisdictions that allow a plan to expire are not able to pursue funding under the Robert T. Stafford Act. As a DMA 2000 requirement, the plan must be updated every five years to remain in compliance with federal mitigation grant conditions. Federal regulations require hazard mitigation plans to include a plan for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the hazard mitigation plan. An update process provides an opportunity to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been accomplished, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of mitigation strategies over time. Grant compliance is contingent on meeting the plan update requirements that are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Who participated in this plan?
The Solano County MJHMP includes all municipalities within the county and geographically covers the entire area within Solano County (hereinafter referred to as the “planning area”). Any local government or non-profit agency with the ability to regulate building or infrastructure development or maintenance may participate in the planning process. However, to obtain FEMA approval, each o f the participating jurisdictions must meet all FEMA planning requirements outline in federal regulations at 44 CFR § 201.6 et seq. A list of jurisdictions that have elected to participate in this MJHMP can be found in Table 2-1.

A Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee was formed to develop and steer content in this plan. The committee consists of Solano County stakeholders, regional agencies, neighboring jurisdictions, and participating jurisdictions who have worked together to create the goals, objectives, mitigation strategies, and implementation methods to reduce risk.

Plan Development and Update Methods
Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards are identified, likely impacts determined, mitigation goals set, and appropriate mitigation strategies identified. This plan documents the hazard mitigation planning process the County and
participating jurisdictions used to increase natural hazard resiliency in the community. Solano County and all
participating jurisdictions followed the recommended FEMA four-step process to develop this 2021 updated plan. This plan update is also the first time all municipalities have joined with the county to develop a multi-jurisdictional plan. In this way, the MJHMP update is a complete revamp and all-inclusive planning process. The update provides clear FINAL for adoption Packet Page 56 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 13 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN xiv
delineation of jurisdiction information, development of a new risk assessment, revaluation of goals and objectives, development of new mitigation actions, new enhancements for implementing mitigation actions, updates to all sections of the 2014 plan, and a new website for stakeholder involvement and public information.

Risk Assessment
The risk assessment measures the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property or infrastructure damage resulting from natural hazards in order to determine vulnerability. For this update, the risk assessment utilized new data and technologies that have become available since 2014. The County and participating jurisdictions used risk assessment information to rank risks and to gauge the potential impacts of each hazard of concern in the planning area. The risk assessment includes:
• Hazard identification and profiling,
• Assessment of the impact of hazards on physical, social, and economic assets, • Identification of particular areas of vulnerability,
• Additional impacts of each hazard due to climate change, and • Estimates of the cost of potential damage.

The following natural hazard threats were identified and profiled as county-wide priority hazards:

Wildfire
SECTION 4.5.1
Earthquake
SECTION 4.5.3
Drought
SECTION 4.5.5
Climate Change
SECTION 4.5.7

Flood
SECTION 4.5.2
Extreme Weather
SECTION 4.5.4
Slope Failure
SECTION 4.5.6

Participating jurisdictions also individually assessed risks applicable to their jurisdictions, and many participating jurisdictions identified fewer than the County-identified hazards. Those jurisdiction-specific profiles are included in Volume 2 of this MJHMP.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 57 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 14 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
xv
Hazard Exposure and Damage Estimation
In Solano County, earthquakes, flooding, slope failure, sea-level rise, and wildfire have known geographic extents and corresponding spatial information, which make exposure and damage estimation possible. In order to describe vulnerability for each hazard, it is important to understand the total population and total assets at risk. This provides the estimated damage and losses expected during a “worst case scenario” event for each hazard. Figure ES 1 provides a summary of how and what data sources are used to provide exposure and damage estimation results. More detail on the risk assessment analysis is provided in Section 4.4 and Appendix A. Exposure and Damage estimation analysis is briefly described in the sections that follow the summary graphic.

Figure ES 1: Risk Assessment Methodology Summary
Population and Asset Exposure
The total counts of parcels, people, facilities, assets, and the sum of values within the planning area which could be exposed to a hazard event is referred to as the “exposure” in this plan. A natural hazards overlay was developed to reflect the combination of many known natural hazard spatial footprints. The spatial overlay method enables summarization of building values, parcel counts, population exposure, and critical facility exposure within a hazard’s geographic extents. See Figure ES 2 exposure example. This method has been used to evaluate exposure for sea-level rise, earthquakes, landslides, flooding, and wildfire. For a more detailed explanation on Risk Assessment Methods, see Section 4.4 and Appendix A.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 58 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 15 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN xvi

Figure ES 2: Exposure Explanation Graphic
Damage Assessments
FEMA’s Hazus software was used to conduct a detailed loss estimation for flood and earthquake. Hazus is a nationally-applicable, standardized methodology that contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. Hazus uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to estimate physical, economic, and social impacts of disasters. For this planning effort, Hazus was used to generate damage estimations due to possible earthquakes and flooding. The estimated damage and losses provided by the Hazus Software is a “worst case scenario” event and provides the ability to understand possible widescale damage to buildings and facilities.

In the hypothetical map in Figure ES 3, even though both structures are exposed to flooding, it is predicted that the structure with a first-floor height below the depth of flooding will receive significantly more damage than the structure with a first-floor height above the expected water depth. For a more detailed explanation on risk assessment methods, see Section 4.4 and Appendix A.

Figure ES 3: Hazus Damage Estimation Example
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 59 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 16 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
xvii
Summary of Vulnerable Assets: People, Property Value, and Infrastructure Hazards with spatial boundaries can be analyzed to demonstrate the amount of population, critical infrastructure, and parcels within each hazard footprint. At-risk populations, critical infrastructure, improved parcels, and loss results for each hazard category are provided in bar chart summary tables throughout this plan to evaluate the percentage of assets exposed to different types of hazards. The side- by-side comparison allows officials to evaluate the impacts of potential hazards to determine toward what hazards to direct energy and financial resources for mitigation activities. For detailed vulnerability assessment information, see the individual hazard specific sections presented in Section 4.5. This Executive Summary provides map summaries for the profiled hazards in Figure ES 5 through Figure ES 8.

The risk assessment for climate change includes an additional climate vulnerability assessment as Appendix C, assessing the county’s climate change-related vulnerabilities (also called areas of concern) according to the impact of climate change on the vulnerability and Solano County’s capacity to adapt to the vulnerability. Each municipality has a climate vulnerability assessment at the end of its annex with its own unique climate vulnerability assessment.

Figure ES 4: Sea-Level Risk Exposure Summary

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 60 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 17 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN xviii

Figure ES 5: Wildfire and FEMA Flood Risk Exposure Summaries

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 61 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 18 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
xix

Figure ES 6: Area Protected by Levee and Concord-Green Valley EQ Exposure Summaries FINAL for adoption Packet Page 62 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 19 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN xx

Figure ES 7: Hayward-Rodger’s Creek EQ and Areas with Potential for Liquefaction Exposure Summaries FINAL for adoption Packet Page 63 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 20 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
xxi

Figure ES 8: Tsunami Runup Area and Landslide Risk Exposure Summaries FINAL for adoption Packet Page 64 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 21 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN xxii
Mitigation Goals
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee created a set of goals for this MJHMP based on review of Solano County’s 2014 HMP, the California HMP, and other more current jurisdictional HMPs. The HMPC elected to closely align with the State’s HMP Goals. The following updated goals guided the HMPC in selecting actions contained in this plan update:

GOAL 1
People
GOAL 2
Infrastructure
GOAL 3
Environment
GOAL 4
Resilience
Significantly reduce risk of
injuries and loss of life
during disaster events.

Minimize damage to
critical infrastructure
and property and
minimize
interruption of
essential services
and activities.

Protect the
environment.

Promote community
resilience through
integration of hazard
mitigation with
public policy and
standard business
practices.

Mitigation Strategy
The mitigation strategies and activities designed to reduce or eliminate losses resulting from natural hazards are the centerpiece of the mitigation planning process. By implementing mitigation actions, participating jurisdictions will become more resilient to disasters. Actions identified in this plan may or may not be geared toward grant funding under Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA). Rather, the focus was the effectiveness in achieving the goals of the plan within each jurisdiction’s capabilities.

Participating jurisdictions individually selected a range of appropriate mitigation actions to work toward achieving the MJHMP’s goals, compiled in Volume 2 jurisdictional annexes to the HMP. In addition, the HMPC and County Steering Committee identified county-wide actions benefiting the whole partnership, as listed in Volume 1.

Mitigation actions are designed to address identified vulnerabilities and to confer community benefits, both indirect governmental benefits to protect the overall community and public benefits that will directly support public landowners, business owners, and other community members.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 65 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 22 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
xxiii

Figure ES-9: Process for Conferring Mitigation Project Benefits

Participating jurisdictions completed mitigation strategies as described in Volume 2. County-wide mitigation actions are summarized in Table ES 1.

County-Wide Mitigation Actions
Table ES 1: County-Wide Mitigation Actions.

Mitigation No. Hazard Type Year Title/Description Priority ma-AH-SC-4 All Hazard 2014 Ensure Hospital Disaster Preparedness Plan is updated Medium ma-AH-SC-5 All Hazard 2014 Develop a Multi-Hazard Community Outreach Plan Medium ma-AH-SC-7 All Hazard 2014 Sponsor the formation and training of Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs)
Medium
ma-AH-SC-8 All Hazard 2014 Expand or participate in expanding traditional disaster exercises and drills involving County emergency personnel.

Medium
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 66 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 23 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN xxiv
Mitigation No. Hazard Type Year Title/Description Priority ma-AH-SC-9 All Hazard 2014 Convene Hazard Mitigation Group to work together to ensure County resiliency
Medium
ma-AH-SC-10 All Hazard 2014 Update GIS Database/Mapping on infrastructure and systems
Medium
ma-AH-SC-11 All Hazard 2014 Add Sirens to Community Warning System High ma-AH-SC-12 All Hazard 2014 Develop Farm and Animal Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans
Medium
ma-AH-SC-14 All Hazard 2014 Conduct Additional Evacuation and Emergency Planning for Solano County
Extreme
ma-DR-SC-162 Drought 2021 Replace irrigated landscaping with drought resistant vegetation and increase use of recycled water for irrigation in County-owned facilities
Medium
ma-DR-SC-163 Drought 2021 Update County's land use code to include incentives for new development to implement drought tolerant landscaping
that requires less water.

High
ma-DR-SC-201 Drought 2021 Develop countywide drought and water shortage contingency plan focused on small water systems and
individual domestic wells.

High
ma-DR-SC-202 Drought 2021 Strengthen review of groundwater supplies in development review standards.

High
ma-EQ-SC-16 Earthquake 2014 Evaluate critical heath facilities Medium ma-EQ-SC-17 Earthquake 2014 Conduct storage tank evaluations Medium ma-EQ-SC-164 Earthquake 2021 Draft Natural Gas Shut-Off Valve Ordinance High ma-EQ-SC-165 Earthquake 2021 Inspect buildings and install seismic shut-off valves on gas fixtures on County-owned critical facilities and lines which currently lack them.

High
ma-EQ-SC-166 Earthquake 2021 Retrofit county-owned historic buildings, and ensure newer building codes are implemented and reinforced throughout the county.

High
ma-EQ-SC-167 Earthquake 2021 Inspect and conduct appropriate retrofits to the 28 County bridges within the 6.8 Concord Green Valley EQ scenario.

High
ma-EQ-SC-168 Earthquake 2021 Conduct annual inspections for weak levees and maintain or improve existing levees in critical condition.

High
ma-EQ-SC-169 Earthquake 2021 Conduct public education campaign on earthquake preparedness and seismic housing retrofits.

High
ma-EW-SC-170 Extreme Weather 2021 Acquire back up generator for Senior Center to ensure ability to provide cooling center.

High
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 67 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 24 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
xxv
Mitigation No. Hazard Type Year Title/Description Priority ma-EW-SC-171 Extreme Weather 2021 Conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of the negative effects of extreme heat; include information on steps that households can take to mitigate these effects such as the location of emergency cooling centers.

High
ma-EW-SC-172 Extreme Weather 2021 Replace dying or dead evergreen vegetation on City properties and in rights-of-way with wind resistant
vegetation and implement annual tree trimming program.

High
ma-FL-SC-19 Flood 2014 Elevate Buildings in the Repetitive Loss Areas High ma-FL-SC-20 Flood 2014 Coordinate the Grants for Building Elevation Between the County and SCWA
Medium
ma-FL-SC-21 Flood 2014 Construct priority detention basin projects and/or other flood improvements.

Medium
ma-FL-SC-24 Flood 2014 Initiate an annual notification of flood risk to the owners of all buildings in special flood hazard areas
Medium
ma-FL-SC-25 Flood 2014 Widen channels for the Ulatis Flood Control Project Medium ma-FL-SC-26 Flood 2014 Conduct outlet improvements for Green Valley Flood Control Project
High
ma-FL-SC-28 Flood 2014 Maintain flood channel maintenance records. High ma-FL-SC-29 Flood 2014 Remove sediment in reservoirs Medium ma-FL-SC-32 Flood 2014 Expand protected private and public open space in the County.

High
ma-FL-SC-173 Flood 2021 Maintain clear passage for water flow in the portion of Suisun Creek west of Fairfield by removing debris twice a year at minimum.

High
ma-FL-SC-174 Flood 2021 Inventory drainages requiring routine debris management; develop debris management schedule and maintain
database for this purpose
High
ma-SF-SC-175 Slope Failure 2021 Conduct appropriate retrofits for County bridges in high landslide areas and reinforce hazardous slopes
High
ma-SF-SC-176 Slope Failure 2021 Assess 2 child-care facilities in high landslide risk areas; assist property owners in appropriate modifications
including slope reinforcements
High
ma-SF-SC-177 Slope Failure 2021 Assess steep slope damages from the 2020 LNU lightning complex fire, including new areas susceptible to slope
failure.

High
ma-WF-SC-34 Wildfire 2014 Conduct annual Defensible Space Inspection Program in the Unincorporated County and enforce Code violations.

Extreme
ma-WF-SC-36 Wildfire 2014 Maintain and improve, where needed, wildfire emergency access
Extreme
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 68 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 25 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN xxvi
Mitigation No. Hazard Type Year Title/Description Priority ma-WF-SC-37 Wildfire 2014 Develop Community Wildfire Prevention Plan (CWPP) for particularly high threat neighborhoods and commuities;
support ongoing community efforts to do the same.

High
ma-WF-SC-38 Wildfire 2014 Establish a County Chipper Program High ma-WF-SC-40 Wildfire 2014 Develop Spatial Data for Wildfire Emergencies High ma-WF-SC-178 Wildfire 2021 Establish egress routes from Travis Air Force Base; potential routes include Walters Road to Highway 12
High

Mitigation Action Implementation
Despite County efforts, no amount of planning or mitigation can prevent disasters from occurring or eliminate the risk and impacts of such events. Hazard events will continue to occur, and the County and participating jurisdictions will take actions to reduce the risks these hazards pose to life, property, and the economy. While this MJHMP identifies opportunities for reasonable mitigation actions, each individual has a responsibility to be aware of the potential hazards where they live and to minimize their own household’s vulnerability.

Solano County’s ability to carry out mitigation is limited to those facilities over which it has authority. The county does not have direct authority over schools, water and sanitation districts, private gas, electric and communication utilities, state and federal highways and facilities, private hospitals, or neighboring cities and tribes. The County will focus on actions within its authority while seeking to cooperatively work with other entities to address mutual areas of vulnerability and interdependence.

Full implementation of the plan’s recommendations will take time and resources. The measure of the plan’s success will be the coordination and pooling of resources within the participating jurisdictions and maintaining these successes over time. Teaming together to seek financial assistance at the state and federal level will be a priority to initiate projects that are dependent on alternative funding sources. This plan was built upon the effective leadership of a multi-disciplined steering committee and a process that relied heavily on public input and support. The plan will succeed for the same reasons.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 69 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 26 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
xxvii

Adoption Records
To comply with DMA 2000, the Solano County Board of Supervisors officially adopted this Solano County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan on DATE TO COME. The adoption of the MJHMP in its entirety recognizes the County’s commitment to reducing the impacts of natural hazards within the cities and county. Other participating jurisdictions adopted Volume 1 and their respective annex. See the Record of Adoptions, below. Adoption resolutions follow.

Table 1-1: Jurisdictional Adoption Dates

Jurisdiction Date of Adoption
Solano County DATES TO COME
City of Vallejo
City of Fairfield
City of Vacaville
City of Suisun City
City of Benicia
City of Dixon
City of Rio Vista
Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District
Solano County Water Agency
Solano Irrigation District
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 70 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 27 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN xxviii

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 71 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 28 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
1-1

Volume 1
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 72 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 29 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 1-2

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 73 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 30 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
1-3
Section 1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose
Solano County and many other participating jurisdictions prepared this Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), updated in 2012, and originally approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2014. The plan in its current form reflects a comprehensive update in 2021. The purpose of this plan is to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of the county from the effects of hazard events. This plan demonstrates the commitment of each participating jurisdiction to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision -makers direct mitigation activities and resources. This plan was also developed to ensure Solano County and participating jurisdictions’ continued eligibility for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants, including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), and Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA). The plan is also important for maintaining and improving the standing of the county in the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System (CRS), participation in which provides for lower flood insurance premiums to residents.

1.2 Background and Scope
Each year in the United States, natural disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters because additional expenses incurred by insurance companies and nongovernmental organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many natural disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be reduced or even eliminated. Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” The results of a three-year, congressionally mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation activities demonstrates that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of $6 in avoided future losses, in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries. (National Institute of Building Sciences, 2017) The Solano County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan geographically covers the entire area within Solano County’s jurisdictional boundaries (hereinafter referred to as the “planning area”). A planning committee was formed to develop and steer content in this plan. The scope of the plan is all of Solano County, with jurisdictional annexes in Volume 2 for each municipal participating jurisdiction.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 74 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 31 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 1-4

1.3 Participating Jurisdictions
This MJHMP includes Solano County and all municipalities within the county, referred to as “participating jurisdictions,” along with Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District, Solano County Water Agency, and Solano Irrigation District, who worked together to create the goals, objectives, mitigation strategies, and implementation methods to reduce natural hazard risk within the planning area. Any jurisdiction or organization may participate in the planning process. However, to obtain Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approval, each local jurisdiction must meet all requirements of hazard mitigation planning outlined in 44 C.F.R. § 201.6. Participating jurisdictions are listed in Table 2-1 and are shown in Error! Reference source not found..

1.4 Why Update This Plan?
Hazard mitigation is a way to reduce or alleviate the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster through long and short-term strategies. It involves strategies such as planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities that can mitigate the impacts of hazards. The responsibility for hazard mitigation lies with many, including private property owners, business and industry, and local, state, and federal governments.

The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) required state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition of federal disaster grant assistance. (Pub. L. No. 106-390; 42 U.S.C. § 5121 et seq.) Prior to 2000, federal disaster funding focused on disaster relief and recovery, with limited funding for hazard mitigation planning. DMA 2000 increased the emphasis on planning for disasters before they occur.

DMA 2000 encourages state and local authorities to work together on pre-disaster planning and promotes sustainability. Sustainable hazard mitigation includes the sound management of natural resources and the recognition that hazards and mitigation must be understood in the broadest possible social and economic context. The enhanced planning network called for by DMA 2000 helps local governments articulate accurate mitigation needs, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more cost-effective risk reduction projects.

Purposes for Planning
This hazard mitigation plan identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risk from natural hazards. Solano County and participating jurisdictions initiated this planning effort for several key reasons.

The planning area has significant exposure to numerous natural hazards that have caused millions of dollars in past damage. Participating jurisdictions want to be proactive in preparing for the probable impacts of natural hazards. Limited local resources make it difficult to implement proactive risk-reduction measures. Federal and state financial assistance is paramount to successful hazard mitigation in the area.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 75 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 32 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
1-5

Elements and strategies in the plan were selected because they best meet the needs of the participating jurisdictions and their citizens. The plan was developed to meet the following objectives:
▪ Meet or exceed requirements of the DMA 2000 and the California legislation requiring the incorporation of climate adaptation strategies into hazard mitigation planning (SB 379). ▪ Enable participating jurisdictions to continue using federal grant funding to reduce risk through mitigation.

Figure 1-1: Participating Jurisdiction Map

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 76 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 33 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 1-6
▪ Meet the needs of all participating jurisdiction members as well as state and federal requirements. ▪ Create a risk assessment that focuses on Solano County hazards of concern. ▪ Create a single planning document that integrates all participating jurisdictions into a framework that supports partnerships within the county and puts all members on the same planning cycle for future updates.
▪ Coordinate existing plans and programs so that high-priority initiatives and projects to mitigate possible disaster impacts are funded and implemented.

1.5 Who Will Benefit from This Plan?
One benefit of multi-jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources and eliminate redundant activities within a planning area with fairly uniform risk exposure and vulnerabilities. FEMA encourages multi-jurisdictional planning under its guidance for the DMA 2000. The plan will help guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout Solano County.

All citizens and businesses of Solano County are the ultimate beneficiaries of this MJHMP. The plan reduces risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the county. It provides a viable planning framework for all foreseeable natural hazards that may impact the county. County stakeholder participation helped ensure that plan outcomes will be mutually beneficial. The resources and background information in the plan are applicable county-wide, and the plan’s goals and recommendations can lay the groundwork for the development and implementation of local mitigation activities and partnerships.

1.6 How to Use This Plan
This plan has been set up in two volumes to separate elements that apply to the whole planning area (Volume 1) from jurisdiction-specific elements (Volume 2):
▪ Volume 1—Volume 1 includes all federally-required elements of a hazard mitigation plan that apply to the entire planning area. This volume includes the description of the planning process, public involvement strategy, goals and objectives, county-wide hazard risk assessment, county-wide mitigation initiatives, and a plan maintenance strategy. Volume 1 includes the following appendices:

Appendix A—Analysis Methodology
Appendix B—Planning Process Documentation
Appendix C—Climate Vulnerability Assessment

▪ Volume 2—Volume 2 includes all federally-required, jurisdiction-specific elements for each participating jurisdiction. All participating jurisdictions have adopted Volume 1 in its entirety and each jurisdiction-specific annex.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 77 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 34 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
2-1
Section 2. What’s New
This section includes background information on the Solano County 2014 Hazard Mitigation Plan, other jurisdictions’ previous hazard mitigation plans, and this MJHMP. This MJHMP is the first multi- jurisdictional plan for Solano County. All participating jurisdictions have previously-developed hazard mitigation plans. Some previously-developed plans are more than a decade old (Vallejo, Dixon), while other plans are currently in effect (Vacaville, Suisun City, Benicia). Some plans expired more recently (Solano County, Fairfield, Rio Vista).

All jurisdictional mitigation actions were reviewed by the jurisdictions’ planning committees. Mitigation actions that were more than a decade old proved difficult to identify and trace development or action history and were severely outdated. Those mitigation actions were not carried forward into this 2021 MJHMP. More recent mitigations have been changed, updated, and revised to reflect new priorities in this MJHMP. The sections below describe the planning process for this update. This update profiles the following hazards:
wildfire, flood, earthquake, extreme weather (including high wind, heavy rain, high heat), drought, slope failure, and climate change (including sea-level rise).

2.1 Participating Jurisdictions in the 2014 HMP vs MJHMP Update This is the first multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan in Solano County. Each municipality in the county is included in this first MJHMP. Table 2-1 identifies each participating jurisdiction along with the expiration date of the jurisdiction’s previous or current HMP.

Table 2-1: Participating Jurisdictions
Planning Area Approx. Population Plan Expiration Date
Solano Co. Unincorp. 438,530 4/8/2019; EC Approved by FEMA City of Vallejo 120,977 4/20/2012; ABAG Regional Effort 2006 City of Fairfield 114,101 3/24/2016; ABAG Regional Effort 2011 City of Vacaville 97,943 1/4/2023
City of Suisun City 29,379 1/17/2023
City of Benicia 28,088 5/14/2022
City of Dixon 19,795 5/16/2011; ABAG Regional Effort 2006 City of Rio Vista 8,618 3/24/2016; ABAG Regional Effort 2011 Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District Serving the greater Vallejo region. Serving wastewater
for ~120,000 people.
5/3/2022
Solano County Water Agency Wholesale water provider for suppliers serving ~400,000
people.
3/24/2016; ABAG Regional Effort 2011
Solano Irrigation District Domestic (primarily Suisun
City) and agricultural water
provider
3/24/2016; ABAG Regional Effort 2011
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 78 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 35 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2-2

2.2 Mitigation Actions
During this MJHMP update process, each of the 2014 county-wide mitigation actions were examined for relevancy and the potential for future implementation and then evaluated for potential follow-up. Some mitigation actions developed during the 2014 HMP effort are an inherent part of the HMP update process or were not detailed enough for implementation at a local jurisdiction level, and thus were not included in this update. The County has made significant changes to other 2014 Mitigation Actions because of the updated risk assessment and implementation strategy, to include more detail, or to update based on current mitigation practices.

Table 2-2 provides a record of cancelled county-wide Mitigation Actions and an explanation for why the mitigation action was cancelled. Successfully completed previous Mitigation Actions for the county are detailed in Table 2-3. Ongoing or pending mitigations actions from previous HMPs are included within the Mitigation Action Plan in Table 5-6.

Information on mitigation actions for other participating jurisdictions are included in each jurisdiction’s annex in Volume 2.

Table 2-2: Cancelled Previous Mitigation Actions
Mitigation
No.

Hazard
Type Status Year
Primary
Agency Title/Description
Responsible
Party Reason Cancelled
ma-EQ-
SC-15
Earthquake Cancelled 2014 Solano
County
Replace or retrofit
water-retention
structures that are
determined to be
structurally
deficient
SID, SCWA, OES No longer a priority, many new
and replaced through SCWA
ma-FL-
SC-23
Flood Cancelled 2014 Solano
County
Conduct home
raising projects to
mitigate flood
damage
SCWA;
Department of
Resource
Management
Covered under ma-FL-SC-19
ma-FL-
SC-30
Flood Cancelled 2014 Solano
County
Create an
interagency flood
control effort
General Services,

SCWA, BOR,

DRM, SID, OES
Not a mitigation action;
coordination is an ongoing
benefit of hazard mitigation
planning.
ma-WF-
SC-39
Wildfire Cancelled 2014 Solano
County
Develop a property
maintenance
inventory for
vacant homes and
parcels
OES, DRM Public
Works, Assessor,
Local Fire
Districts,
Sheriff's Office
Vast majority of homes are
currently occupied, a marked
difference from 2014.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 79 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 36 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
2-3

2.3 New Analysis and Risk Assessment Methodology
The County strengthened this plan by using new research methods and web-based information systems.

Most import to the risk assessment was the development of a web-based and interactive Risk Assessment Mapping Platform (RAMP), which has allowed interactive discovery of risk, vulnerability, and exposure data developed especially for Solano County and the participating jurisdictions. In addition to RAMP, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping and analysis provided the county and participating jurisdictions with the tools and data to develop more comprehensive data sets than those in the 2014 HMP.

Jurisdictions also much more clearly tracked described vulnerabilities (referred to as “problem statements” or “areas of concern” in this MJHMP). Each jurisdiction developed a set of problem statements based off the quantitative risk assessment and lengthy discussions on unmapped vulnerabilities within the jurisdiction.

Mitigation actions were either updated or developed to address these specific vulnerabilities, and Volume 1 and each annex track the connection between problem statement and mitigation action.

This MJHMP also includes a detailed Climate Vulnerability Assessment (CVA) in Appendix C. This CVA examines vulnerabilities for each hazard caused or exacerbated by climate change, assessing the impact of climate change on the vulnerability and Solano County’s capacity to adapt to the vulnerability. Each municipality has an appendix at the end of its annex with its own unique climate vulnerability assessment.

2.4 Successful Mitigation Activities
The 2014 Solano County HMP guiding principle, goals, objectives, and mitigation actions have been implemented through various on-going projects, plans, and programs. The County has made improvements toward reducing natural hazard risks to life and property, with significant risk reduction efforts for floodplain management, flood damage prevention, and fire hazard reduction. Table 2-3 summarizes the completed mitigation actions since 2014. These successful policies, programs, and projects are summarized below.

Table 2-3: Completed Previous Mitigation Actions
Mitigation No.

Hazard
Type Status Year Primary Agency Title/Description Responsible Party ma-AH-SC-2 All Hazard Completed 2014 Solano County Refine Critical Facilities Survey Assessment
Solano County General
Services, DRM
Building Safety, DRM
Public Works
ma-AH-SC-3 All Hazard Completed 2014 Solano County Maintain the Critical Facilities Structural Hazard Mitigation
Program
Solano County General
Services, DRM
Building Safety, DRM
Public Works
ma-AH-SC-6 All Hazard Completed 2014 Solano County Coordinate with Travis Air Force Base to develop joint emergency
planning procedures
Travis AFB EMS, OES
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 80 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 37 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2-4
Mitigation No.

Hazard
Type Status Year Primary Agency Title/Description Responsible Party ma-AH-SC-13 All Hazard Completed 2014 Solano County Adopt the MHMP into the Safety Element of the County General
Plan
DRM Planning, Board
of Supervisors
ma-EQ-SC-18 Earthquake Completed 2014 Solano County Update Solano County Debris Management Plan
DRM Public Works
ma-FL-SC-22 Flood Completed 2014 Solano County Enhance use of the CA DWR Flood Awareness Maps

DRM, OES, SCWA,
Reclamation and
Resource
Conservation Districts
ma-FL-SC-27 Flood Completed 2014 Solano County Develop a flood warning system and plan for Solano County

OES, DWR, SCWA,
Reclamation Districts,
Levee Districts
ma-FL-SC-31 Flood Completed 2014 Solano County Conduct public outreach to high- risk, limited-income families
living in flood hazard areas
OES, Local Fire
Districts
ma-WF-SC-33 Wildfire Completed 2014 Solano County Adopt code compliance with Public Resources Code (PRC)
4291) California's Wildland-
Urban Interface Code
Solano County
Department of
Resource Management
ma-WF-SC-35 Wildfire Completed 2014 Solano County Establish a Hazardous Vegetation Abatement
Ordinance (HVAO)
DRM

2.4.1.1 Mitigation Success Stories
In addition to the completed mitigation actions presented in Table 2-3, this section highlights particular projects that have provided the planning area with significant risk reduction. These mitigation success stories are examples of county departments and stakeholders making Solano County more resilient to hazards within the planning area.

Alert Solano
Solano County, along with municipal jurisdictions in the county, instituted the Alert Solano emergency system since the last HMP. The system enables agencies within Solano County to provide critical emergency and hazard
information quickly. This effort completed a previous mitigation action and provided a higher level of communication throughout the county during recent hazard events. The County hopes to continue this momentum in this MJHMP through mitigation actions to continue evacuation planning and add sirens to the communication system.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 81 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 38 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
2-5
Green Valley Fire Safe Council
Residents in the Green Valley area of Solano County started the county’s only fire safe council, the Green Valley Fire Safe Council (GVFSC), in 2019. The GVFSC was formed to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires through public education, fuel reduction strategies, and mobilizing residents to create defensible zones and harden their homes.

The GVFSC conducted a community wildfire risk assessment in March 2020; developed a community wildfire preparedness action plan; became a nationally recognized Fire Wise designated site; held a Surviving Wildfire Webinar along with numerous presentations to community groups, such a Rotary and Neighborhood Watch; received a grant from the California Fire Foundation; and launched the first free Community Chipping Program to reduce ladder fuels and encourage residents to create defensible space. GVFSC membership consists of residents, community members, members of the Cordelia Fire Protection District (CFPD) and CAL FIRE. See: gvfsc.org/.

SCWA Flood Control Grant Program
The Solano County Water Agency (SCWA) instituted a Flood Control Grant Program to help Solano residents with creek vegetation removal, debris removal, and limited erosion control and sediment retention. “After a break in years of drought, landowners were reminded these past two winters that California’s annual rainfall totals are much more variable than those in other parts of the nation,” SCWA officials wrote in a 2019 news release. “Preparation efforts are one of the most effective ways to help protect Solano County from flood damages.”
The agency has collaborated with the Solano Resource Conservation District (RCD) to identify appropriate project submissions located on private lands, including home raisings as well as levee and drainage improvements. Funding for the program can cover as much as 80 percent of the cost of flood control maintenance and necessary improvements. Flood control would create barriers to suppress high water and prevent erosion while protecting residents’ property, personal safety, and water quality.

2.5 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms
Over the past five years, the 2014 HMP was incorporated into other planning mechanisms as a demonstration of progress in local hazard mitigation efforts. This newly-updated HMP will be referenced in the Solano County’s General Plan Safety Element. This update also will be incorporated into planning documents such as the Capital Improvement Plan, Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Solano County Urban FINAL for adoption Packet Page 82 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 39 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

2-6
Water Management Plan, Climate Action Plan, and the Solano County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan in the future. Other jurisdictions will similarly update General Plans and other planning documents to incorporate the vulnerability assessment and mitigation action strategy from this MJHMP.

Section 6.3.6 outlines planning mechanisms to integrate with the MJHMP and the process for such integration in more detail.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 83 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 40 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
3-1
Section 3. Planning Process
This section describes each stage of the planning process used to develop the MJHMP. The planning process provides a framework for document development and follows the
FEMA recommended hazard planning steps. This MJHMP is
a community-driven, living document. The planning process itself is as important as the resulting plan because it encourages communities to integrate mitigation with
day-to-day decision making. This section
describes each stage of the planning
process.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, as
amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000 (DMA 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 5165), is
intended to “reduce the loss of life and property,
human suffering, economic disruption, and disaster
assistance costs resulting from natural disasters.” Under this legislation, state, tribal, and local governments must develop a hazard mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance through FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance. FEMA regulations
implementing the DMA 2000 are located at 44 C.F.R. § 201.6 et seq.

FEMA prescribes four major planning steps:
▪ Step 1: Organize Resources
▪ Step 2: Assess Risk
▪ Step 3: Develop a Mitigation Strategy
▪ Step 4: Adopt and Implement the Plan
Each jurisdiction that participated in the MJHMP independently followed the FEMA four-step process.

Figure 3-1 provides a detailed, phased breakdown of the planning process that each participating jurisdiction completed. These four steps are integrated with a 10-step planning process that FEMA’s Community Rating System uses to establish floodplain management credit in addition to Flood Mitigation Assistance programs.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 84 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 41 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

3-2

Figure 3-1: Solano County MHJHMP Planning Process

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 85 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 42 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
3-3
STEP 1: Organize Resources
The first step of the MJHMP planning process was organizing resources, consisting of developing the Planning Committee, reviewing relevant existing documents, and organizing public outreach.

Building the Planning Committee
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC or
“Planning Committee”) was comprised of participants
from all participating jurisdictions and stakeholders
who worked together to develop the MJHMP. The
HMPC consisted of a Steering Committee and staff
from participating jurisdictions, as well as a broader
group of regional stakeholders, agencies, and
members of the public, and an HMP consultant used
for plan development and facilitation.

Steering Committee
The Steering Committee was at the core of the MJHMP
planning process and was integral to ensuring the success of the planning process, its implementation, and future
maintenance. Members of the Steering Committee, listed in Table 3-1, consisted of jurisdictional leads from each jurisdiction and was a part of the HMPC, discussed below and in the individual annexes in Volume 2.

Table 3-1: MJHMP Steering Committee
Jurisdiction Point of Contact Title
Solano County Office of Emergency Services Don Ryan Emergency Services Manager City of Benicia Della Olm Administrative Secretary
City of Dixon Todd McNeal Fire Chief
City of Fairfield John Sturdee Fire Battalion Chief
City of Rio Vista Scott Goodwin Interim Fire Chief
City of Suisun City Justin Vincent Fire Chief
City of Vacaville Tim Burke Ass’t Director of Public Works City of Vallejo Terrance Davis Director of Public Works Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District Keith Sorsdal Director of Safety/ Risk Management Solano County Water Agency Jeff Barich Senior Water Resources Engineer Solano Irrigation District Cary Keaton General Manager

PLANNING

COMMITTEE
Regional
Stakeholders
Participating
Jurisdiction Staff
Steering
Committee
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 86 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 43 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

3-4
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
The HMPC was comprised of key decisionmakers with specific expertise to contribute to the planning process from each participating jurisdiction and regional stakeholders. These stakeholders, consisting of relevant regional agencies, neighboring jurisdictions, community groups, and members of the public, were contacted in the early stages of plan development to exchange information and to offer them an opportunity to participate in the process. Many stakeholders joined the HMPC and are listed in Table 3-2. The Planning Committee served as liaisons to the greater community and was involved in the following planning processes:
▪ Structured coordination and meetings;
▪ Collection of valuable local information and other requested data; ▪ Decision making on plan process and content;
▪ Development of mitigation actions;
▪ Review and comment on plan drafts; and
▪ Coordination of the public input process.

All Planning Committee members were included in all communications about the MJHMP and were invited to all Planning Committee meetings. However, not all members attended stakeholder group meetings; some participated by reviewing draft documents or assisting in individual jurisdictional vulnerability assessments and planning committees, with public outreach, or at other stages of the process. Table 3-2 provides a list of the Planning Committee Members. Documentation of Planning Committee invitations and attendance is provided in Appendix B.

County and stakeholder participants also assisted as planning committee members for the update to the county’s Floodplain Management Plan in conjunction with this MJHMP. For this reason, the county planning team members and relevant stakeholders are identified according to their expertise under the Community Rating System (CRS) of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Table 3-2: MJHMP Planning Committee
Solano County MJHMP Planning Committee
NAME TITLE DEPARTMENT CRS Expertise (County &
Stakeholders only)

SOLANO COUNTY
Don Ryan Manager Office of Emergency Services Emergency Services, Public Information
Robyn Rains Assistant Manager Office of Emergency Services Emergency Services, Public Information
Saeed Iravani Building Official Resource Management
Property Protection (e.g.,
elevation), Structural Flood
Control Projects
Ed King Agricultural
Commissioner
Solano County Board of
Supervisors Public Education
Chris Drake Manager Parks Service Natural Resource Protection FINAL for adoption Packet Page 87 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 44 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
3-5
Solano County MJHMP Planning Committee
NAME TITLE DEPARTMENT CRS Expertise (County &
Stakeholders only)
Tom Ferrara Sheriff Solano County Sheriff's Office Emergency Services Jake Armstrong Principal GIS
Coordinator
Department of Information
Technology
Property Protection (e.g.,
elevation), Structural Flood
Control Projects, Public
Information
Matt Tuggle Engineering
Manager Public Works
Property Protection (e.g.,
elevation), Structural Flood
Control Projects
Matt Walsh Principal Planner Department of Resource
Management
Property Protection (e.g.,
elevation)
Allan Calder Planning Manager Department of Resource
Management
Preventative Measures (e.g.
codes), Property Protection (e.g.,
elevation), Natural Resources
Protection, Public Information
Stewart Bruce Senior GIS Analyst Department of Information Technology
Natural Resource Protection,
Structural Flood Control
Projects
John Millea Civil Engineer/
Floodplain Manager
Department of Resource
Management
Property Protection (e.g.,
elevation), Natural Resource
Protection, Structural Flood
Control Projects
Jorge Goicochea GIS Coordinator Department of Information Technology
Natural Resource Protection,
Structural Flood Control
Projects
Nedzelene
Ferrario Senior Planner Community Development
Preventative Measures (e.g.
codes), Natural Resource
Protection

CITY OF BENICIA
Josh Chadwick Fire Chief City of Benicia
Della Olm Administration City of Benicia
Suzanne
Thorsen Planning Manager Community Development
Department – Planning
Danielle Crider Associate Planner Community Development Department – Planning
Rachel O’Shea
Chief Building
Official/Floodplain
Manager
Community Development
Department – Building
Vic Randall Management
Analyst Parks & Community Services
Dan Sequeria
Principal Civil
Engineer (Public
Works/Engineering)
Public Works
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 88 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 45 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

3-6
Solano County MJHMP Planning Committee
NAME TITLE DEPARTMENT CRS Expertise (County &
Stakeholders only)
Terri Davena
Economic
Development
Specialist / City PIO
Economic Development
Department

CITY OF DIXON
Todd McNeal Fire Chief Fire Department
Jim Lindley City Manager City of Dixon
Joel Engrahm Building Inspector II Planning Department
Scott Greeley Associate Planner Planning Department
Joe Leach Director/ City
Engineer Public Works
Dave Horigan Maintenance
Supervisor Parks & Buildings
Sandy Soriano Public Information
Officer City of Dixon
Rachel Ancheta Manager Human Resources & Risk

CITY OF FAIRFIELD
John Sturdee Fire Battalion Chief Fire Department
Stefan Chatwin City Manager City of Fairfield
Bill Way Manager Communications
David Gassaway
Ast. City Manager /
Community
Development
City of Fairfield
Brian Coy Building Inspector Building Department
Jorge Barrera
Sr. Economic
Development
Project Manager
Economic Development
Amy Kreimeier Senior Planner Planning Department
Deanna Cantrell Chief of Police Police Department
Fabe Pariera Police Support
Supervisor Police Department
Steven Conti Fire Marshal Fire Department
George Shimboff Manager Water Distribution
Mike Gray
Public Works
Operations
Superintendent
Public Works Department
Ryan
Panganiban
Assistant Public
Works Director Public Works Department

CITY OF RIO VISTA
Rob Hickey City Manager City of Rio Vista
Scott Goodwin Interim Fire Chief Fire Department
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 89 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 46 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
3-7
Solano County MJHMP Planning Committee
NAME TITLE DEPARTMENT CRS Expertise (County &
Stakeholders only)
Robin Borre Director of Public
Works Public Works
Jackson Harris Police Chief Police Department
Jose Jasso
Assistant City
Manager / City
Clerk
City of Rio Vista
Greg Malcom Public Works
Superintendent Public Works Superintendent
Beth Roberts Recreation &
Facilities Manager Public Works

CITY OF SUISUN CITY
Justin Vincent Fire Chief Fire Department
Greg Folsom City Manager City of Suisun City
Aaron Roth Police Chief Police Department
Matt Medill
Public Works
Director / City
Engineer
Public Works
April Conner Building Technician Building Department
John Kearns Senior Planner Planning Department
Alma Hernandez Council Member City of Suisun City
Nick Lozano Associate Engineer City of Suisun City
Harvey Higgs Contract Building
Official City of Suisun City
Lakhwinder Deol Finance Director Finance Department

CITY OF VACAVILLE
Kris Concepcion Fire Chief Fire Department
Alex Nourot Deputy Fire Chief Fire Department
Tim Burke Assistant Director/
City Engineer Public Works
Fred Buderi
Community
Development
Director
Community Development
Department
Reggie Hubbard Recreation Manager Parks and Recreation
Aaron Busch City Manager City of Vacaville
Jay Salazar Chief Building
Official
Community Development
Department
Girum Awoke Director Public Works Department
Brian McLean Deputy Director Public Works Department
Jill Childers Manager Fire Prevention Bureau
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 90 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 47 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

3-8
Solano County MJHMP Planning Committee
NAME TITLE DEPARTMENT CRS Expertise (County &
Stakeholders only)
Curt Corbett GIS Coordinator Information Technology
Department
Justen Cole Assistant Director Utilities Department
Ian Schmutzler Police Captain Police Department

CITY OF VALLEJO
Byron Berhel Emergency
Manager Fire Department
Terrance Davis Director of Public
Works Public Works Department
Christina
Ratcliffe
Interim Planning
and Development
Services Director
Planning Department
Margaret
Kavanaugh Planning Manager Planning Department
Melissa
Cansdale Associate Engineer Water Dept. (Distribution and Treatment Plants)
Sal Nuno
Maintenance
Superintendent –
GVRD
Parks
Armond Sarkis Risk Manager City of Vallejo
Addison LeBlanc Assistant Engineer Water Department
Ben Smith Risk Analyst Public Works Department

VALLEJO FLOOD AND WASTEWATER DISTRICT
Keith Sorsdal Director Safety and Risk Management
Jeff Tucker Director Finance
Jennifer
Harrington Director Environmental Services
Johnson Ho Director Operations and Maintenance
Justin Keating Director Field Operations
Mark Tomko Director Engineering

SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY
Jeff Barich Senior Water
Resources Engineer Engineering
Alex Rabidoux Principal Water
Resources Engineer Engineering
Gustavo Cruz Assistant Water
Resources Engineer Engineering
Katherine
Ashley
Administrative
Assistant Administration
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 91 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 48 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
3-9
Solano County MJHMP Planning Committee
NAME TITLE DEPARTMENT CRS Expertise (County &
Stakeholders only)
Rich Marovich Streamkeeper Lower Putah Creek Coordinating Committee
Sandra
Willingmyre Accountant I Accounting and Human
Resources
Thomas Pate
Water Policy
Analyst/District
Engineer
Engineering

SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Cary Keaton General Manager
Paul Fuchslin Director Engineering
Matt Hobbs Director Operations
Cammie Morin Director Finance
Bao Nguyen Engineering GIS Engineering
James Daniels District Engineer Engineering/ Suisun Solano Water Authority

NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS
Leah
Greenbaum
Emergency
Services Officer Napa County Emergency Services, Public Information
George Booth Department of
Water Resources Sacramento County Structural Flood Control Projects, Public Information
Dana Carey Manager Yolo County Office of
Emergency Services
Emergency Services, Property
Protection (e.g., elevation)
Darryl
Brundidge Travis AFB US Air Force Emergency Services, Public Information
David Lin Travis AFB US Air Force Property Protection (e.g., elevation), Public Information
Robert McGaha Travis AFB US Air Force Property Protection (e.g., elevation), Public Information
Rick Kovar Emergency
Manager Contra Costa County Emergency Services, Public Information
Meredith
Gerhardt
Senior Emergency
Management
Coordinator
Contra Costa County Emergency services, Property
protection (e.g. elevation)
Kurt Johnson Emergency
Services Planner Yolo County Emergency services, Property protection (e.g., elevation)

REGIONAL AGENCY OR COMMUNITY GROUP
Jesse Payne Director Northern Solano Association of
Realtors
Property Protection (e.g.,
elevation), Public Information
Doris Goodrich General Manager Suisun Fairfield Cemetery District
Property Protection (e.g.,
elevation), Public Information
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 92 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 49 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

3-10
Solano County MJHMP Planning Committee
NAME TITLE DEPARTMENT CRS Expertise (County &
Stakeholders only)
Kelly Huff District Manager Dixon Resource Conservation District
Property protection (e.g.,
elevation), Natural resource
protection
Denise
Kirchubel Director Northern Solano County
Association of Realtors
Property protection (e.g.,
elevation), Public Information
Julie Coffey Realtor and Fire
Victim Public Information
Leo Callejas President Solano County Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce Public Information
Elana Karoulina Executive Director Sustainable Solano
Property protection (e.g.,
elevation), Natural resource
protection, Public Information
Jonathan Erwin

Resilient
Neighborhoods
Program Manager
Sustainable Solano
Property protection (e.g.,
elevation), Natural resource
protection, Public Information

WILDFIRE STAKEHOLDER
Dave Carpenter Fire Chief Cordelia Fire District
Property protection (e.g.,
elevation), Natural resource
protection, Public Information
Paul Speed Director of
Facilities/Ops
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School
District
Property protection (e.g.,
elevation), Natural resource
protection, Public Information
Michael
O'Connor Fire Chief Montezuma Fire Protection
District
Property protection (e.g.,
elevation), Natural resource
protection, Public Information

Consultant Team
The County enlisted consulting firm Dynamic Planning + Science (DP+S) due to its expertise in assisting public sector entities with developing hazard mitigation plans. DP+S facilitated the planning process, collected and analyzed data, produced meeting materials, and produced drafts of the MJHMP for review.

The MJHMP Consultant Team, as shown in Table 3-3, consisted of a variety of hazard mitigation and certified urban planning professionals.

Table 3-3: MJHMP Update Consultant Team
HMP Update Project Team Role
Ethan Mobley, AICP Project Manager
Brian Greer GIS Manager/Spatial Analyst
Torie Jarvis Outreach Manager, Planning Manager
Alex Krebs GIS Associate
Raini Ott Hazard Mitigation Planner
Clare Peabody Hazard Mitigation Planner

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 93 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 50 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
3-11
Planning Committee Meetings
The HMPC met throughout the development of the updated MJHMP. Table 3-4 charts those meetings, including date, type, and topics discussed. Meeting documentation, including agendas, hazard maps, PowerPoint presentations, minutes, sign-in sheets, and other relevant handouts are provided in Appendix B.

Table 3-4: Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Date Meeting Type Topics
December
16th, 2020
Kickoff Meeting
with Steering
Committee
▪ Review Planning Team activities
▪ Review Scope of Work
▪ Review expectations of Steering Committee and jurisdictional planning committees
December
16th, 2020
Meeting #1 ▪ Mitigation Planning Defined
▪ Project and Website Review
▪ FEMA Hazard Mitigation Program
▪ 2014 Mitigation Plan Review and What has Changed?
▪ Review Outreach Materials
January 27th,
2021
Meeting #2 ▪ Hazard Prioritization Exercise
▪ Community Vulnerability and Risk Assessment
▪ Hazard Problem Statement Review
▪ Review Preliminary Survey Results & Outreach Materials February 17th,
2021
Meeting #3 ▪ Review Mitigation Alternatives
▪ Setting Plan Goals
▪ Aligning Mitigation Strategy with HMA Funding

Review and Incorporation of Existing Documents
The Planning Committee and Consulting Team reviewed and incorporated existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information in the formation of this MJHMP. The review of past documents is described more in Section 4.1. Those documents are cited throughout the hazard profiles (Section 4.5) and are examined more closely both in the Capabilities Assessment (Section 5.4) and in each hazard profiles’ plans, policies, and regulatory environment section.

All documents cited in this MJHMP are included in Section 7, Works Cited.

Public Involvement and Outreach
Public involvement is an important and requisite component of any MJHMP. The public outreach strategy for this MJHMP maximized public involvement throughout the planning process and utilized websites, local media, and community efforts. Due to the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic during the development of this HMP, all outreach was conducted digitally.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 94 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 51 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

3-12
As required by FEMA, the general public was given an opportunity to be involved in the planning process while developing the MJHMP through surveys, a project website, and public review periods. Each is described below.

Public Survey
An eight-question community survey was distributed by the County via a number of online platforms. A total of 1,842 survey responses were collected in English and an additional eight in Spanish. The results of the survey were used to ensure that the priorities of the county and participating jurisdictions match those of the community members.

Figure 3-2: Sample Graphic from Survey
HMP Update Website
For this MJHMP, a project portal at mitigatehazards.com/solanohmp/ served and will continue to serve as a centralized project information and file-sharing platform. This website provides a tool for project management, collaborative content, and a one-stop-shop for mitigation planning resources.

In addition to internal coordination, the project
portal played a critical role in public involvement
throughout the planning process and
documenting public involvement, including the
community survey, meetings, and working
sessions. Resources such as the Risk Assessment
Mapping Platform (RAMP) and links to all meeting
summaries are available to the public via the
website. Project participants and stakeholders
used the website as a project resource for the
duration of the planning process and will continue
to have access during the five-year update cycle
and beyond.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 95 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 52 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
3-13
Public Review of Draft HMP
The public reviewed the draft MJHMP during August of 2021, including at a public meeting held virtually on August 16, 2021. The County and several other jurisdictions announced the available public draft via their websites, and the drafts were available at http://mitigatehazards.com/solanohmp/ . The public was able to provide comment via a collaborative PDF, an online submission form, or email. The County made considerable changes to Volume 1 and mitigation actions in particular based on productive public feedback.

Notably, given the severe wildfire season of 2020, many comments focused on vulnerabilities and mitigation actions for wildfire. The notice and response to comments received are available in Appendix B.

STEP 2: Assess the Risk
In accordance with FEMA requirements, the HMPC identified and prioritized the natural hazards affecting both Solano County as a whole and each participating jurisdiction individually. It also assessed the vulnerability of those identified hazards. The risk assessment informed appropriate mitigation actions. The process is described in this section, and the substance of this risk assessment is detailed in Section 4.

Identify and Profile Hazards
Based on a review of past hazard events, existing plans, reports, and other technical studies, data, and community knowledge, the Planning Committee determined if regional hazards could affect the planning area. The Planning Committee prioritized hazards based on probability of occurrence and impact upon occurrence. The resulting risk matrices are in Volume 1 for the overall county and in each participating jurisdiction’s annex in Volume 2.

Assess Vulnerabilities
Assessing vulnerabilities exposes the unique characteristics of individual hazards and begins the process of narrowing down which areas within Solano County are vulnerable to specific hazard events. The vulnerability assessment included a GIS overlaying method for examining such vulnerabilities more in- depth. Participating jurisdictions reviewed GIS vulnerability information and completed this exercise both singly and jointly with the county and supplemented produced information by meeting and discussing areas of concern regarding each prioritized hazard. Identified hazards varied widely depending on the geographic make-up of, priorities of, and services provided by the participating jurisdiction. Using these methods, jurisdictional planning committees estimated vulnerable populations, infrastructure, and potential losses from hazards.

Participating jurisdictions also assessed areas of concern under each prioritized hazard for climate change- specific vulnerabilities. This step forms each jurisdiction’s Climate Vulnerability Assessment. For each area of concern, the participating jurisdiction first considered whether the vulnerability was related to clima te change. If so, the jurisdiction then assessed the impact of climate change on the vulnerability and the county’s capacity to adapt to the vulnerability. The CVA is found in in Appendix C and as appendices to each jurisdictional annex.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 96 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 53 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

3-14
Updated content for each hazard profile for the county, including vulnerability, is provided in Section 4.5.

Participating Jurisdictions have individual, FEMA-compliant annexes in Volume 2.

Web-Based Risk Assessment Mapping and Analysis
The web-based and interactive Risk
Assessment Mapping Platform
(RAMP), accessed via the project
website at
mitigatehazards.com/solanohmp/,
allows interactive discovery of risk,
vulnerability, and exposure data
developed especially for Solano
County. RAMP is a mapping platform
built specifically for mitigation
planning. It displays county facilities
and buildings overlaid with natural
hazards layers to bring interactivity
and individual discovery to the GIS
analysis performed for the MJHMP.

Figure 3-3 shows the location of
RAMP on the project website.

The HMPC used RAMP to understand vulnerabilities to the county and participating jurisdiction populations, critical facilities, and properties exposed to hazards with spatial footprints. Users interactively filter facilities and buildings by natural hazard zones and construction characteristics.

RAMP’s robust data filtering and summation calculations allow the user to understand and visualize vulnerabilities at the facility level with detailed information on the number of structures exposed to various natural hazards. RAMP enables Solano County to pinpoint vulnerabilities and reinforces problem statements in the mitigation strategy. Figure 3-4 demonstrates the RAMP web-based interface.

Figure 3-3: RAMP Access at mitigatehazards.com
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 97 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 54 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
3-15

Figure 3-4: RAMP Example of Properties Exposed to FEMA 100-Year Flood Risk in Portions of Vacaville STEP 3: Develop a Mitigation Strategy

This plan provides a strategy and blueprint for reducing potential losses identified in the risk assessment based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and participating jurisdictions’ abilities to expand on and improve existing tools. MJHMP development included identifying goals, assessing existing capabilities, reviewing goals in the existing HMP, and identifying new mitigation actions. The MJHMP was prepared in accordance with requirements from DMA 2000, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and FEMA’s HMP guidance. The process is described below; the substance of the mitigation strategy is detailed in Section 5 for the county and within Volume 2 for each participating jurisdiction.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 98 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 55 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

3-16
Identify Goals
The Planning Committee reviewed the goals of recent jurisdictional HMPs and the California Hazard Mitigation Plan and determined to craft MJHMP goals consistent with the California HMP and consistent with HMP and FEMA requirements. The goals were updated to meet the current hazard environments and to be consistent with the changing policies and goals of participating jurisdictions. The goals are presented in Section 5.4.6.

Develop Capabilities and Adaptive Capacity Assessment
A capabilities assessment is a comprehensive review of participating jurisdictions’ capabilities and tools to implement the mitigation actions in the MJHMP. Capabilities assessments include considerations of a community’s adaptive capacity for climate change, which is a community or region’s existing ability to moderate climate change impacts. The Planning Committee identified technical, financial, and administrative capabilities to implement mitigation actions, as detailed in Section 5.4) Each participating jurisdiction’s planning committee explored varying jurisdictional capabilities in Volume 2 annexes.

Identify Hazard Problem Statements
The Planning Committee developed mitigation actions to address problems that could originate from hazards identified in the risk assessment, in line with identified capabilities of each jurisdiction. Mitigation actions were created first by developing problem statements for prioritized hazards. Best practice is for each hazard problem statement to be mitigated with a combination of short-term and long-range planning activities, and through both operational and physical projects. Hazard problem statements are located at the conclusion of each hazard profile in table format in Volume 1, in table format for each jurisdictional annex, and are also uploaded in an interactive web-based Mitigation Action Support Tool (MAST), described below.

Hazard problem statements for the county and other participating jurisdictions are categorized as impact- related, victim-related, or threat-related, as seen in Figure 3-5.

Figure 3-5: Categories of Issues Addressed in Problem Statements ▪Casualties
▪Property Damage
▪Business
Interruption
▪Financial Loss
▪Environmental
Contamination
▪School Children in
High Hazard Areas
▪Care Facilities in
High Hazard Areas
▪Vulnerable
Population
Exposed to Hazards
▪Increased Fuels due to
Drought
▪Hotter, Drier Climate
▪More Intense Storms
▪Impervious Surfaces
▪Increases of Invasive
Species
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 99 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 56 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
3-17
Identify Mitigation Actions
As part of the MJHMP planning process, the HMPC reviewed and analyzed the status of the mitigation actions identified in jurisdictional HMPs; some jurisdictional HMPs were more than a decade old, and mitigation actions were determined to be outdated. The Planning Committee and participating jurisdictions then worked together to identify and develop new mitigation actions with implementation elements.

Additional detail on these mitigation actions is provided in Section 5.6.2).

Mitigation Action Support Tool (MAST)
Hazard problem statements and mitigation activities are presented and will be updated through a web interface application developed specifically for participating jurisdictions, creating a living document that can continue to be a valuable resource into the future. The Mitigation Action Support Tool (MAST) is accessible through mitigatehazards.com/solanohmp/.

MAST is a web-based interactive tool that enables multiple users to search, view, enter, and upda te mitigation actions, ideas or projects, and other information. MAST provides participating jurisdictions and plan reviewers (Cal OES and FEMA) access to valuable mitigation information that can be leveraged by future planning or other risk reduction efforts within the county. Participating jurisdictions can update the status of their mitigation projects throughout the planning lifecycle, and this web-based tool will improve participating jurisdictions’ ability to apply for FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs, including initial grant application processes through Cal OES.

County Planning Processes Library
Solano County has completed the MJHMP planning process per FEMA guidelines. This process is detailed in this section, and consists of the elements reflected in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5: Planning Process Library
Jurisdiction Planning Library Links
Solano County
Risk Assessment – View Maps / Download Maps
Hazard Prioritization – View Risk Matrix
Areas of Concern – View Problem Statements
Capability Assessments – View Capability Assessment
City of Vallejo
Risk Assessment – View Maps / Download Maps
Hazard Prioritization – View Risk Matrix
Areas of Concern – View Problem Statements
Capability Assessments – View Capability Assessment
City of Fairfield
Risk Assessment – View Maps / Download Maps
Hazard Prioritization – View Risk Matrix
Areas of Concern – View Problem Statements
Capability Assessments – View Capability Assessment
City of Vacaville
Risk Assessment – View Maps / Download Maps
Hazard Prioritization – View Risk Matrix
Areas of Concern – View Problem Statements
Capability Assessments – View Capability Assessment
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 100 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 57 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

3-18
Jurisdiction Planning Library Links
City of Suisun City
Risk Assessment – View Maps / Download Maps
Hazard Prioritization – View Risk Matrix
Areas of Concern – View Problem Statements
Capability Assessments – View Capability Assessment
City of Benicia
Risk Assessment – View Maps / Download Maps
Hazard Prioritization – View Risk Matrix
Areas of Concern – View Problem Statements
Capability Assessments – View Capability Assessment
City of Dixon
Risk Assessment – View Maps / Download Maps
Hazard Prioritization – View Risk Matrix
Areas of Concern – View Problem Statements
Capability Assessments – View Capability Assessment
City of Rio Vista
Risk Assessment – View Maps / Download Maps
Hazard Prioritization – View Risk Matrix
Areas of Concern – View Problem Statements
Capability Assessments – View Capability Assessment
Solano County Water Agency
Risk Assessment – View Maps / Download Maps
Hazard Prioritization – View Risk Matrix
Areas of Concern – View Problem Statements
Capability Assessments – View Capability Assessment
Solano Irrigation District
Risk Assessment – View Maps / Download Maps
Hazard Prioritization – View Risk Matrix
Areas of Concern – View Problem Statements
Capability Assessments – View Capability Assessment
Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District
Risk Assessment – View Maps / Download Maps
Hazard Prioritization – View Risk Matrix
Areas of Concern – View Problem Statements
Capability Assessments – View Capability Assessment

Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Process
Multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation planning offers many benefits, such as increased coordination and efficiency in planning and implementation efforts. At the same time, each jurisdiction has specific hazards and specific mitigation actions that must be addressed individually. The MJHMP balances the benefits of a comprehensive, coordinated approach to hazard mitigation with the specific realities of individual participating jurisdictions. Multi-jurisdiction plans are contemplated under FEMA regulations at 44 C.F.R. § 201.6(4).

Volume 2 of this MJHMP documents each jurisdiction’s HMP resources. Each participating jurisdiction individually assessed hazards and capabilities, explored hazard vulnerability, developed mitigation strategies, and followed the same planning process as Solano County to create annexes. Volume 2 provides each participating jurisdiction’s stand-alone annex.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 101 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 58 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
3-19
STEP 4: Adopt and Implement the Plan
Once the risk assessment and mitigation strategy were completed, information, data, and associated narratives were compiled into the MJHMP. Section 2 provides detailed information on new and updated elements of the MJHMP.

Plan Review and Revision
Once the draft MJHMP update was completed, a public and government review period was established for official review and revision. Public comments were solicited through social media and a public meeting, then accepted, reviewed, and incorporated into this update. Applicable comments from the public were received and addressed prior to authorization to submit to FEMA and Cal OES. The notice of the public comment period is included in Appendix B.

Plan Adoption and Submittal
This plan has been submitted and approved by FEMA and adopted by all participating jurisdictions. Copies of the resolutions are provided in Executive Summary section of this document.

Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan
The true worth of any mitigation plan is its implementation and success under FEMA’s grant programs. This MJHMP has been assembled to reduce the risk of natural hazards, and also to meet the requirements of the DMA 2000 and maintain eligibility under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs.

FEMA administers three programs that provide funding for local agencies with approved mitigation plans:
▪ Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which assists in implementing long-term hazard mitigation planning and projects following a Presidential major disaster declaration. ▪ Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), which provides funds for hazard mitigation planning and projects on an annual basis.
▪ Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), which provides funds for planning and projects to reduce or eliminate risk of flood damage to buildings that are insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on an annual basis.

For more information about FEMA HMA, visit fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-assistance.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 102 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 59 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

3-20
Plan Maintenance
The County will update and monitor this plan in accordance with all FEMA requirements in order to maintain eligibility for FEMA HMA. Evaluation and revision procedures for this plan are detailed in Section

6. Section 6 includes the measures Solano County and other participating jurisdictions will take to ensure the MJHMP’s continuous long‐term implementation, including MJHMP monitoring, reporting, evaluation, maintenance, and updates. Most of this implementation and maintenance will be done through MAST.

Figure 3-6 demonstrates how MAST information will translate into Cal OES Notices of Interest (NOIs) and grant sub-application requests. Section 6 also contains specifics on integrating mitigation with day-to-day decision making.

Figure 3-6: MAST Elements and Cal OES Grant Applications

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 103 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 60 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-1
Section 4. Risk Assessment
The risk assessment measures the potential impact on life, property, and the economy resulting from natural hazards. The intent of the risk assessment is to identify the qualitative and quantitative vulnerabilities of a community to the greatest extent possible given available data. The risk assessment increases understanding of natural hazard impacts to the community and provides a foundation to develop and prioritize mitigation actions. In turn, mitigation actions reduce damage from natural disasters through increased preparedness and focus resources to areas of the greatest vulnerability.

This risk assessment section evaluates potential losses from a hazard event by assessing the vulnerability of buildings, infrastructure, and people. It identifies the characteristics and potential consequences of hazards, explores how much of the county could be affected by a hazard, and assesses the impact on county assets. The risk assessment approach consists of three components:
▪ Hazard Identification and Screening (Section 4.1)
▪ Hazard Prioritization (Section 4.1.3)
▪ Vulnerability Assessment and Hazard Profiles (Section 4.5) Other sections provide background and context for the risk assessment. Section 4.3 provides a geographic and demographic overview of Solano County. Section 4.4 explains the methods utilized in the risk assessment.

4.1 Hazard Identification and Screening
Per FEMA guidance, the first step in developing the risk assessment is identifying the hazards. This step includes two parts. First, the Planning Committee considered and screened a broad set of hazards presented in relevant local, regional, and statewide hazard planning documents. The crosswalk of documents reviewed and the results of screening the relevant hazards are outlined in Section 4.1.1 below. Second, the HMPC considered past hazard events in Solano County to help prioritize hazards to be evaluated in this document, as outlined in Section 4.1.2.

Hazard Screening
The MJHMP Planning Committee first reviewed previously-prepared hazard mitigation plans and other relevant documents to determine the realm of natural hazards that have the potential to affect the county and the nearby region. Table 4-1 provides a crosswalk of hazards identified in the 2014 Solano County HMP, 2008 Solano County General Plan, and the 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Through this thorough document review, there were 17 different hazards identified. The crosswalk was used to develop a preliminary hazards list, providing a framework for the MJHMP Planning Committee to evaluate which hazards were truly relevant to participating jurisdictions and which were not. For example, volcanoes were considered to have no relevance to the county, while climate change, earthquake, flood, dam failure, landslide, and wildfire were indicated in every hazard document.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 104 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 61 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-2

Table 4-1: Document Review Crosswalk
Hazards
2014 Solano County
HMP
2008 Solano County
General Plan
2018 California State
HMP
Agricultural Pests ■
Climate Change ■ ■ ■
Dam Failure ■ ■ ■
Drought ■ ■
Earthquake ■ ■ ■
Flood ■ ■ ■
Insect Hazards
Landslide ■ ■ ■
Levee Failure ■ ■
Manmade Hazards ■
Pandemic Disease ■
Sea Level Rise ■ ■ ■
Extreme weather ■ ■
Soil Hazards ■ ■
Terrorism & Tech
Hazards
■
Tsunami ■
Volcano ■
Wildfire ■ ■ ■
The crosswalk provided the basis for further prioritizing hazards, displayed in Table 4-2. The prioritized hazards have detailed hazard profiles in Section 4.5, the vulnerability assessment.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 105 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 62 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-3
Table 4-2: Hazard Prioritization
Hazard Type Explanation
Climate Change High priority county-wide, profiled hazard.

Dam/ Levee failure
Dam failure is possible in Solano County but is best addressed in other plans, specifically Emergency Action Plans for high hazard dams affecting Solano County.

Drought High priority county-wide, profiled hazard.

Earthquake/ Geologic Hazards High priority county-wide, profiled hazard.

Flood High priority county-wide, profiled hazard.

Hazardous Material While hazardous materials can release and impact the county, there are better avenues to address this hazard outside of this plan.

High Winds/ Straight Line Winds High priority county-wide, profiled as part of Extreme Weather.

Insect Hazards While hazardous insects exist in Solano County, this was not considered a priority and is not profiled in this plan.

Pandemic Disease* While pandemic disease can impact the county, there are better avenues to address this hazard outside of this plan.*
Extreme Weather, including: High priority county-wide for high wind, heavy rain, and high heat.

Extreme Heat Profiled as part of Extreme Weather.

Hail Hail events are rare in the county and not considered a priority.

High Wind Profiled as part of Extreme Weather.

Heavy Rain Profiled as part of Extreme Weather.

Fog Fog events are rare in the county and not considered a priority.

Lightning Not a priority as an extreme weather event; discussed as a source of wildfire.

Severe Thunderstorm Severe thunderstorms were not identified as a priority in this plan.

Winter Storm/ Extreme Cold/
Freeze Events
Winter storms are rare in Solano County and not identified as a priority for this plan.

Slope Failure High priority county-wide, profiled hazard.

Soil Hazards While limited soil hazards exist in Solano County (erosion and shifting soils), these are not prioritized in this plan; erosion is discussed under Flood.

Terrorism/Human Caused Threats
While terrorism is certainly a threat to the county and participating jurisdictions, it is best addressed in other plans as this HMP does not address human-caused threats except as discussed under Climate Change.

Tornado Impacts to the county from tornados are extremely unlikely and this hazard was not considered a priority.

Volcanic Activity Due to the distance from volcanoes and the limited chance of an eruption, this hazard was not identified as a priority.

Wildfire High priority county-wide, profiled hazard.
*Note regarding Pandemic Disease: While in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Solano County determined that pandemic disease was not a priority in this Hazard Mitigation Plan because it is already addressed in the county’s Pandemic Influenza Emergency Response Plan (June 2014 draft). This document and work under it reside in the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) office of the Solano County Department of Public Health. Rather than develop a second, possibly overlapping, redundant, or conflicting document, the County elected to defer to the existing and ongoing work of the EMS office.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 106 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 63 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-4
Past Major Hazard Events
One important consideration in identifying and prioritizing hazards is past major hazard events, especially those that triggered federal or state disaster declarations. The MJHMP Planning Committee reviewed and considered past major hazard events in Solano County as part of the screening and identification process.

Most available information on major past hazard events comes from federal or state disaster declarations.

These declarations may be granted when the severity and magnitude of an event surpasses the ability of the local government to respond and recover. Additional federal or state disaster funding (or both) is generally available in response to a disaster declaration. State funding assistance is provided when a local government’s capacity to respond to the disaster is exceeded. Should the disaster be so severe that both the local and state governments’ capacities are exceeded, a federal emergency or disaster declaration may be issued, allowing for the provision of federal assistance.

The federal government may issue a disaster declaration through FEMA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), or the Small Business Administration (SBA). FEMA also issues emergency declarations, which are more limited in scope and do not include the long-term federal recovery programs that accompany major disaster declarations. Quantity and types of damage are the determining factors.

Solano County has received 27 federal disaster declarations1 since 1953, some of which were statewide, including:

7 Wildfires

6 Floods

9 Extreme Weather Events

1 Drought

2 Earthquakes

2 Biological Events
Extreme weather and flooding events are most likely to occur in the winter months, with 25 of the 54 federally-declared disasters occurring in January and February since 1953 in California. Wildfires have typically occurred in late summer and fall, with 188 wildfire declarations from July through October since 1953. Table 4-3 lists federal disaster declarations in Solano County since 1953.

1 Officially, 28 disasters have been declared, as California was declared as part of the Hurricane Katrina evacuation; however, no disaster occurred in California.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 107 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 64 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-5
Table 4-3: Disaster Declarations in Solano County 1953 to Present Year Incident Description Disaster Number
8/22/2020 Wildfires DR-4558-CA
8/18/2020 LNU Lightning Fire Complex FM-5331-CA
3/22/2020 COVID-19 Pandemic DR-4482-CA
3/13/2020 COVID-19 EM-3428-CA
10/10/2017 Wildfires DR-4344-CA
10/9/2017 Atlas FM-5214-CA
4/2/2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides DR-4308-CA 2/14/2017 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides DR-4301-CA 7/23/2015 Wragg Fire FM-5091-CA
9/11/2014 Earthquake DR-4193-CA
6/22/2008 Wildfires FM-2776-CA
2/3/2006 Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides DR-1628-CA 9/13/2005 Hurricane Katrina Evacuation (National) EM-3248-CA 2/9/1998 Severe Winter Storms and Flooding DR-1203-CA
1/4/1997 Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides DR-1155-CA 3/12/1995 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mud Flows DR-1046-CA 1/10/1995 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mud Flows DR-1044-CA 2/11/1991 Severe Freeze DR-894-CA
10/18/1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake DR-845-CA
9/29/1988 Wildfires DR-815-CA
2/21/1986 Severe Storms and Flooding DR-758-CA
2/9/1983 Coastal Storms, Flooding, Slides, and Tornadoes DR-677-CA 1/7/1982 Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and High Tide DR-651-CA 1/20/1977 Drought EM-3023-CA
2/8/1973 Severe Storms, High Tides, and Flooding DR-364-CA 1/26/1969 Severe Storms and Flooding DR-253-CA
12/24/1964 Heavy Rains and Flooding DR-183-CA
Source: FEMA Disaster Database via http://mitigatehazards.com/hazard-mapping/ , accessed 01/06/2021 Disaster declarations may also occur through the USDA, as agricultural areas such as Solano County can be particularly impacted. The USDA has declared 12 drought disaster declarations and 1 excessive rain declaration since 2012. See Section 4.5.5.3 for USDA drought declarations and Section 4.5.4.2 for USDA extreme weather declarations. A USDA disaster declaration certifies that the affected county has suffered at least a 30-percent loss in one or more crop or livestock areas and provides affected producers with access to low-interest loans and other programs to help mitigate the impact of the drought. Importantly, all counties neighboring those receiving disaster declarations are eligible for the same assistance.

Hazard events occurring outside county boundaries can also directly and indirectly impact the county. For instance, dam failures and wildfires may occur outside Solano County but affect watersheds that drain into FINAL for adoption Packet Page 108 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 65 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-6
the county and result in flooding and longer-term watershed health impacts. Power supply also could be interrupted by hazard occurrences outside of the county.

Compounding Hazard Events
This MJHMP generally examines the vulnerabilities of hazard events in Solano County individually.

However, hazards often occur in combination as well. Frequently, another hazard occurs as a secondary hazard, such as an earthquake triggering a landslide or tsunami, or severe rain events following a wildfire causing debris flows. Other events are compounded by outside factors, such as wildfire evacuations occurring during Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events. This hazard mitigation plan highlights multiple hazard risks within the hazard profiles by highlighting secondary hazards and, for wildfire in particular, highlighting local compounding conditions that accelerate wildfire impacts, such as PSPS events. See Section 4.5.1.1.

Of particular concern in this 2021 MJHMP update is the pairing of a hazard event and need for evacuation or response in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Local governments are actively considering response and mitigation needs that can help reduce the impacts of a multiple-hazard event that include pandemics and another hazards, such as flood, earthquake, or wildfire. The Solano County Health Department’s Pandemic Plan paired with the Office of Emergency Services pandemic planning and EOC expansions to respond to pandemic needs address these intersections, and this MJHMP may discuss pandemics within secondary hazards.

4.2 Hazard Prioritization
The Planning Committee’s hazard prioritization process combines historical data, local knowledge, and consensus opinions to produce a matrix that illustrates whether each profiled hazard is an extreme or high priority. The criteria below were used to evaluate hazards and identify the highest risk hazard in Solano County. The results of the prioritization process for Solano County are shown in Figure 4-1.

Each participating jurisdiction also completed the hazard prioritization process specifically for the jurisdiction, and this important initial stage informed the rest of the planning process for each jurisdiction.

Figure 4-1 provides the guidance that shaped the ranking for each hazard risk matrix, including probability ratings and impact ratings. This figure also includes the outcomes of Solano County’s Risk Matrix exercise.

Table 4-2 also summarizes reasons why various hazards were not included in the County’s prioritization exercise. For example, the County determined that pandemic disease was not a priority in this Hazard Mitigation Plan because it is already addressed in the county’s Pandemic Influenza Emergency Response Plan (June 2014 draft). This document and work under it reside in the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) office of the Solano County Department of Public Health. Rather than develop a second, possibly overlapping, redundant, or conflicting document, the County elected to defer to the existing and ongoing work of the EMS office.

Individual prioritization matrices are available in each jurisdiction’s annex in Volume 2 of this MJHMP.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 109 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 66 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-7

Figure 4-1: Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix for Solano County FINAL for adoption Packet Page 110 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 67 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-8

4.3 Solano County Geographic and Demographic Profile
The geographic and demographic profile for Solano County sets the stage for the vulnerabilities assessment.

Pairing the vulnerabilities assessment and regional profile can help guide resources and mitigation strategies to key populations and geographic areas. The Planning Committee reviewed geographic and demographic data as part of the risk prioritization and assessment process.

Geography
Solano County is located in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. It reaches from the shores of San Pablo Bay in the west to the Central Valley in the east. It is bordered by Yolo County to the north, Sacramento County to the east, Contra Costa County to the south, and Napa and Sonoma Counties to the west. Solano County encompasses approximately 909 square miles (582,233 acres), including 810 square miles of land and 84 square miles of water bodies. Approximately 762 square miles (487,767 acres), or 84 percent of the total land area, is located within the unincorporated areas of the county. The remaining land area comprises the seven incorporated cities of Solano County, as illustrated in Figure 4-2. Allendale, Bird’s Landing, Collinsville, Elmira, and Green Valley are some of the larger unincorporated communities within Solano County. (Solano HMP, 2014)
The county includes a variety of wetland areas along its Bay and Delta borders. In the upland areas, there are vernal pool complexes and riparian corridors. The county also features oak woodland areas and extensive marshlands, which are vital to the health and longevity of the estuary ecosystem in the San Pablo Bay and the larger Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay Delta). The county includes the largest contiguous brackish water marsh that still exists on the west coast of North America . It also includes more than 10 percent of California’s remaining natural wetlands. (Solano County General Plan, 2008) Figure 4-2 displays a geographic overview of Solano County.

Transportation Routes
There are many transportation routes, transit providers, and transit facilities throughout Solano County.

Regional access routes include I-80, I-505, I-680, and I-780, as well as State Routes (SRs) 12, 29, 37, 84, and 113.

Transit agencies include Benicia Breeze, Fairfield Suisun Transit, Rio Vista Delta Breeze, and Vacaville City Coach, as well as Vallejo Transit, which operates the Baylink Ferry from Solano County to San Francisco.

Amtrak passenger trains and Greyhound bus lines provide long-distance inter-city service through the county. In addition, transit routes 2-2 connect with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations in Contra Costa County and transit links are provided to Napa, Sacramento, and Yolo Counties. Public aviation airports in Solano County include the Nut Tree Airport and Rio Vista Municipal Airport. (Solano HMP, 2014) FINAL for adoption Packet Page 111 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 68 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-9

Figure 4-2. Solano County – Geographic Overview

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 112 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 69 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-10
Climate
Climate influences the occurrences of many natural hazards, including drought, flood, slope failure, extreme weather, and wildfire. Climate in the Bay Delta area is generally characterized by a Mediterranean temperature. There are maritime influences, including the presence of tule fog, which make the central Bay Delta cooler along a west-east gradient. Climate also influences tidal energy, which is the amount of water in Delta channels and marshlands. (San Francisco Estuary Institute Aquatic Science Center, 2012) Solano County has a generally mild climate with an average annual temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). The eastern portions of the county have hotter summer temperatures while the western portions closer to the bay have cooler summer temperatures. Average rainfall is 28 inches. (Solano HMP, 2014) Wind conditions vary throughout the county depending on the location and topographical area. During wildfire season, typically from May through November, Solano County is subject to periods of Diablo winds. These winds bring high temperatures, gusting winds, and low humidity to the county. (Id.) While the general climate of Solano County may be mild, hazard events often center on the climate extremes, such as high wind, heavy rain or tidal flooding, or drought. Climate change is predicted to intensify these climate extremes (California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment, 2018) Demographics and Vulnerable Populations
Population information directly relates to the impacts of hazards in a community. The composition of the population, how it has changed, and how it may change in the future help with future decision making.

This overview of regional demographics comes primarily from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey five-year estimate period from 2014-2018 (ACS five-year estimate). For this period, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated Solano County’s population to be 438,530 people. Figure 4-3 comparatively displays the population of each jurisdiction and the number of households per jurisdiction.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 113 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 70 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-11

Figure 4-3: Total Households & Populations
Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Note: The demographics information contained herein has been post-processed based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s five-year estimate period from 2014-2018 and will not necessarily match other demographics-based regional studies or plans. In order to examine geometries not available in census reports, including unincorporated county areas, a weighted GIS analysis combined and redistributed block groups. Inherently, the margin of error for this data can be high, especially in more rural areas. This section provides a generalized approximation of specific demographics, reported by various planning study areas.

It is not meant to provide any definitive information, but merely to suggest larger trends in the region.

4.3.4.1 Introduction to Vulnerable Populations
Demographics help identify which populations may be particularly vulnerable to hazard events. Some populations are at greater risk because of age, resources, physical abilities, or other factors. Vulnerability in the face of a hazard event is not a fixed characteristic; the same person may be at risk for some hazards but not at risk for others. For example, a low-income family without a car may be at risk for a wildfire or flood if a quick evacuation is necessary but well-prepared in the event of an earthquake. Some individuals are highly and permanently vulnerable to many hazards, such as the frail elderly, people living with chronic sensory, mobility, or cognitive impairments, and individuals dependent upon assistive devices or complex medical regimens in order to survive. (National Center for Disaster Preparedness, 2020) Vulnerable populations also may be living in hazard-prone areas, compounding their risk.

In the context of all-hazards preparedness and response planning, at-risk individuals (often used interchangeably with “vulnerable populations”) are defined federally as “children, pregnant women, senior citizens, and other individuals who have access or functional needs in the event of a public health emergency.” (42 U.S.C. § 2802(b)(4)(B)(2019)) Examples of these populations may include, but are not limited to, individuals with disabilities, who live in institutional settings, from diverse cultures, who have limited -
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Uninc.

Solano
County
City of
Benicia
City of
Dixon
City of
Fairfield
City of Rio
Vista
City of
Suisun
City
City of
Vacaville
City of
Vallejo
Households 7,863 11,649 6,304 37,892 4,629 9,495 34,195 44,869 Population 19,665 28,088 19,759 114,101 8,618 29,379 97,943 120,977 FINAL for adoption Packet Page 114 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 71 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-12
English proficiency or are non-English speaking, who are transportation-disadvantaged, experiencing homelessness, who have chronic medical disorders, or who have pharmacological dependency.

Natural resource managers may be able to reduce the vulnerability of certain populations by increasing the adaptive capacity of affected communities. Examples include cost-sharing to reduce fuels, stabilize structures, or implement flood-reducing measures or educational programs offered in English and Spanish and targeted to specific populations. In particular, planning for vulnerable populations in hazard mitigation can help prioritize resources where they will be the most effective. This section explores the various demographic and economic circumstances surrounding common vulnerable populations.

4.3.4.2 Income and Housing
Income or wealth is one of the most important factors in natural hazard vulnerability. First, low-income populations are less able to afford housing and other infrastructure that can withstand extreme events. Low- income populations typically occupy more poorly-built and inadequately-maintained housing. For example, mobile or modular homes are more susceptible to damage in earthquakes and floods than other types of housing. In urban areas, low-income populations often live in older houses and apartment complexes, which are more likely to be made of unreinforced masonry. This building type is particularly susceptible to damage during earthquakes. Renters are also more vulnerable, as they are less likely to reinforce buildings and buy insurance, and the decision to make major home improvements typically lies with the property owner.

Additionally, disaster recovery services target homeowners; renters may not receive as much outreach. See Figure 4-4 for a comparative display of renter-occupied versus owner-occupied buildings per jurisdiction.

Figure 4-4: Owners and Renters
Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Uninc.

Solano
County
City of
Benicia
City of Dixon City of
Fairfield
City of Rio
Vista
City of
Suisun City
City of
Vacaville
City of
Vallejo
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 115 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 72 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-13
Second, low-income populations are less able to purchase resources needed for disaster response. In the United States, individual households are expected to use private resources to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters to a large extent. This means that households living in poverty and minorities are disadvantaged when confronting hazards. The more affluent are able to relocate to safer areas or rebuild following a hazard event. Moreover, individuals who do not own cars or who cannot afford gas for their cars will likely decide not to evacuate. (Krause & Reeves, 2017) Furthermore, residents below the poverty level are less likely to have insurance to compensate for losses incurred from natural disasters. This means that low-income residents have a great deal to lose during an event and are the least prepared to deal with potential losses. Hurricane events, such as Harvey, Irma, and Katrina, demonstrate that low-income and minority communities are more vulnerable to hazard events and struggle most to recover. (Id.)
Figure 4-7 shows the median household income distribution for Solano County. The “median” is the value that divides the distribution of household income into two equal parts (i.e., the middle). The median household income in Solano County in 2019 (in 2019 dollars) was estimated to be $77,609, compared to $68,703 across the U.S. (United States Census Bureau, 2019) See Figure 4-5 and Table 4-4 for the median household income per jurisdiction as compared to the persons in poverty for each jurisdiction.

Figure 4-5: Poverty and Median Income
Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Uninc.

Solano
County
City of
Benicia
City of
Dixon
City of
Fairfield
City of Rio
Vista
City of
Suisun City
City of
Vacaville
City of
Vallejo
Median Household Income Persons in Poverty (%)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 116 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 73 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-14
Table 4-4: Household Income and Poverty Levels
Jurisdiction Population Persons in Poverty Households
Median
Household
Income
Solano County 438,530 44,427 156,896 $ 77,609 Uninc. Solano County 19,665 1,728 7,863 n/a City of Benicia 28,088 1,958 11,649 $ 99,018 City of Dixon 19,759 2,374 6,304 $ 77,203 City of Fairfield 114,101 10,049 37,892 $ 80,950 City of Rio Vista 8,618 1,025 4,629 $ 70,000 City of Suisun City 29,379 2,912 9,495 $ 79,759 City of Vacaville 97,943 7,541 34,195 $ 82,197 City of Vallejo 120,977 16,840 44,869 $ 66,606 Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

4.3.4.3 Age
Children and the elderly may also be more vulnerable during a hazard event. Specific planning attention for the elderly is an important consideration, especially given the current aging of the American population.

Elderly vulnerability can vary significantly based on health, age, and economic security. However, as a group, the elderly more often lack physical and economic resources necessary for response to hazard events and are more likely to suffer health-related consequences that can slow recovery.

Elderly persons are more likely to be vision-, hearing-, or mobility-impaired and to experience mental impairment or dementia. Lower-income elderly populations are also less likely to have access to medical care due to financial hardship, and elderly persons in general are more likely to need special medical attention, which may not be readily available during natural disasters.

Additionally, elderly people are often housed in assisted-living facilities where emergency preparedness occurs at the discretion of facility operators. These facilities are typically identified as “critical facilities” by emergency managers because they require extra notice to implement evacuation. Elderly residents living in their own homes may have more difficulty evacuating and could be stranded in dangerous situations.

In many cases, both children and elderly persons depend on others to care for them during day-to-day life.

Very young children and the elderly may be vulnerable to injury or sickness; this vulnerability can be worsened during a natural disaster because they may not understand the measures that need to be taken to protect themselves. They also may be weaker and less able to survive a hazard event, even as children often bounce back from illness faster than older populations.

Finally, both children and the elderly have fewer financial resources and are frequently dependent on others for survival. For these populations to remain resilient before and after a natural hazard event, it may be necessary to assist them with resources provided by county, city, state, or federal emergency management agencies and organizations.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 117 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 74 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-15
Based on the American Community Survey five-year estimates, 29 percent of Solano County households include elderly individuals. Table 4-5 displays age and household information county-wide and for individual jurisdictions, including total households, total number of households with elderly members, households that are 65 and older living alone, and households with someone who is 65 and older living in poverty. Table 4-6 displays county-wide information on households with minors under 18 years old and single parents. Figure 4-6 displays comparative values for jurisdictions with households with minors or with elderly persons over 65. The overall age distribution for Solano County is illustrated in Figure 4-8 for the population under 18 and Figure 4-9 for the population over 65. Figure 4-8 shows that the highest urban concentrations of people under the age of 18 occur in several municipal areas, including the cities of Fairfield, Dixon, Suisun City, and Vacaville.

Table 4-5: Elderly Households
Jurisdiction
Total
Households
Total Households
w/ 65+ (%)
Households w/
65+ Living Alone
Households
w/ 65+ Living
in Poverty
Solano County 156,896 44,832 29% 13,757 2,999 Uninc. Solano County 7,863 2,711 34% 565 93 City of Benicia 11,649 3,830 33% 1,309 189 City of Dixon 6,304 1,584 25% 359 12 City of Fairfield 37,892 9,634 25% 2,623 578 City of Rio Vista 4,629 2,513 54% 742 190 City of Suisun City 9,495 2,280 24% 584 119 City of Vacaville 34,195 9,169 27% 3,477 686 City of Vallejo 44,869 13,111 29% 4,098 1,132 Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 118 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 75 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-16
Table 4-6: Households with Minors and Single Parents
Jurisdiction
Total
Households
Households w/
Minors (%)
Single Parent
Households with
Minors <18
Solano County 156,896 52,536 33% 15,236 Uninc. Solano County 7,863 1,721 22% 310 City of Benicia 11,649 3,512 30% 732 City of Dixon 6,304 2,454 39% 658 City of Fairfield 37,892 15,122 40% 3,984 City of Rio Vista 4,629 512 11% 143 City of Suisun City 9,495 3,631 38% 948 City of Vacaville 34,195 11,696 34% 3,296 City of Vallejo 44,869 13,888 31% 5,165 Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Figure 4-6: Households with Minors and Elders
Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Uninc. Solano
County
City of
Benicia
City of Dixon City of
Fairfield
City of Rio
Vista
City of Suisun
City
City of
Vacaville
City of Vallejo
Households w/ Minors (%)Total Households w/ 65+ (%)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 119 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 76 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-17

Figure 4-7: Median Household Income Distribution

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 120 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 77 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-18

Figure 4-8: Population Under Age 18
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 121 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 78 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-19

Figure 4-9: Population Over Age 65

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 122 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 79 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-20

4.3.4.4 Race, Ethnicity, and Language
Non-English or limited-English speakers may have difficulty understanding emergency information as a result of language and literacy barriers. Non-white communities in fire-prone areas appear to be less able to adapt to a wildfire event. (Levin, Phil; Davies, Ian, 2019) Farmworkers may be particularly vulnerable during a hazard event, especially those that are non-English speaking and those living in temporary worker housing. (California Employment Development Department, 2019) (U.S. Dep't of Ag, 2017) Disparities in emergency response between white and other racial or ethnic populations may be due to higher proportions of non-white persons living below the poverty line; low-income status can compound vulnerability for many reasons described herein such as access to transportation, adequate housing, and medical services.

According to the American Community Survey five-year estimates, approximately 13 percent of total households speak Spanish, with two percent speaking limited English. Figure 4-10 depicts the non-English- speaking language distribution for Solano County for 2014-2018.

Figure 4-10: Household Language
Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Also according to the ACS five-year estimates, Solano County is predominately white, at more than 50 percent of the total population. The largest minority population is Hispanic, at over 25 percent of the total county population. Figure 4-12 shows the racial distribution within Solano County and Figure 4-11 displays the percentage of population which is Hispanic versus not Hispanic.

Figure 4-11: Hispanic Population
Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Note: Hispanic includes all individuals who identify with one or more nationalities or ethnic groups originating in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America, and other Spanish cultures. In Addition, people who are Hispanic may be of any race, people in each race group may be either Hispanic or Not Hispanic, and each person has two attributes, their race (or races) and whether or not they are Hispanic.
13%

0.5%
2%
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%
Spanish
Other
Language
Households Speaking
Language
Households Speaking
Language with Limited English
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Hispanic
Not Hispanic
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 123 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 80 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-21

Figure 4-12: Solano County Race Distribution in 2014-2018 Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Note: Hispanic persons may be of any race, so are included in applicable race categories. This has the effect of influencing total population percentage. (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.

4.3.4.5 At-Risk Individuals with Access and Functional Needs Access and functional needs may interfere with the ability to access or receive medical care before, during, or after a disaster or emergency. Irrespective of a specific diagnosis, status, or label, the term “access and functional needs” refers to a broad set of cross-cutting needs, generally distinguished into access-based or function-based according to the following:
▪ Access-based needs require that resources are accessible to all individuals, such as social services, accommodations, information, transportation, and medications to maintain health. ▪ Function-based needs refer to restrictions or limitations an individual may have that requires assistance before, during, or after a disaster or public health emergency.

At-risk individuals may have additional needs that must be considered in planning for, responding to, and recovering from a disaster or emergency. A recommended approach for integrating the access and functional needs of these individuals is to consider elements based on the following “CMIST” framework:
▪ Communication – Individuals who may have limitations that interfere with the receipt of and response to information require information to be provided in an appropriate and accessible format. This can include individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, individuals who speak American Sign Language, individuals who have limited or no English proficiency, individuals who are blind or have low vision, and individuals who have cognitive or physiological limitations. ▪ Maintaining Health – Individuals who may require Personal Assistance Services (or personal care assistance) in maintaining their activities of daily living, such as eating, dressing, grooming, transferring, and toileting.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
American Indian &
Alaska Native (a)
Asian (a)
Black or African
American (a)
Hispanic (b)
Native Hawaiian &
Other Pacific Islander (a)
White
Two or More Races
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 124 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 81 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-22
▪ Independence – Includes individuals who function independently if they have their assistive devices, such as consumable medical supplies (e.g., diapers, formula, bandages, ostomy supplies, etc.), durable medical equipment (e.g., wheelchairs, walkers, scooters, etc.), or service animals. ▪ Services and Support – Includes support for individuals with behavioral health needs, those who have psychiatric conditions (e.g., dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Schizophrenia, etc.), pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants, and children.
▪ Transportation – Includes individuals with transportation needs because of age, disability, temporary injury, poverty, addiction, legal restriction, or those who do not have access to a vehicle.

This requires coordination to ensure access to mass transit and accessible vehicles, such as para- transit. (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2016) While most individuals with access and functional needs do not have acute medical needs requiring the support of trained medical professionals, many will require assistance to maintain health and minimize preventable medical conditions. These individuals may require more time and assistance during an evacuation. It is estimated that approximately 12 percent of the total population have a disability, at least six percent of the population between the ages of 18 and 64 have some form of disability, and about five percent of people over age 65 have some form of disability, as shown in Table 4-7. Figure 4-13 depicts the percentage of people who depend on public transportation compared with the percentage of people who are experiencing some kind of disability in each jurisdiction. (American Community Survey, 2018) There is overlap between some of these population subsets and carless and transit-dependent populations.

Of the total number of households in Solano County, approximately 4.8 percent are households with no vehicle available. (American Community Survey, 2018) Vulnerable populations without private transit may be at an increased risk during emergencies due to lack of rapid access to medical services and limited ability to rapidly evacuate an at-risk area. These numbers warrant special attention from planners and emergency managers. Additionally, where cell reception services are limited, individuals may need alternate means of transportation to ensure access to adequate information communication services. Likewise, in addition to preemptively improving cellular service reliability, disseminating maps which indicate the locations of superior cell reception may aid individuals seeking better information communication access during an emergency.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 125 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 82 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-23

Figure 4-13: Public Transportation Dependence & Disabilities Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Table 4-7: Disability Status of Non-Institutionalized Population in Solano County in 2014-2018 Persons with a Disability
Jurisdiction Population Persons with a
Disability (%) Under 18 18 -64 65+
Solano County 438,530 52,805 12% 3,784 26,890 22,131 Uninc. Solano County 19,665 2,522 13% 92 1,269 1,161 City of Benicia 28,088 3,236 12% 191 1,413 1,632 City of Dixon 19,759 2,136 11% 131 1,297 708 City of Fairfield 114,101 13,266 12% 1,136 7,265 4,865 City of Rio Vista 8,618 2,117 25% 61 684 1,372 City of Suisun City 29,379 3,677 13% 382 2,046 1,249 City of Vacaville 97,943 10,669 11% 1,022 5,068 4,579 City of Vallejo 120,977 15,182 13% 769 7,848 6,565 Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Note: Age ranges are sums of multiple male/female and age range fields.

4.3.4.6 Environmental Justice Nexus
Environmental justice issues can often exacerbate public health impacts from hazard events, and vice versa. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice as the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” (EPA, 2021)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Uninc. Solano
County
City of
Benicia
City of Dixon City of
Fairfield
City of Rio
Vista
City of Suisun
City
City of
Vacaville
City of Vallejo
Public Transportation Dependent (%)Persons with a Disability (%) FINAL for adoption Packet Page 126 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 83 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-24
As discussed above, natural hazards can disproportionately impact low-income and vulnerable populations.

Lower-income populations, for instance, are more likely to live in neighborhoods that are more susceptible to flooding, or near industrial areas and hazardous waste sites, which can put them at higher risk to toxic leaks associated with flood and storm damage. (Sherwin, 2019) In California, wildfires have increased in frequency and duration in recent years. Elderly, low-income residents, and Native American populations that are already living in air quality-impacted areas are impacted by the compounding impact of wildfire smoke. Other associated impacts from wildfires include physical, and psychological stress from evacuation, property loss, physical injury or death, and smoke related impacts to health. (Shahir Masri et al., 2021) Certain locations within Solano County are known to be at higher risk of natural hazard related impacts to vulnerable populations. For instance, western portions of the City of Vallejo are associated with higher levels of diesel particulate matter, toxic releases, lead from housing, and hazardous waste. These same areas are associated with high unemployment, high poverty rates, and relatively high numbers of minority populations. (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2021) The southeastern part of unincorporated Solano County near Rio Vista also experiences environmental vulnerabilities such as groundwater threats, impaired waters, and proximity to hazardous waste. (Id.) These environmental justice concerns may contribute to adverse public health impacts in the event of flooding or high rain events in the area. It is vital that environmental laws and regulations as well as natural hazard mitigation planning meaningfully include these communities in their efforts at accounting for public health and safety.

4.3.4.7 Mental Health Impacts of Hazard Events
Natural hazard events are associated with mental health impacts. Specifically, natural hazards can precipitate anxiety, depression, shock, extreme stress, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). (Makwana, 2019) Natural hazards also cause socio-economic loss through damages to housing and displacement, which can lead to mental health challenges. The death or injury of a family member or a loved one can lead to substantial psychological vulnerabilities as well. (Id.) Economy
Solano County is generally divided economically into east and west regions. The western portion of the county, which includes the cities of Vallejo and Benicia, has large concentrations of petrochemical and associated heavy industry production. Its labor force is also more closely associated with the San Francisco Bay Area. The eastern region of the county extends along the Interstate 80 corridor and includes the cities of Fairfield, Vacaville, and Dixon and Travis Airforce Base (Travis AFB). Travis AFB is a vital base for military airlift operations and humanitarian aid throughout the world and, as the largest employer in the county, is a singular driver for Solano County’s economy. The annual economic impact of the base is more than $1.6 billion. Travis AFB has a workforce of 13,400; about 60 percent of this workforce resides in the county. (Solano County 2017-2020 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2017) In addition to Travis AFB, the major employers in Solano County include Genentech, Janssen/ALZA Corporation, Kaiser Permanente, FINAL for adoption Packet Page 127 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 84 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-25
NorthBay Healthcare, and the Jelly Belly Candy Company.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has predicted a number of anticipated high-growth industry sectors. These include health, education, recreational services, manufacturing, wholesale, and transportation sectors. The County will increase employment in the sectors of health, education, and recreational industries by approximately 25,030, through the year 2030. (Solano HMP, 2014) Solano County is a largely rural area, with most of its urban growth occurring in incorporated cities. The unincorporated portions of the county are characterized by agriculture. Approximately 327,000 acres of the unincorporated county, or 66.6 percent, has been designated as agricultural. (Solano HMP, 2014, p. 2.10) Fruits and nuts are produced in the largest quantities, followed by vegetable crops, field crops, and animal production. In the unincorporated areas, businesses have traditionally included food and animal processing, wineries, and limited commercial, industrial, and retail development. The Suisun Valley is a burgeoning wine region with wine tasting venues, wineries, fruit stands, and small commercial areas. Solano County has been supporting this growing agricultural tourism market. (Solano County 2017-2020 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2017) Many of the cities and unincorporated areas also offer recreation and tourism economic opportunities.

Labor force participation in Solano County experienced a downturn in 2009, which only recently began to increase after a decade of falling levels. In 2018, the participation rate increased from 60.2 to 60.4 percent.

The impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis are likely to have a mixed effect on labor force levels; some workers may retire, some may involuntarily exit, and some may be able to re-enter the labor force. (County of Solano and Solano Economic Development Corporation, 2020) In recent years, Solano County has concentrated on diversifying the number and type of industries within the county. Large sectors include educational services, health care and social assistance, retail trade, as well as professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste services. The arts, entertainment, recreation, and food services are also large employers. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, for the 2019 five-year estimates there were 206,978 jobs in all sectors in Solano County. Table 4-8 shows the number of jobs by major sector in the county in 2019.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 128 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 85 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-26
Table 4-8: Industry by Occupation for the Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over Occupation Total Percent of total
employment (in %)
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 48,593 26.2 Retail trade 23,492 4.5
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste services 20,238 23.3 Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services 18,927 63.4 Construction 17,713 0.7
Manufacturing 17,696 3.4
Public administration 14,177 32.6
Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 13,538 2.6
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental leasing 11,610 4.2 Other services, except public administration 9,619 44.5 Wholesale trade 4,786 4.1
Information 3,542 1.6
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 3,047 7.3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates via https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=solano%20county&tid=ACSST5Y2019.S2405&hidePreview=false Past and Future Trends in Development
Solano County has historically been known for Travis Air Force Base as a major military and government employer, as well as its agricultural base, which encompasses about 66 percent of the unincorporated county. The unincorporated areas of the county are known for agricultural production and limited commercial, industrial, and retail development. Past practices relating to agricultural production may not always have appreciated the secondary effects of this kind of development. Such effects could have exacerbated natural hazards, such as flooding or soil instability. (Solano County 2017-2020 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2017)
For future development, the County has implemented a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy which includes measurable actions for business retention and expansion, marketing and business attraction, competitiveness, and the development of a resource hub. The strategy also includes a summary of the capital improvements and other economic development projects that have been planned fo r the county and incorporated cities. These include enhancing the flow of goods and services in the industrial and major commercial areas and opening up new areas for future development. (Solano County 2017-2020 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2017)
Likewise, the General Plan for Solano County identifies targeted industries for economic development. In particular, the County has identified commercial and industrial services that are supportive of agricultural growth as being vital to future economic development. Additionally, the County has identified alternative energy industries, including solar, wind, biofuels, and land uses or processes with the potential to generate energy, as an important potential economic focus. (Solano County General Plan, 2008) FINAL for adoption Packet Page 129 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 86 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-27
Past development that most increased the risk of hazards in the county happened many decades and even more than a century ago. The County and other participating jurisdictions are well aware of areas of increased hazard risk from older development.

Development in the last few decades has occurred with minimized hazard risk because of the existing overlay of federal, state, and local regulations. First, the County and its municipal, participating jurisdictions all adopt general plans (GPs), which serve as blueprints for establishing long-range development policies as directed by California’s General Planning Law. A GP provides a basis for private development proposals and public projects to remain consistent with existing city, regional, and state policies. The GP is designed to help the county and participating jurisdictions address issues related to land use, circulation (traffic), housing, open space, conservation, noise, and safety. The Land Use Element of the GP serves as a guide to the county and participating jurisdictions in determining the location of future development, to include possible future annexations for municipal jurisdictions. The Safety Element helps to decrease the risk of and impacts from various natural hazards through multiple required components and subsections, including health and public safety as required by the California State Law.

All participating jurisdictions reviewed their GPs under the capabilities assessments undertaken for this hazard mitigation plan. Deficiencies revealed by these reviews are identified as mitigation actions to decrease risks and move beyond past trends.

Moreover, while past development has occurred in hazard areas and increased hazard risks to some degree, development standards and performance measures, oftentimes incorporated into specific plans, are now employed to reduce risk. These development standards are continually being improved and will continue to be strengthened in the future.

General trends in job growth predictions for Solano County depict a positive growth estimate of 5.5 percent in net gain from 2019 to 2030. (County of Solano and Solano Economic Development Corporation, 2020) All industry sectors are projected to grow in Solano County, except for construction, farm-related, and information-related jobs (e.g., software and publishing). See Figure 4-14. Construction jobs are predicted to decrease, potentially due to initial growth in the early 2020s followed by a decrease as home and commercial construction reaches a short-lived peak. Health and education, as well as professional services, are predicted to grow the most, with a percentage change of 11 percent and 10 percent, respectively. (Caltrans, 2021)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 130 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 87 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-28

Figure 4-14: Solano County Estimated Percentage Change (%) in Jobs by Industry Sector, 2019 to 2030 Source: (Caltrans) Long-Term Socio-Economic Forecasts by County Participating jurisdictions have gone to great lengths to ensure future development within hazard areas is minimized and mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Solano County’s capabilities assessment in Section

5.4 of Volume 1 and each jurisdiction’s capabilities assessment in Volume 2 of this MJHMP explain those proactive steps in greater detail. Buildings are increasingly more resilient to hazards through California’s building codes, some of the strongest in the country. Nationally, building codes have continually improved disaster resilience, and since 1990 those great improvements have added approximately one percent to construction costs. (National Institute of Building Sciences, 2019)

7%
3%
11%
-4%
10%
9%
5%
1%
7%
-5%
-3%
6%
2%
10%
7%
14%
10%
11%
3%
8%
2%
0%
2%
6%
-9%-6%-3%0%3%6%9%12%15%
Government
Leisure
Health and Education
Information
Professional Services
Financial Activities
Wholesale & Retail Trade
Transportation, Utilities
Manufacturing
Construction
Farm
Total Wage and Salary
California Solano County
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 131 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 88 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-29

4.4 Vulnerability Assessment Methods
This section provides an overview of the methods used in the vulnerability assessments in Section 4.5. Vulnerabilities to Specific Hazards. Each hazard included in Section 4.5 is assessed in a two- step process. First, population, critical facilities, and county parcels are inventoried to develop a “lay of the land.” Second, the inventories are used to calculate estimated exposure and damage from hazards at various levels of severity. A more detailed explanation of the methodology is included in Appendix A. The Climate Vulnerability Assessment in Appendix C includes additional methods outlined at the end of this section.

The vulnerability assessment uses geospatial data along with local knowledge of past events. Geospatial data is essential in determining population and assets exposed to hazards identified in this plan. Geospatial analysis can be conducted if a natural hazard has a spatial footprint that can be analyzed against the locations of people and assets. In Solano County, wildfire, flood, earthquake, tsunami, slope failure, and landslide hazards have identifiable geographic extents and corresponding spatial information.

Population and Asset Inventory
To describe vulnerability for each hazard, it is important to first understand the total population and assets at risk. Population and asset inventories provide a baseline to measure the vulnerability for natural hazard events. Asset inventories can also be used to estimate damages and losses expected during a “worst-case scenario” event for each hazard. Figure 4-15 provides a summary of how and what data sources are used to provide exposure and damage estimation results. More detail on the risk assessment analysis is provided in Appendix A. The following sections describe the total population, critical facilities, and parcel inventory inputs.

Figure 4-15: Data Source and Method

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 132 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 89 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-30

4.4.1.1 Population
An initial step in producing the hazard-specific vulnerability assessments is to determine the population near each natural hazard. Each natural hazard scenario affects county residents differently depending on the location of the hazard and the population density where the hazard event could occur. For hazards that potentially affect the whole county, such as earthquake or drought, the vulnerability assessment assumes 438,530 persons or 100 percent of Solano County’s population is exposed.2 Vulnerability assessments presented in Section 4.5 summarize the population exposure for each natural hazard, if available.

4.4.1.2 Critical Facilities Inventory
Critical facilities are of particular concern when planning to mitigate hazards. A critical facility is a structure or other improvement that, because of its function, size, service area, or uniqueness, has the potential to cause disruption of vital socioeconomic activities if it is destroyed, damaged, or functionally impaired.

Critical facilities inventory data was developed from a combination of datasets, including from county, city, special purpose district, state, federal, and private industry sources. A critical infrastructure spatial database was developed to translate critical facilities information into georeferenced3 points and lifelines.

Critical facility points include facilities such as police stations, fire stations, hospitals, elder care facilities, child care facilities, schools, transportation infrastructure, utilities, and government buildings. Lifelines include facilities related to electric power, liquid fuel, natural gas, and transportation routes. A current representation of the critical facility points and lifelines are provided in Figure 4-16. Some critical facility information may have been omitted from this document due to national security purposes. For additional information on included critical facilities, see Appendix A.

Critical facilities and transportation and lifeline data comes from a collection of sources, listed in Appendix A. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Due to the sensitivity of this information, a detailed list of facilities is not provided. More detailed critical facilities lists are on file with each jurisdiction. The risk assessment for each hazard qualitatively discusses critical facilities with regard to each hazard’s severity footprint.

2 Population estimates were derived from 2014-2018 Census American Community Survey 5-Year information. 3 To georeference something means to define its existence in physical space. That is, establishing its location in terms of map projections or coordinate systems. The term is used both when establishing the relation between raster or vector images and coordinates, and when determining the spatial location of other geographical features.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 133 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 90 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-31

Figure 4-16: Critical Facilities

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 134 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 91 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-32

4.4.1.3 Parcel Value Inventory
The Solano County Assessor’s data is essential to developing parcel values exposed to each hazard and includes the current fair market value of at-risk assets. The Solano County Parcel Value Inventory is summarized in Table 4-9. This table only includes parcels that are located in unincorporated Solano County.

The Parcel Value Inventory includes the market value,4 content replacement value, and total assessed value (“total value”), and each hazard profile outlines predicted impacts to this inventory for each hazard’s geographic extent. These elements are called out in the table because, in the event of a disaster, the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the land is usually the focus of concern. Generally, the land is not a total loss, and structures can be rebuilt and contents replaced. “Total market value” as presented in this plan reflects Solano County Assessor data. Where building areas were available, a replacement value of $250 per square foot was used. If no area was available for a given property, the value reflects the assessed improvement value. “Total content value” was calculated based on the Assessor's use codes, translated to occupancy-based multipliers. Each occupancy class prescribes a specific content cost multiplier used to calculate the content cost values shown in the summary and in the hazard profiles in Section 4.5. Occupancy-based content cost multipliers used in this plan reflect those found in the FEMA Hazus-MH 4.2 technical manuals.

Table 4-9: Unincorporated Solano County Parcel Counts and Value Total Parcels Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Unincorporated County 6,668 $3,186,640,275 $2,078,097,240 $5,264,737,515 Note: Total market value as provided by County Assessor's Office and based on $250/sqft where available. Content value calculated using content multipliers per Hazus occupancy classes per county land use designation. Total value is the sum of total market value and total content value. Improved Parcels Only.

Hazard Exposure and Damage Estimation
Population and inventory information are used to generate specific exposure and damage estimations based on the severity of specific hazard events. The hazards in the county which have known geographic extents and corresponding spatial information, and thus have exposure and damage estimations, are:

Profiled Hazards Other Hazard Information
Earthquake Liquefaction
Flooding Zone of Investigation
Sea-Level Rise NLD Leveed Areas
Slope Failure Dam Inundation
Wildfire

4 Market Value includes a long-term asset which indicates the cost of the constructed improvements to land, such as buildings, driveways, walkways, lighting, and parking lots.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 135 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 92 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-33
Population and Asset Exposure
“Exposure” of assets and population refers to the total counts of parcels, people, facilities, and assets within the planning area in which a hazard event may occur. A natural hazards overlay was developed to reflect the combination of many known natural hazard spatial footprints. The spatial overlay method enables summarization of building values, parcel counts, population exposure, and critical facility exposure within a hazard’s geographic extents. Figure 4-17 illustrates hypothetical flooding exposure. Exposure numbers were generated using Solano County Assessor data, address points, and parcel data for replacement and content cost estimates.

Figure 4-17: Hazard Exposure Explanation Graphic

Damage Estimation
For flood and earthquake, detailed damage estimations were conducted through FEMA’s Hazus software.

Hazus is a nationally applicable, standardized methodology that contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. Hazus uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to estimate the physical, economic, and social impacts of disasters. The estimated damage and losses provided by the Hazus Software is based upon chosen severity of events and provides the ability to understand possible widescale damage to buildings and facilities.

In the hypothetical geography shown in Figure 4-18, even though both structures are exposed to flooding, it is expected that the structure with a first-floor height below the depth of flooding will receive significantly more damage than the structure with a first-floor height above the expected water depth. For a more detailed explanation of risk assessment methods, see Appendix A.

At-risk populations, critical infrastructure, improved parcels, and loss results for each hazard category are provided in bar chart summary tables in Section 4.5 to evaluate the percentage of assets exposed to different types of hazards. The side-by-side comparison allows participating jurisdictions to evaluate the impacts of potential hazards to prioritize hazard mitigation energy and resources.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 136 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 93 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-34

Figure 4-18: Hazus Damage Estimation Example
Climate Vulnerability Assessment
Appendix C is a detailed Climate Vulnerability Assessment (CVA), conducted for each climate change- related vulnerability identified by the County, with additional CVAs conducted for each participating jurisdiction as an appendix to each annex.

Jurisdictions considered whether specific vulnerability descriptions identified for each prioritized hazard, also called areas of concern or problem statements, contained a nexus with climate change. An area of concern has a climate nexus if climate change is worsening or predicted to worsen impacts of the hazard to the population or asset in question.

If the area of concern had a nexus with climate change, each jurisdiction then assessed both the impact of climate change to the area of concern and the jurisdiction’s capacity to adapt to the predicted future impact, also known as “adaptive capacity.” Adaptive capacity is a community or region’s existing ability to moderate climate change impacts. Assessing adaptive capacity includes analysis of policies, plans, programs, funding, and staffing capacity. (Cal. Adaptation Planning Guide, 2020, p. 94) Jurisdictions evaluated potential climate change impacts and jurisdictional adaptive capacity according to the matrix in Figure 4-19, where impacts range from low to high and adaptive capacity ranges from high to low. These rankings are qualitative and incorporate jurisdictional feedback, existing studies and resources, and an understanding of population demographics and vulnerabilities. See Section 4.3.4.

The impact and adaptive capacity ranking combine to give the climate change vulnerability score. The scoring is then used to prioritize mitigation actions based on vulnerability to climate change. This assessment is completed as a part of the overall MJHMP; jurisdictions may want to complete a more detailed Climate Vulnerability Assessment as part of in-depth climate adaptation planning.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 137 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 94 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-35

Figure 4-19. Climate Change Vulnerability Scoring Matrix This climate vulnerability assessment method closely follows the process outlined in the CalOES’s June 2020 Adaptation Planning Guide, leveraging overlapping processes in place for this MJHMP.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 138 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 95 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-36

4.5 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards
This section introduces prevalent hazards within the unincorporated portions of Solano County and analyzes how each may affect populations, property, and critical facilities within the jurisdiction.

Importantly, the hazard mitigation strategy presented in Section 5 is informed by, and responds to, the particular vulnerabilities outlined in this section. The mitigation strategy provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest reduction of vulnerability based on this section, which results in saved lives, reduced injuries, reduced property damage, and protection for the environment in the event of a natural hazard.

Methods for calculating exposure and loss estimates are described in Section 4.4 and Appendix A.

For the below prioritized hazards, this section provides quantifiable exposures to people and property, as well as damage and loss estimates for the unincorporated portions of the county. Participating jurisdiction annexes in Volume 2 of this MJHMP contain jurisdiction-specific vulnerabilities to hazards.

Wildfire
SECTION 4.5.1
Extreme Weather
SECTION 4.5.4
Slope Failure
SECTION 4.5.6

Flood
SECTION 4.5.2
Drought
SECTION 4.5.5
Climate Change
SECTION 4.5.7

Earthquake
SECTION 4.5.3

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 139 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 96 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-37
Wildfire Hazard Profile
A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire occurring on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning or by human activity, such as smoking, campfires, equipment use, or arson. The 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan defines wildfires as:

Any free-burning vegetative fire that initiates from an unplanned ignition, whether natural (e.g., lightning) or human-caused (e.g., powerlines, mechanical equipment, escaped prescribed fires), where the management objective is full suppression. (California Office of Emergency Services, 2018, p. 507) Wildfires are costly, putting lives and property at risk and compromising rivers and watersheds, open space, timber, range, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitats, endangered species, historic and cultural assets, scenic assets, and local economies. Vulnerability to flooding increases following wildfires due to the destruction of forest and ground cover within watersheds. The potential for significant damage to life and property increases in areas where development is adjacent to densely vegetated areas, known as wildland- urban interface areas. (FEMA, 2020) While some fires are allowed to burn naturally in order to maintain or restore the health of forest lands, out of control wildfires need to be prevented through cooperative, community, and land management planning. (United States Forest Service, n.d.)

4.5.1.1 Local Conditions Relating to Wildfire
The areas with the highest risk for wildfire are located in western Solano County, in the foothills and mountainous watershed areas, as well as in grasslands located throughout the county. In particular, portions of the Vaca Mountains, west of Pleasants Valley, have been designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Prior to the urbanization of nearby lowlands, the vegetation in these mountainous areas was naturally maintained by periodic wildfire. As nearby lands continued to be developed, natural wildfires were suppressed, resulting in the further buildup of fire-prone brush and woodlands. (Solano County General Plan, 2008)
Solano County has dry summers where little to no rain falls from early June through late October. The county experiences 28 inches of annual rainfall, depending on location, elevation, and weather patterns, and the declared fire season typically lasts from early June to mid or late October. The fire season is a time of increased risk of conflagration to residential and other development within the county. Conflagration is an extensive fire that destroys a great deal of land or property. The hilly and mounta inous terrain on the north and west sides of the county strongly influence both wildland fire behavior and fire suppression capabilities. Wind is also a significant factor in the spread of fire, as wildfires spread faster and burning embers are carried with the wind to adjacent exposed areas. In densely-populated areas, flying ember production is the principal driver of wildfire. A related concern in built-out areas is the relative density of vegetative fuels that can serve as sites for new spot fires within the urban core and spread fire to adjacent structures. (Id.)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 140 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 97 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-38
Sudden Oak Death
The county is also at risk of increased wildfire due to what is referred to as sudden oak death. Sudden oak death is caused by the pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, which has been responsible for massive die-offs of true oak (Quercus spp.) and tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) in coastal and inland regions of both California and Oregon. These die-offs become a source of fuel and have consequently become an increasing concern for their potential to increase fire intensity throughout the region. (Yana S. Valachovic et al., 2011) Climate change, more frequent droughts, and pathogen exposure are all necessary risks to consider when taking a proactive approach to ensuring long-term oak health and mitigating wildfire risk.

Human-Caused Wildfires and Urban Conflagration
One of the primary causes of wildfire ignition is humans. Nearly 85 percent of wildland fires in the United States are caused by humans. Human-caused wildland fires can be initiated by campfires that are left unattended, equipment use or malfunction, intentional acts of arson, or carelessly discarded cigarettes. (National Park Service, 2018)
Urban conflagration is typically characterized as a fire that occurs in the built environment, beginning with one structure and quickly spreading to many more. It can be caused by criminal acts, such as illegal explosives; civil unrest; residential accidents, such as improper use of electrical or heating appliances; or industrial accidents, such as transportation accidents.

Lightning
While humans cause the vast majority of wildfires, lightning-triggered wildfires burn about 60 percent of all acreage. (Climate Central, 2013) Climate change is predicted to increase the occurrence of lightning as much as 12 percent for every degree Celsius (about two degrees Fahrenheit) rise in global temperature, which could be as much as a 50 percent increase in lightning by the end of the century. (Thompson, 2014) This prediction is a blanket average increase across the continental United States; increases could be higher or lower depending on the distribution of increases over seasons or geographical area. (Id.) Wildland-Urban Interface
Human-caused wildfires are prevalent in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). As development in many places in California has encroached on wildlands, wildfire risks have increased. Forests and grasslands are located throughout Solano County, side by side with residences and small communities. Population growth has been accelerating in the population centers of Vacaville, Fairfield, and Vallejo. All of these areas have been characterized by a growing WUI problem. (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2005) These are boundary areas where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetation fuels. (National Wildfire Coordinating Group, n.d.) FINAL for adoption Packet Page 141 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 98 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-39
De-Energization and PSPS Events
Recent wildfire events have been linked to faulty electric transmission equipment, which in turn has led to public safety power shutoffs (PSPS), also referred to as de-energization. (California Public Utilities Commission, 2020) Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) reached a $13.5 billion settlement and pled guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter as its transmission facilities sparked wine country blazes in 2017 and the fire that nearly destroyed the town of Paradise in 2018. (Blume, 2019) In order to avoid these catastrophic wildfire events, electric utility companies have started massive and preemptive power shutoffs in high wind ev ents to avoid sparking fires. This leaves communities and essential facilities without power, a particular challenge in preparing for and responding to hazard events and assisting vulnerable populations. (California Public Utilities Commission, 2020, p. 5) The increased frequency of PSPS events renewed focus on addressing the loss of power in hazard mitigation planning in Solano County and around the state even as PSPS events grow more narrowly focused, creating less mass power losses in municipalities.

4.5.1.2 Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Environment
Wildfire Protection Responsibility in California
Local, state, tribal, and federal organizations all have legal and financial responsibilit ies for wildfire protection. In many instances, two fire organizations have dual primary responsibility on the same parcel of land—one for wildfire protection and the other for structural fire protection. To address wildfire jurisdiction responsibilities, the California State Legislature outlined various wildfire responsibilities in Cal.

Pub. Res. Code § 4291.5 and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 13108.5:
▪ Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs)—FRAs are fire-prone wildland areas that are owned or managed by a federal agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or U.S. Department of Defense. Primary financial and rule-making jurisdiction authority rests with the federal land agency. In many instances, FRAs are interspersed with private land ownership or leases. Fire protection for developed private property is usually the responsibility of the relevant local government agency, not the relevant federal land management agency. (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2013‐ 2018, p. 7)
▪ State Responsibility Areas (SRAs)—SRAs are lands in California where the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has legal and financial responsibility for wildfire protection. CAL FIRE administers fire hazard classifications and building standard regulations in these areas. SRAs are classified into types of land based on cover, beneficial use of water from watersheds, probable damage from erosion, and fire risks and hazards. (California Legislative Information, pp. § 4102, § 4130 )
CAL FIRE adopts SRA boundaries and updates them every 5 years. Where SRAs contain structures or development, the relevant local government agencies have fire protection responsibility for those improvements. (Office of the State Fire Marshal, 2021)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 142 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 99 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-40
▪ Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs)—LRAs include land in cities, cultivated agriculture lands, unincorporated non-flammable areas, and lands that do not meet the criteria for SRA or FRA. LRA fire protection is typically provided by city or county fire departments, fire protection districts, or by CAL FIRE under contract to local governments. LRAs may still include areas of flammable vegetation and WUI. (Office of the State Fire Marshal, 2021) In 2012, as part of General Plan requirements, California began requiring local governments in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) to:
▪ Update their general plan safety elements to recognize specific wildfire risks in such areas, ▪ Adopt special findings when approving subdivisions in such areas, and ▪ Use wildfire safety guidelines and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) initial study wildfire hazards checklist updates issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) when those become available. Cal. Gov. Code § 65040.20 and § 65302.5. (Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 2017, p. 144)
For further information on the details and implications of these safety element requirements, see Progress Summaries 3.F and 8.A of the 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003)
The federal Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) appropriates funding to address five main sub- categories of the National Fire Plan (NFP): preparedness, suppression, reduction of hazardous fuels, burned- area rehabilitation, and state and local assistance to firefighters.

California Fire Code (2019)
Solano County has adopted the 2019 Edition of the California Fire Code to safeguard public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The adopted code also provides safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The 2019 California Fire Code is applied through the Solano County Code (§ 6.03-03), which describes what is required for a Fire Protection Plan, applicable to all new development within the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. It stipulates that such a plan addresses water supply, access, fire resistance of buildings, fire protection systems and equipment, defensible space, and vegetation management.

California Building Code (2019)
Solano County has adopted the 2019 California Building Code, which includes materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure and standards of quality for fire-resistant buildings. See Cal. Building Codes, Chapter 7a (2019).

CAL FIRE Strategic Fire Plan, Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit (2017) The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit (LNU) serves the counties of Sonoma, Lake, Napa, Solano, Yolo, and Colusa. The LNU Strategic Fire Plan is a product of the implementation of the 2018 State Fire Plan.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 143 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 100 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-41
The State Fire Plan provides an analysis procedure to assess fire fuel hazards and risks in order to design and implement mitigating activities. The LNU Fire Management Plan provides background information, fuels and fire data, proposed projects, and individual Battalion reports outlining mitigating activities commonly carried out each year. The Plan is a local road map for the fire service and the public to create and maintain defensible landscapes to protect those assets vital to the state and its citizens.

The LNU Strategic Fire Plan outlines a comprehensive program designed to reduce total government costs and citizen losses from wildland fire in the Unit. It also strives to support the public with assistance and education to create fire adapted communities that can more safely withstand a wildland fire.

To accomplish this, CAL FIRE continues to implement this plan to address such factors as:
▪ Firefighter and Public Safety
▪ Hazardous Fuel Treatment
▪ Fire Suppression
▪ Information and Education
▪ Inter-Agency Cooperation
Title 24 California Code of Regulations
The California Building Standards Code, Title 24, which incorporates the California Fire Code, is adopted every three years by order of the California Legislature with supplements published in intervening years.

Title 24 mandates specific requirements for new building construction, placing strong emphasis on proper address signage, apparatus access, water requirements, and defensible space.

California Code, Public Resources Code § 4290
The Public Resources Code § 4290 became effective in September of 1991. These regulations require the future design and construction of structures, subdivisions, and developments in SRA to provide wildfire protection measures for basic emergency access and perimeter. These measures provide for emergency access, signing and building numbering, private water supply reserves for emergency fire use, and vegetation modification.

California Code, Public Resources Code § 4291
The Public Resources Code § 4291 require property owners in mountainous areas, forest-covered lands, or any land that is covered with flammable material to create, at a minimum, a 100-foot defensible space buffer around their homes and other structures. Defensible space must at least extend to the property line if a 100- foot buffer cannot be achieved.

Solano County General Plan
The 2008 Solano County General Plan includes a number of policies in the Public Health and Safety Element to mitigate the effects of wildfires. These policies aim to prevent wildfires through the requirement of defensible space associated with building construction, the prohibition of development in areas of extreme risk, required incorporation of fire-safe building methods in development, and the consolidation of efforts to prevent or abate fuel buildup.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 144 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 101 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-42
Fire Protection Features in Solano County Code
The Solano County Code aids in reducing fire risks by allowing a county officer, who’s responsibility is fire protection in the unincorporated area of the county, to alert the relevant fire protection district of the existence of flammable material that might endanger public safety as a potential fire hazard. The relevant fire protection district consequently has the authority to order the clearing of land or the removal of dry grass, stubble, brush, rubbish, litter, or other flammable material (§ 12.5-20).

4.5.1.3 Past Events
There are four major factors that contribute to historic wildfire events:

1. Extreme vegetation diversity,

2. Diverse fire weather and fire behavior,

3. Dynamic fire history, and

4. Complex land use patterns.

From 2005-2020, there were 15 wildfires in Solano County, some of which overlapped with neighboring counties, each burning over 100 acres in the region. Some burned considerably more acreage, most notably the 2017 Atlas Fire and the 2020 LNU Lightning Complex. These events are listed in Table 4-10 and displayed in Figure 4-21.

Table 4-10: Fire Perimeter Sizes and Dates (100 Acres or Greater 2000-2020) Date Name Size in Acres
2005 Gordon 194
2000 Winters 404
2004 Cement 1,007
2002 128 188
2003 Sacket 192
2004 Mix 296
2006 Sky Valley 226
2008 Wild 4,102
2011 Beacon 703
2015 Wragg 8,049
2017 Timm 126
2017 Atlas 51,625
2018 Nelson 2,158
2019 American 527
2020 LNU Lightning Complex 160,260
Source: California Fire, Incident Database
Note: Perimeters shown for those fires on or after year 2000 that had perimeter sizes of greater than or equal to 100 acres.

Recent Large Wildfire Events
LNU Lightning Complex and Hennessey Fire (2020)
The LNU Lightning Complex was a series of lightning-sparked fires that began in August and continued through October of 2020 in Northern California. Lightning struck California approximately 14,000 times over a three-day period and started more than 650 fires. In total, the fires burned 363,220 acres and were active for 47 days. (CAL FIRE, 2020)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 145 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 102 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-43
The Hennessey Fire, which started on August 17, 2020, impacted Solano County along with Colusa, Lake, Napa, and Yolo Counties. The Hennessey Fire extended along a north-south longitude through the western portion of Solano County. In Solano
County, the fires killed two people and
destroyed 711 structures, including 302
residential homes. The fire burned
approximately 42,000 acres in the county.
(Solano County, 2020) See Figure 4-20 for
an image of damages suffered outside
Vacaville from the LNU Lightning
Complex fires.

A handful of key response-related
mitigation actions have been identified as
lessons learned from the LNU Lightning
Complex, both from the still-draft After
Action Report (“AAR,” Solano OES, October
2020) and the Watershed Emergency
Response Team Evaluation (“WERT Eval,”
CAL FIRE, October 2020). While much of
the lessons learned focus on response, mitigation-related lessons include:
▪ Install a fire siren system in fire prone areas. Power outages in the area prevented cellular communication during the wildfire, and first responders had to resort to door-to-door alerts in order to warn residents of impending danger. (AAR)
▪ Ensure new EOC staff members are trained for future wildfire hazards and ensure Solano Office of Emergency Services is fully staffed. (AAR)
▪ Enhance county field communications by creating a joint powers authority to build out a modern trunked radio system for the county. (AAR)
▪ Develop emergency response and evacuation plans based upon the identified post-fire hazards. (WERT Eval)
▪ Perform monitoring and maintenance of road drainage and storm drain infrastructure. Drainage facilities were noted to be undersized for larger storm events in many locations, and the post-fire environment can create conditions that quickly overwhelm even drainage facilities normally considered to be adequately sized. (WERT Eval)
▪ Cities and counties with municipal water supply reservoirs should consider conducting detailed hydrologic evaluations of the potential post-fire impacts, including evaluating possible mitigation measures designed to minimize the potential for debris and ash to impact the water supply. (WERT Eval)
The county’s response was successful in maintaining a careful adherence to Public Health recommendations in light of the active COVID-19 pandemic. They were also effective in their use of a Local

Figure 4-20: 2020 LNU Lightning Complex Fires
Photo: Jose Carlos Fajardo (Patch, August 2020)

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 146 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 103 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-44
Assistance Center (LAC). Using a LAC sped up the recovery process and put the county well ahead of neighboring counties in their recovery process. (Solano County, 2020) See Figure 4-21 for locations of historic fires since 2000 greater than 100 acres.

4.5.1.4 Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs)
Solano County's hilly areas contain major wildland fire hazard risks for residential structures and other development, characterized by steep slopes, poor fire suppression delivery access, inadequate emergency water supply, and highly flammable vegetation. To help better define areas of wildfire concern, CAL FIRE establishes and maps Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), or areas of significant fire hazards based on factors such as fuel, weather, terrain, and the number of days of moderate, high, and extreme fire hazard.

These zones define the application of various mitigation strategies to reduce the risk associated with wildfires.

The FHSV model inputs frequency of fire weather, ignition patterns, expected rate-of spread, and past fire history. It also accounts for flying ember production based on the area of influence where embers are likely to land and cause ignitions. The FHSZ model is built from existing data and hazard constructs and, thus, does not necessarily take into consideration significant land use and structural resiliency. The geography, weather patterns, and vegetation in the planning area provide ideal conditions for recurring wildfires.

See Figure 4-22 and Figure 4-23 for wildfire return intervals and fire severity zones. These maps are th e basis for this wildfire risk assessment.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 147 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 104 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-45

Figure 4-21: Historic Fire Occurrence Map (Fires Greater than 100 Acres, 2000-2020) FINAL for adoption Packet Page 148 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 105 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-46

4.5.1.5 Frequency and Probability of Future Occurrences Generally, Solano County faces a wildland fire threat annually. Fire conditions arise from a combination of hot weather, an accumulation of vegetation, and low moisture content in the air. These conditions, when combined with high winds and years of drought, increase the potential for a wildfire to occur. Urban wildfires often occur in those areas where development has expanded into the rural areas. A fire along this urban-rural interface can result in major losses of property and structures. There are three major factors that sustain wildfires and allow for predictions of a given area’s potential to burn: fuel, topography, and weather.

Fuel is the material that feeds a fire and is a key factor in wildfire behavior. Fuel is generally classified by type and by volume. Fuel sources are diverse and include everything from dead tree needles, leaves, twigs, and branches to dead standing trees, live trees, brush, and cured grasses. Man-made structures and other associated combustibles are also considered fuel sources. The type of prevalent fuel in an area directly influences the behavior of wildfire. Light fuels, such as grasses, burn quickly and serve as a catalyst for fire spread. The volume of available fuel is described in terms of fuel loading. Certain areas in and surrounding Solano County are extremely vulnerable to fires as a result of dense grassy vegetation combined with a growing number of structures being built near and within rural lands.

An area’s topography also affects its susceptibility to wildfire spread. Fire intensities and rates of spread increase as slope increases due to the tendency of heat from a fire to rise via convection. Where fire quickly spreads up a canyon, gully, or other similarly constrained topographic feature, this is referred to as the “chimney effect.” The natural arrangement of vegetation throughout a hillside can also contribute to increased fire activity on slopes.

Weather components, such as temperature, relative humidity, wind, and lightning, also affect the potential for wildfire. High temperatures and low relative humidity dry out the fuels that feed the wildfire creating a situation where fuel will more readily ignite and burn more intensely. Wind is the most treacherous weather factor. The greater a wind, the faster a fire will spread and the more intense it will be. Winds can be significant at times in Solano County. In addition to high winds, wind shifts can occur suddenly due to temperature changes or the interaction of wind with topographical features, such as slopes or steep hillsides. Related to weather is the issue of recent drought conditions contributing to concerns about wildfire vulnerability. During periods of drought, the threat of wildfire increases. (NOAA, 2018) The majority of past wildfire events in Solano County were in the late summer months (typically June through October). Frequency of wildfire events may increase because of increasingly drier conditions caused by climate change. Fire risk will also continue to grow as more people build in WUI areas, which increases fuel loads and the risk of human-caused fires. (FEMA, 2020) As seen in Figure 4-21, fire occurrences are the most common in mountainous areas in the northwestern portion of Solano County. The probability of a wildfire occurring in Solano County is highly likely, with a 100 percent annual chance.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 149 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 106 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-47

Figure 4-22: Mean Wildfire Return Intervals

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 150 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 107 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-48

Figure 4-23: Wildfire Risk Exposure

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 151 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 108 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-49

4.5.1.6 Severity and Extent
The severity of the wildland fire hazard is determined by the relationship between three factors: fuel classification, topographic slope, and critical fire weather frequency. Solano County has a significant amount of wildfire fuels and susceptible topographic slope. Critical fire weather conditions also occur in periods of low relative humidity, high heat, and high winds.

Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a health hazard, especially for sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Wildfire may also threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires. First responders are exposed to the dangers from the initial incident and after-effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke. In addition, wildfire can lead to ancillary impacts, such as landslides in steep ravine areas and flooding due to the impacts of silt in local watersheds.

4.5.1.7 Warning Time
Response time can be rapid and warning time short for wildfires. Wildfires are often caused by humans, intentionally or accidentally. There is no way to predict when one might occur. The Fourth of July can be a time of heightened concern and outreach around wildfires since fireworks can cause fires and usage is high.

Dry seasons and droughts greatly increase fire likelihood. Lightning from dry thunderstorms, where precipitation evaporates before reaching the ground, may also trigger wildfires. Extreme weather can be predicted, so special attention should be paid during weather events that may include lightning or high wind. Reliable National Weather Service lightning warnings are available on average 24 to 48 hours prior to a significant electrical storm.

If a fire does break out and spread rapidly, residents may need to evacuate within days or hours. A fire’s peak burning period generally is between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. Once a fire has started, fire alerting is reasonably rapid in most cases. The rapid spread of cellular and two -way radio communications in recent years has contributed to a significant improvement in warning time. (California Fire, 2020)

4.5.1.8 Secondary Hazards
Wildfires can generate a range of secondary effects, which in some cases may cause more widespread and prolonged damage than the fire itself. Fires can cause direct economic losses in the reduction of harvestable timber and indirect economic losses in reduced tourism and commerce. Wildfires also cause the contamination of reservoirs, destroy transmission lines, and contribute to flooding. They strip slopes of vegetation, exposing them to greater amounts of runoff, weakening soils, and causing slope failures. Major landslides can occur several years after a wildfire. Wildfires that burn hot and for long durations can bake soils, especially those high in clay content, creating hydrophobic soils that repel water. When it rains in burned areas, more soil washes off the hills and into roads, ditches, and streams and increases flooding. (United States Department of Agriculture, n.d.)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 152 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 109 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-50

4.5.1.9 Climate Change Impacts
Fire in western ecosystems is determined by climate variability, local topography, and human intervention.

Climate change has the potential to affect multiple elements of the wildfire system: fire behavior, ignitions, fire management, and vegetation fuels. Hot, dry spells create the highest fire risk. Drought and increased temperatures intensify wildfire danger by warming and drying out vegetation. Climate change also may increase winds that spread fires. Faster fires are harder to contain and, thus, are more likely to expand into residential neighborhoods. (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, n.d.) A changing climate is expected to subject forests to increased stress due to drought, disease, invasive species, and insect pests. These stressors are likely to make forests more vulnerable to catastrophic f ires.

While periodic fires are natural processes and fulfill an important ecological function, catastrophic fire events that cannot be contained or managed can cause serious threats to homes and infrastructure, especially for properties located at the wildland urban interface.

Moreover, rain events are predicted to become more severe in our changing climate. This could worsen post- rain flood events. (Id.) With or without rain, climate change also may bring an increased occurrence of lightning, which is responsible for a significant number of wildfires and amount of acreage burned, as discussed above in Section 4.5.1.1.3.

It is predicted that Solano County will see higher daily temperatures, more heatwaves, increased wildfires, and a diminished snowpack within this century as a result of climate change. By the year 2064, Solano County is projected to experience an increase in wildfire risk. A moderate greenhouse gas emission scenario projects an increase of 3.8°F while a high emission scenario projects an increase of 4.6°F by the year 2064. (Cal-Adapt, 2021)

4.5.1.10 Wildfire Vulnerability Analysis
This section describes vulnerabilities to wildfire in terms of population, property, and infrastructure.

Wildfire population, parcel value, critical facilities, and lifeline exposure numbers were generated by overlaying the inventory outlined in Section 4.3 with CalFire Wildfire Hazard Severity Zones. Figure 4-25 shows a Snapshot Map of wildfire vulnerability in Solano County. Details for all data found in the Snapshot Map can be found in this section. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes.

Population
Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard, especially for sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Smoke generated by wildfire contains visible and invisible emissions, including particulate matter such as soot, tar, water vapor, and minerals; gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxides; and toxins such as formaldehyde and benzene. Emissions from wildfires depend on the type of fuel, the moisture content of the fuel, the efficiency or temperature of combustion, and the weather. Public and mental health impacts FINAL for adoption Packet Page 153 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 110 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-51
associated with wildfire include difficulty breathing, odor, reduction in visibility, depression, and anxiety.

Likewise, first responders are exposed to the dangers from the initial incident and after-effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke.

Wildfire is of greatest concern to populations residing in the moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones. U.S. Census Bureau block data was used to estimate populations within the CAL FIRE identified hazard zones. See Figure 4-25, Figure 4-24, and Table 4-11 for detail on populations residing in wildfire risk areas.

Table 4-11 Populations Exposed to Wildfire Risk (Unincorporated County) Total Population
Unincorporated County 19,665

Wildfire Severity Zone Population Count % of Total
Very High 83 0.42%
High 4,979 25.32%
Moderate 6,773 34.44%
Total 11,836 60.19%

Figure 4-24: Population Exposed to Wildfire Risk
83 4,979
6,773
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Very High High Moderate
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 154 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 111 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-52

Figure 4-25: Exposure Wildfire Vulnerability and Snapshot Map

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 155 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 112 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-53
Property
This section calculates the considerable assets at risk of wildfire in those severity zones. More rural properties are associated with lower income residents and higher wildfire risk. See Table 4-12, which uses county parcel information to calculate exposure in wildfire severity zones. In some cases, a parcel will be within multiple fire threat zones. For this exercise, every parcel with a square footage value greater than zero was developed in some way. Only improved parcels were analyzed.

Table 4-12: Improved Parcel and Content within Wildfire Severity Zones (Unincorporated County) Total Parcels

Total Market Value
($)
Total Content
Value ($) Total Value ($)

Unincorporated County 6,668 $3,186,640,275 $2,078,097,240 $5,264,737,515

Fire Hazard Severity Zone Parcel Count % of Total Market Value Exposure ($)
Content Value
Exposure ($)
Total Exposure
($) % of Total
Very High 29 0.4% $7,858,861 $4,116,326 $11,975,187 0.2% High 1,226 18.4% $732,442,269 $380,087,793 $1,112,530,062 21.1% Moderate 2,731 41.0% $1,361,834,480 $831,115,924 $2,192,950,404 41.7% Total 3,986 59.8% $2,102,135,610 $1,215,320,043 $3,317,455,653 63.0% Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Critical facilities of wood frame construction are especially vulnerable during wildfire events. Power lines are also at risk from wildfire because some poles are made of wood and are susceptible to burning.

In many cases, roads and railroads would not be susceptible to damage except in the worst scenarios, but a wildfire event could create response issues, if affected. Fires can create conditions that block or prevent access and can isolate residents and emergency service providers. Wildfire typically does not have a major direct impact on bridges, but it can create conditions in which bridges are obstructed. Many bridges in areas of high to moderate fire risk are important because they provide the only ingress and egress to large areas and, in some cases, to isolated neighborhoods. Additionally, wildfires may cause the loss of function of cellular phone sites or cell towers, which can limit emergency services, including tracking and evacuation.

Critical facilities data was overlain with fire hazard severity zone data to determine the type and number of facilities within each risk classification. Table 4-13 lists the critical facilities in wildfire hazard severity zones for Solano County, and Table 4-14 similarly lists critical infrastructure.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 156 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 113 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-54
Table 4-13: Critical Facility Exposure to Wildfire Severity Zones (Unincorporated County) Critical Infrastructure - Wildfire Severity Zone
Infrastructure Type Very High High Moderate
Essential Facility - 2 4

EOC - - -
Law Enforcement - - -
Fire Station - 2 4
Emergency Services - - -
Hospital - - -
High Potential Loss 1 14 104
Dam - 5 5
Historic Building - - -
Library - - -
School - - 4
Historic Site - - -
Community Center - - -
Jurisdiction Real Property Asset* - - -
Park - 2 1
Wastewater Treatment Facility - - 1
Emergency Shelter - 1 1
Administrative - - -
Child Care Facility - 1 4
Healthcare Facility - - -
Senior Center - - -
County Real Property Asset* 1 5 86
Early Learning - - 2
Transportation and Lifeline 1 208 278
Airport - - -
Bridge 1 18 56
Power Plant - - 3
Substation - - 2
Bus Facility - - -
NG Station - 1 3
Bus Stop - - 3
Railway Bridge - 1 -
Cell Tower - 6 8
Breakout Tank - - -
Oil Facility - - -
Transmission Line Tower - 182 187
Wind Turbine - - 16
Ferry - - -
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 157 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 114 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-55
Critical Infrastructure - Wildfire Severity Zone
Infrastructure Type Very High High Moderate
Amtrak Station - - -
Train Station - - -
Hazmat - 20 22
Hazmat - 20 22
Hazardous Waste facility - - -
Grand Total 2 244 408

Table 4-14: Lifelines in Wildfire Severity Zones (Unincorporated County) Lifelines (miles) - Wildfire Severity Zone
Infrastructure Type (Linear) Very High High Moderate
Bus Route - 9.83 25.91
Levee (FEMA) - 1.48 89.11
Levee Flood Wall - - -
Levee Cross Section - - 0.26
NG Pipeline - 14.50 37.89
Railroad - 2.93 15.60
Street 96.07 331.50 485.52
4WD trail - 10.15 -
Alley - - 0.03
Cul-de-sac - 0.09 0.23
Driveway 6.25 43.66 79.47
Ferry - - 0.08
Interstate - 4.75 37.01
Local road 76.76 169.56 197.24
Local road, major 12.31 66.68 117.74
Primary highway - - -
Ramp - 0.55 5.58
Service road - - 1.46
State/county highway 0.75 32.82 45.94
Traffic circle - - 0.00
Walkway - 3.23 0.74
Transmission Line - 60.83 69.29
Grand Total 96.07 421.07 723.59

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 158 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 115 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-56

4.5.1.11 Changes in Development and Future Trends
Fuel reduction projects are ongoing on federal, state, and private lands in Solano County. Such projects include vegetation management, broadcast burning, pre-commercial thinning, and the removal of dead, dying, and diseased trees. Historically, Solano County has not had much presence of citizen groups around wildfire prevention, such as Fire Safe Councils. This is slowly changing, with the recent establishment of the Green Valley Fire Safe Council (GVFSC). GVFSC is currently providing a community chipping program, and other communities in the county are looking at replicating GVFSC’s successes. These efforts could result in Solano County’s first Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP).

4.5.1.12 Wildfire Hazard Problem Statements
As part of the mitigation action identification process, the Planning Committee for the county and for each jurisdiction identified issues and weaknesses, also called problem statements, for their respective facilities.

Identification was based on the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis utilizing the RAMP mapping tool and wildfire hazard data. Wildfire problem statements for all participating jurisdictions are listed in Table 4-15; problem statements for all other participating jurisdictions are accessed in Volume 2 of this plan.

Identifying these common issues and weaknesses assists the Planning Committee in understanding the realm of resources needed for mitigation. The goal is to have at least one mitigation action for every problem statement. See Table 5-6 for a full list of mitigation actions and the corresponding problem statements that they address. Each problem statement is coded with a problem number for cross-referencing between Table 4-15 and Table 5-6.

Table 4-15 Wildfire Problem Statements
Problem
No.

Hazard
Type
Area of
Concern
Mitigation
Alternatives
Primary
Agency Problem Description Related MA
ps-WF -SC-
104
Wildfire Impact PRV -
Prevention ,
PPRO - Property
Protection ,
PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness , SP
- Structural
Projects
Solano
County
The following are residential areas of
particular concern and vulnerable to the
impacts of wildfire due to close
proximity to open space and fuels:
residential area around Foxboro Pkwy,
Rancho Solano Neighborhood, Paradise
Valley, Lagoon Valley, and Green Valley.
ma-WF-SC-33,
ma-WF-SC-36,
ma-AH-SC-14
ps-WF -SC-
106
Wildfire Impact PRV -
Prevention ,
PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness
Solano
County
The County currently does not have a
code enforcement presence related to
wildfire.
ma-WF-SC-33,
ma-WF-SC-35,
ma-WF-SC-34
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 159 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 116 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-57
Problem
No.

Hazard
Type
Area of
Concern
Mitigation
Alternatives
Primary
Agency Problem Description Related MA
ps-WF -SC-
107
Wildfire Impact PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness , ES
- Emergency
Services
Solano
County
The County does not have identified
evacuation zones to facilitate
evacuation in the event of a wildfire.
ma-WF-SC-36,
ma-AH-SC-14
ps-WF -SC-
108
Wildfire Impact PRV -
Prevention ,
PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness , ES
- Emergency
Services
Solano
County
Identification of evacuation routes out
of Travis Air Force Base is needed.
ma-WF-SC-36,
ma-WF-SC-
178, ma-WF-
SC-40, ma-WF-
SC-37, ma-WF-
SC-36
ps-WF -SC-
109
Wildfire Victim PRV -
Prevention ,
PPRO - Property
Protection ,
PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness , ES
- Emergency
Services
Solano
County
Approximately 4,716 people live in a
high or very high wildfire severity zone
in the Unicorp. County.
ma-WF-SC-37,
ma-WF-SC-36,
ma-WF-SC-38,
ma-AH-SC-12,
ma-AH-SC-11
ps-WF -SC-
110
Wildfire Threat PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness , ES
- Emergency
Services , SP -
Structural
Projects
Solano
County
The choke point just south of Cordelia
at I-80 and I-680 is vulnerable to
wildfire due to high winds in the area
and proximity to open space.
ma-WF-SC-34
ps-WF -SC-
111
Wildfire Threat PPRO - Property
Protection , NRP
- Natural
Resource
Protection , ES -
Emergency
Services
Solano
County
Ongoing vegetation management is
needed throughout the Unicorp. County
to manage wildfire fuels.
ma-WF-SC-34,
ma-WF-SC-35

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 160 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 117 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-58

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 161 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 118 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-59
Flood Hazard Profile
Flooding is one of the three primary hazards in California, along with earthquake and wildfire, and represents the second most destructive source of hazard, vulnerability, and risk statewide. (Cal OES, 2018) Flooding is a priority hazard for Solano County as well.

Connections between a river and its floodplain are most apparent during and after major flood events. A floodplain is the area adjacent to a river, creek, or lake that becomes inundated during a flood. Floodplains may be broad, such as when a river crosses an extensive flat landscape, or narrow, as when a river is confined in a canyon. These areas form a complex physical and biological system that supports a variety of natural resources and provides natural flood and erosion control. When a river is separated from its floodplain with levees and other flood control facilities, its natural, built-in benefits can be lost, altered, or significantly reduced. (FEMA, 2020) There are six types of flood events that might occur within the Solano County area: riverine, flash, urban stormwater, levee or canal, and coastal delta flooding. Regardless of the type, the cause is primarily the result of extreme weather and excessive rainfall, either in the flood area or upstream reach. (The National Severe Storms Laboratory, 2020)
Riverine flooding, the most common type of flood event, occurs when a watercourse exceeds its bank-full capacity. Riverine flooding occurs as a result of prolonged rainfall that is combined with saturated soils from previous rain events, or combined with snowmelt, and is characterized by high peak flows of moderate duration and by a large volume of runoff. Riverine flooding occurs in river systems whose tributaries drain large geographic areas and can include many watersheds and sub-watersheds. The duration of riverine floods varies from a few hours to many days. Factors that directly affect the amount of flood runoff include precipitation amount, intensity and distribution, soil moisture content, channel capacity, seasonal variation in vegetation, snow depth, and water-resistance of the surface due to urbanization. (Id.) In Solano County, riverine flooding can occur anytime during the period from November through May.

Flooding is more severe when antecedent rainfall has resulted in saturated ground conditions and often results in flooding to a number of streams. Specifically, flood risk is intensified in the lower stream reaches by the probability of coincident high tides and strong offshore winds during heavy rainfall. (Solano County General Plan, 2008)
The term “flash flood” describes localized floods of great volume and short duration, generally in less than four hours. In contrast to riverine flooding, this type of flood usually results from a heavy rainfall in a relatively small drainage area. Precipitation of this sort usually occurs in the spring and summer. (Id.) Urbanization may increase peak flow runoff, as well as the total volume of stormwater runoff from a site.

The increase is dependent upon the type of soil and its topography in relation to the proposed development.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 162 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 119 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-60
Comparison of the peak flow and volume impacts to the watershed should be analyzed whenever development is proposed to assure that any increases are accommodated. (USGS, 2016) Flooding may be a secondary impact from an earthquake, which may cause failure of dams, canal banks, or landslides that block drainage channels, streams, or rivers. See Section 4.5.6 for the Earthquake Hazard Profile.

FEMA Floodplain Definitions
100-YR Floodplain
The boundaries of the 100-YR floodplain coincide with an annual risk of one percent and are a FEMA study product consisting of both floodway and flood fringe.

500-YR Floodplain
The boundaries of the floodplain coincide with an annual risk of 0.2 percent and are a FEMA study product. The 500-YR floodplain includes the 100-YR.

Floodway
This includes the channel of the tributary and the land adjacent to it. This zone needs to remain free from obstruction so the 100-YR flood can be conveyed downstream.

Flood Fringe
This is the remaining portion of the 100-YR floodplain, excluding the floodway. This zone can be obstructed or developed if criteria are met.

Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
An area having special flood, mudflow, or flood-related erosion hazards and shown on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The SFHA is the area where the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP) floodplain management regulations must be enforced.

Floodplain Ecosystems
Floodplains can support ecosystems that are rich in quantity and diversity of plant and animal species. A floodplain can contain 100 or even 1,000 times as many species as a river. Wetting of the floodplain soil releases an immediate surge of nutrients left over from the last flood resulting from the rapid decomposition of organic matter that had accumulated. Microscopic organisms thrive, and larger species enter a rapid breeding cycle. Opportunistic feeders, particularly birds, move in to take advantage. The production of nutrients peaks and falls away quickly; however, the surge of new growth endures for some time. This makes floodplains particularly valuable for agriculture. Species growing in floodplains are markedly different from those that grow outside floodplains. For instance, trees in floodplains and riparian areas tend to be very tolerant of root disturbance and very quick-growing compared to non-riparian trees.

Floodplains that are undisturbed or have been restored to a natural state provide many benefits to both human and natural systems. In their natural vegetative state, undisturbed floodplains provide the following benefits:

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 163 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 120 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-61
▪ Slow the rate at which incoming surface runoff reaches the main body of water, slowing down the impact of flood events.
▪ Maintain water quality by allowing surface runoff to drop sediment into the natural soil, preventing it from depositing in streams and rivers.
▪ Recharge groundwater. The slowing of runoff allows additional time for the runoff to recharge existing groundwater aquifers.
▪ Provide habitat for large and diverse populations of plants and animals.

Floodplains are often compromised by human development. Because they border water bodies, floodplains have historically been popular sites to establish settlements. Human activities tend to concentrate on floodplains because water is readily available, the land is fertile and suitable for farming, transportation by water is easily accessible, and the land is flatter and easier to develop.

Human activity in floodplains frequently interferes with the natural function of floodplains. It can affect the distribution and timing of drainage, thereby increasing flood problems. Human development can create local flooding problems by altering or confining drainage channels. This in creases flood potential in two ways: it reduces the stream’s capacity to contain flows and it increases flow rates or velocities downstream during all stages of a flood event. Human activities can interface effectively with a floodplain as long as steps are taken to mitigate the activities’ adverse impacts on floodplain functions.

4.5.2.1 Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Environment
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. Solano County and the cities of Benicia, Dixon, Fairfield, Rio Vista, Suisun, Vacaville, and Vallejo participate in NFIP.

For most participating communities, FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the one-percent annual chance flood (the 100-YR flood) and the 0.2-percent annual chance flood (the 500-YR flood).

Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) and the boundaries of the 100- and 500-YR floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principal tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. FIRMs also designate and display the floodway, which is the channel of the river or stre am and adjacent land that must remain free from obstruction so that the 100-YR flood can be conveyed downstream.

FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities, they represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program. The most recent county-wide FIRM was completed on August 2, 2012.

Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met:

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 164 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 121 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-62
▪ New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 100-YR flood;
▪ New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties; and
▪ New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species.

Structures permitted or built in the county before December 31, 1974, are called “pre-FIRM” structures, and structures built afterward are called “post-FIRM.” Post-FIRM properties are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were adopted to decrease vulnerability. Pre-FIRM properties are more vulnerable to flooding because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas. The insurance rate is different for the two types of structures.

Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and by the California Department of Water Resources under a contract with FEMA. Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk reduction. All participating jurisdictions that participate in the NFIP have identified initiatives to maintain their compliance and good standing.

Community Rating System (CRS)
The Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary program within the NFIP that encourages floodplain management activities that exceed minimum NFIP requirements. Flood insurance premiums are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community actions that meet the three goals of the CRS: 1) reduce flood losses, 2) facilitate accurate insurance rating, and 3) promote awareness of flood insurance.

For participating communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted in increments of five percent according to the community’s classification. For example, a Class 1 community would receive a 45 percent premium discount, and a Class 9 community would receive a five percent discount. Class 10 communities are those that do not participate in the CRS; they receive no discount. The CRS classes for local communities are based on 18 creditable activities related to public information, mapping and regulations, flood damage reduction, and flood preparedness.

CRS activities can help to save lives and reduce property damage. Communities participating in the CRS represent a significant portion of the nation’s flood risk; over 66 percent of the NFIP’s policy base are communities in the CRS. Communities receiving premium discounts through the CRS range from small to large and represent a broad mixture of flood risks, including both coastal and riverine flood risks. Table 4-16 lists NFIP and CRS statistics for the county; annexes list NFIP and repetitive loss information for participating jurisdictions.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 165 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 122 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-63
Table 4-16: Flood Insurance Statistics for Solano County (County-Wide) NFIP and CRS Status & Information
Solano County (County-Wide)
NFIP Status 8/2/1982
CRS Class 7
Policies in Force 2,568
Policies in SFHA 1,312
Policies in non-SFHA 1,256
Total Claims Paid $10,441,655
Paid Losses 584
Repetitive Loss Properties 56
Severe Repetitive Loss Properties 4
Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Building $3,748,598
Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Contents $1,231,370
Source: OpenFEMA Data, FIMA RUL Solano County
Note: Policies and claims tabulation by jurisdiction is derived from the "reported city." Repetitive loss tabulations by jurisdiction derived via GIS-based intersect of data available at OpenFEMA Data ( https://www.fema.gov/about/openfema/data-sets) . County-wide data reported for entire county area including municipalities. The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a) restricts the release of certain types of data to the public. Flood insurance policy and claims data are included in the list of restricted information. FEMA can only release such data to state and local governments, and only if the data are used for floodplain management, mitigation, or research purposes.

Therefore, this plan does not identify the repetitive loss properties or include claims data for any individual property.

Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act
The Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act of 1965 provided state-level guidance and review of floodplain management, including the review of floodplain management plans, establishment of floodplain management regulations, and the use of designated floodways. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) adopts regulations, maintains a statewide flood management data collection and planning program, manages a statewide grant program, and helps coordinate emergency flood response operations.

Central Valley Flood Protection Board and Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage District The Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB), formerly known as the California State Reclamation Board, is the regulating authority over flood risk management in the Central Valley, and the Sacramento- San Joaquin Drainage District. In addition, CVFPB is charged with the review and adoption of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP). The CVFPB’s governing body consists of seven Governor-appointed and Senate-confirmed members. This board works in close partnership with DWR, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), and stakeholders to implement the CVFPP. The CVFPB also works closely with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to evaluate the environmental impacts of flood control.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 166 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 123 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-64
The area of the board's jurisdiction includes the entire Central Valley, including all tributaries and distributaries of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and the Tulare and Buena Vista basins. Eastern Solano County encompasses parts of the lower Sacramento watershed under CVFPB jurisdiction.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage District (SSJDD), which includes floodplains in the lower Sacramento basin in eastern Solano County, is managed by the CVFPP and authorized to acquire, own, hold, use, and enjoy any and all properties necessary for the proposes of the district in order to carry out specified flood management activities. All moneys collected upon sales or otherwise are deposited in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District Fund. Amendments in 2015-16 authorized the district to sell, lease or rent, or otherwise dispose of rights-of-way, easements, or property, as specified, and to take, receive, and apply for purposes of flood control the revenue received from the lease or rental of the property.

Solano County General Plan
The 2008 Solano County General Plan includes a number of policies in the Public Health and Safety Element that provide for county-wide flood protection. These policies prioritize the maintenance of riparian corridors and water channels and the requirement of safe development standards for greater flood management protection throughout Solano County.

Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP)
Jurisdictions either supplying over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serving more than 3,000 urban connections are required to submit an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and update the plan every five years. Most jurisdictions participating in this MJHMP have a UWMP, explored in more detail in the jurisdictional annex capabilities assessments. The Solano County Water Agency also voluntarily authors an Urban Water Management Plan for areas of the county served by Solano Project supply and the State Water Project.

Most relevant to flood mitigation, UWMPs explore stormwater capacity and assist in planning and funding future stormwater needs. They also contain important information on long-term water supply planning and managing demands in times of drought. UWMPs are important for drought hazard planning and discussed in Section 4.5.5.2. (CDWR, 2021)
Solano County Reclamation and Levee Districts
Flood protection services are often provided by reclamation and levee maintenance districts in Solano County. Both types of special districts operate and maintain levee and drainage systems to protect adjoining land from flooding. These levees and drainage systems protect agricultural and rural areas, critical infrastructure such as highways, and important environmental resources.

Solano County reclamation and levee districts maintain over 400 miles of levees located in the Suisun Marsh, Collinsville, and the Sacramento Delta. Levees in the area are either “project levees,” built and maintained in compliance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer guidelines, or “non-project levees,” which include all other levees built and maintained by private landowners or local reclamation districts. Only about a third of the levees in Solano County are project levees that are regularly inspected by DWR.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 167 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 124 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-65
The Suisun Marsh Protection Plan, White Slough Specific Area Plan, and the Delta Plan all provide levee maintenance standards for non-project levees. For additional information, see the Solano County Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review of Reclamation and Levee Districts from 2020. (Solano LAFCO MSR, 2020, pp. i-ii)
Suisun Marsh Protection Area and Plan
According to the 2018 Solano County Component of the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program:

The Suisun Marsh represents an area of significant aquatic and wildlife habitat and is an irreplaceable and unique resource to the residents of Solano County, the State, and Nation. The Suisun Marsh consists of approximately 85,000 acres of tidal marsh, managed wetlands, and waterways, as well as adjacent lowland and upland grassland areas, in southern Solano County. It is the largest remaining wetland around San Francisco Bay and comprises about ten percent of California’s remaining wetland area. The Marsh is also a wildlife habitat of nationwide importance in that it provides wintering habitat for waterfowl of the Pacific Flyway. Because of its size and estuarine location, it supports a diversity of plant communities that provide habitats for a variety of fish and wildlife, including several rare and endangered species.

In 1974, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) adopted the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan to regulate development for the protection of Suisun Marsh. The purpose of the plan and permitting are to ensure new development outside the Marsh but within the watershed do not adversely affect water quality within the Marsh due to sedimentation and increased urban runoff. (Solano County, 2018, p. 4) Solano County was delegated responsibility for preparing and administering a local protection program.

BCDC serves as the land use permitting agency for major projects within areas encompassing tidal marshes, managed wetlands, adjacent lowland grasslands, and waterways (“primary management area”) and as an appellate review body with limited function within significant buffer lands (“secondary management area”).

As part of the plan, all jurisdictions within the Marsh5 were required to bring general and specific plans, ordinances and zoning maps, land use regulations, and other standards and controls into conformity with the Marsh Act and Protection Plan. (Id.)

5 Agencies include Solano County, the cities of Benicia, Fairfield, and Suisun City, the Solano County Local Agency Formation C ommission, the Solano County Mosquito Abatement District, and the Suisun Resource Conservation District. (Solano County, 2018, p. 4) FINAL for adoption Packet Page 168 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 125 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-66
White Slough Specific Area Plan
Pursuant to a 1990 amendment to the McAteer-Petris Act, The White Slough Specific Area Plan was prepared by Solano County and the City of Vallejo and approved by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The plan provides for the protection and enhancement of habitat value, and the improvement of transportation, flood control, and other infrastructure facilities in the plan area.

Flood Damage Prevention in Solano County Code, § 12.2.

The Solano County Code contains provisions designed to reduce flood loss and to protect loss of property and life. New development in the floodplain must meet strict standards and be approved by the floodplain administrator. This includes special attention to the management of altered natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel floodwaters; the management of filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and the prevention and regulation of the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which might increase flood hazards in alternate areas. The code prohibits encroachments, which include fill, new construction, substantial improvement, and other new development unless certified by a registered Professional Engineer or licensed surveyor and approved by the county.

4.5.2.2 Major Flood Events
Table 4-17 shows the flood events that took place in Solano County since the year 2000 that caused either property or crop damage. Flooding on New Year’s Eve 2005 and New Year’s Day 2006 was particularly damaging, with $15 million in reported damages. (NOAA, 2020) More than 2,000 homes were damaged in the Vacaville area and flows overtopped Interstate 80 in Fairfield. (Murphy, 2006)

Table 4-17: Solano County Flood Events Since 2000
Date Flood Type Property Damage Value ($)
1/23/2000 Flood N/A
1/23/2000 Flood N/A
1/23/2000 Flood $25,000
1/23/2000 Flood N/A
1/23/2000 Flood N/A
1/23/2000 Flood N/A
1/30/2000 Flood N/A
2/10-11/2000 Flood N/A
2/22/2000 Flood N/A
2/26/2000 Flood N/A
1/1/2006 Flood $15,000,000
2/6/2017 Flood N/A
2/13/2019 Flood N/A
Source: NOAA Storm Events Database – N/A – No Damage was reported in database FINAL for adoption Packet Page 169 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 126 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-67

4.5.2.3 Location
Solano County has a significant number of potential flood sources due to its varied geography and climate.

Figure 4-26 depicts FEMA flood zones within Solano County. More detailed views of FEMA flood zones are available for participating jurisdictions through the Risk Assessment Mapping Platform (RAMP) on mitigatehazards.com/solanohmp/ramp/.

Flood risk within Solano County may be compounded by inundation from levee failure and heavy rainfall resulting in stream and drainage canal overflows. In the unincorporated portions of Solano County, flooding is often most impactful near the drainage canals that are used to collect local runoff and areas close to regional watershed floodways, such as the Sacramento River.

The western portion of Solano County tributaries drain generally southward into Suisun Bay through the Suisun Marsh. The Fairfield-Suisun City area is drained by McCoy, Union, Pennsylvania Avenue, Ledgewood, Laurel, and Union Avenue Creeks, which discharge into tidal channels tributary to Suisun Slough. American Canyon, Suisun, Jameson Canyon, and Green Valley Creeks drain the area generally west and north of Fairfield and discharge into tidal channels tributary to Cordelia Slough. Eastern Solano County, including portions of Putah Creek, Ulatis Creek, and the Dixon Ditch System, generally drain east to south eastward into the Yolo Bypass Cache Slough Complex of the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta. (Id.)

The extent of flooding associated with a one percent annual probability of occurrence (the base flood or 100- YR flood) is used as the regulatory boundary by many agencies and helps identify the location and extent of flooding in areas across Solano County. This area, the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), is a convenient tool for assessing vulnerability and risk in flood-prone communities. Figure 4-26 shows the FEMA 100-YR and 500-YR floodplain zones, calculated based on a flood that has a one percent (100-YR) and 0.2 percent (500-YR) chance of occurring in any given year. Vulnerabilities to flood within these flood zones are included in Section 4.5.2.11.

Spreading urbanization further exacerbates the potential for stormwater flood damage in the county by reducing floodplain area available to absorb stormwater in low-lying areas and by preventing natural absorption of stormwater in the higher land, upstream watersheds. Consequently, uncurbed urbanization is leading to an increased rate and volume of stormwater runoff in the county. (Solano County General Plan, 2008)
There are also two flood control projects that are operated and maintained by the Solano County Water Agency (SCWA). The two projects consist of unlined earthen channels with some vegetation for slope reinforcement. The larger of the two projects is the Ulatis Flood Control Project. This project is located in the Vacaville-Elmira drainage basin and is designed to handle a 10-year flood event. The purpose of the Ulatis project is to protect agricultural land downstream of Vacaville. The second project is the Green Valley Flood Project. It is located partially in the unincorporated community of Cordelia and partially within the City of Fairfield. The Green Valley project is comprised of 3.2 miles of channel and is designed to handle a 40-year flood event. (Id.) (Solano County General Plan, 2008)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 170 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 127 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-68

Figure 4-26: Solano County Flood Exposure

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 171 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 128 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-69
Areas Protect by Levees
Levee failures are sometimes difficult to predict; even inspected levees can be susceptible to failure under certain conditions. Levees are maintained and improved by many reclamation and levee maintenance districts throughout Solano County. There are over 400 miles of levees located in Suisun Marsh, Collinsville, and the Sacramento Delta.

The flood management system is generally divided into two broad categories: 1) Project levees that were built, rebuilt, or adopted as part of the State-Federal Sacramento River Flood Control System and are maintained to the highest standards that comply with U.S. Army Corps of Engineer guidelines, and 2) Non- project levees which includes all other levees built and maintained by private landowners or local reclamation districts. Only about a third of the levees in Solano County are project levees that are regularly inspected by DWR. (Solano LAFCO MSR, 2020, pp. i-ii)
The California Department of Water Resources has used the best available information to identify areas within the county where flood levels are predicted to be more than three feet deep if a project levee were to fail; these areas are known as Levee Flood Protection Zones (LFPZ). Most of these zones are located in the eastern portion of the county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. (Solano County General Plan, 2008) See Figure 4-27 for areas that are protected by Army Corps of Engineers levees within the National Levee Database. It is important to note this mapping does not display all land protected by levees within the county.

The potential failure of levees as a result of liquefaction also constitutes a flood hazard. Significant parts of the county are within liquefaction zones. See Section 4.5.3.

Subsidence is also a factor for increased flood severity. Certain areas of the county lie at least three feet below sea level and are subsiding at a rate of up to three inches per year. Most of these are leveed areas and are currently used for agriculture. In particular, the failure of levees protecting the eastern portions of the county could impact residential areas. Roads in the Suisun Marsh and in the east county are constructed almost exclusively on levees. Consequently, levee failures could also cause the disruption of travel through these areas. (Id.)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 172 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 129 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-70

Figure 4-27: Area Protected by Levee

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 173 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 130 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-71
DWR Flood Awareness Zones and 200-year Floodplain in Sacramento Watershed DWR designates Flood Awareness Zones to highlight areas of additional flood, extending beyond FEMA- designated floodplains, that pose a threat throughout the state. The mapping provides communities and residents an additional tool in understanding potential flood hazards. These floodplains are shown simply as flood-prone areas without specific depths and other flood hazard data. Flood awareness zones for Solano County are shown in the repetitive loss area maps if present.

DWR’s best available mapping also includes the 200-year floodplain as identified by the Army Corps of Engineers from the 2002 Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study. The 200 -year floodplain is only mapped for the areas of Solano County within the lower Sacramento watershed, within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage District.

Senate Bill (SB) 5 requires a 200-year level of flood protection from urban and urbanized areas within the Central Valley. All cities and counties in the Central Valley are required to incorporate the data and analysis of the CVFPP into their general plans and zoning ordinances. Solano County will be required to include CVFPP data relating to the following categories as they are relevant to flood-specific outcome categories:
public safety outcomes, ecosystem vitality, and economic stability outcomes. Under SB 5, development in moderate or special hazard areas within the Central Valley is allowed if the local agency can provide substantial evidence that the development would be subject to less than three feet of flooding during a 200- year flood event. Figure 4-28 depicts the flood awareness zones in Solano County and the 200-year floodplain with the lower Sacramento Watershed, as designated by the Army Corps of Engineers, compared to the FEMA-designated flood zones.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 174 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 131 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-72

Figure 4-28: BAM 200-YR Flooding and Awareness Zones
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 175 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 132 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-73

4.5.2.4 Repetitive Loss Areas Analysis
A repetitive loss (RL) property is a FEMA designation, defined as an insured property (or formerly insured) that has made two or more claims of more than $1,000 in any rolling 10-year period since 1978. Claims must be at least 10 days apart but within 10 years of each other. The term “rolling 10-year period” means that a claim of $1,000 can be made in 1991 and another claim for $2,500 in 2000, or one claim in 2001 and another in 2007, as long as both qualifying claims happen within 10 years of each other. A RL property may be classified as a Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property under certain conditions. A Severe Repetitive Loss property has had four or more claims of at least $5,000, or at least two claims that cumulatively exceed the buildings reported value.

Extensive FEMA NFIP databases are used to track claims for every participating community, including Solano County. Currently, the county contains 56 RL properties county-wide. The total dollar amount of claims paid to date by the NFIP for RL properties is $3,748,598 of structural and $1,231,370 content claims.

The total claims paid by the NFIP are $10,091,592 county-wide. See Table 4-16.

A property does not have to be currently carrying a flood insurance policy to be considered a RL or SRL property. Often homes in communities do not carry flood insurance but are still on the community’s repetitive loss list. The “repetitive loss” designation follows a property from owner to owner, from insurance policy to no insurance policy, and even after the property has been mitigated. Having an insurance policy and making claims that fall into the repetitive loss criteria will put a property on the RL list. Even after the policy on a property has lapsed or been terminated, the property will remain on Solano County’s RL list.

This Repetitive Loss Areas Analysis (RLAA) examines areas where multiple RL properties exist in close proximity to each other and share similar flooding source conditions. Five RL areas have been identified as part of Solano Counties RLAA: three in the Allendale area and two in the lower-lying Delta region of the county. Figure 4-29 shows the repetitive loss areas in Solano County.

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a) restricts the release of certain types of data to the public. F lood insurance policy and claims data are included in the list of restricted information. FEMA can only release such data to state and local governments, and only if the data are used for floodplain management, mitigation, or research purposes. Therefore, this plan does not identify the repetitive loss properties or include claims data for any individual property.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 176 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 133 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-74
Figure 4-29. Repetitive Loss Areas and Loss Data Summary FINAL for adoption Packet Page 177 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 134 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-75
Delta Repetitive Loss Areas
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (“Delta”) covers approximately 1,300 square miles (or 730,880 acres) of land and water bodies and includes portions of five counties in Northern California: Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo counties. Fed by runoff from the northern Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Southern Cascades, the Sacramento River flows south to meet the northbound San Joaquin River just south of the City of Sacramento. Smaller tributaries and tidal flows combine with these rivers prior to their junction to form a 700-mile maze of sloughs and waterways surrounding more than 60 leveed tracts of land or “islands.” Properties located in the Delta are at a high risk of flooding. Much of the property in the Delta is rural in character and used for farming. However, the residential development that does exist in the Delta, particularly in the eastern part of Solano County, is at risk of flooding and has experienced repetitive flood loss. The Delta Repetitive Loss Areas consists of one area located on Snug Harbor at Ryer Island and one at Howard Landing.

Snug Harbor Repetitive Loss Area
Ryer Island is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in Solano County, about 6.5 miles north- northeast of Rio Vista and surrounded by Miner Slough and Steamboat Slough. This repetitive loss area consists of seven properties on Snug Harbor, located on the eastern portion of Ryer Island on the “water side” of the Ryer Island levee. Figure 4-30 indicates the area of generalized repetitive loss claims at Snug Harbor.

Most properties on Snug Harbor have significant risk to flooding, as indicated by past flood occurrences and past claims. One property on Snug Harbor Island is a SLR property with more than seven different claims dating back to 1983. All properties within the Snug Harbor Repetitive Loss Area are within the FEMA 100-YR Floodplain. The SFHA “Effective” FIRM indicates Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) of 14 feet for the Steamboat Slough Floodway and, thus, for most of Snug Harbor Island. BFEs eventually rise to 17 feet farther up the reach near the confluences of Miner Slough and Steamboat Slough.

Howard Landing Repetitive Loss Area
Howard’s Landing is also located on Steamboat Slough, just upstream from the Snug Harbor RL area. This RL area consists of two properties on Beaver Island, located on the eastern portion of Ryer Island on the “water side” of the Ryer Island levee. Figure 4-31 indicates the area of generalized repetitive loss claims at Beaver Island. Most properties on Beaver Island have significant risk to flooding, as indicated by past flood occurrences and past claims. There have been four claims in this area totaling over $138,000. All properties within the Howard’s Landing Repetitive Loss Area are within the FEMA 100-YR Floodplain. The SFHA “Effective” FIRM indicates BFEs of 14 feet for the Steamboat Slough Floodway for most of Beaver Island with no protection against high water events.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 178 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 135 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-76

Figure 4-30: Snug Harbor Repetitive Loss Area

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 179 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 136 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-77

Figure 4-31: Howard’s Landing Repetitive Loss Area

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 180 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 137 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-78
Allendale Repetitive Loss Areas
Allendale is a census-designated place in northern Solano County, located 6.5 miles west of Dixon along Highway 505. Allendale is a rural area consisting of large-lot, single-family detached residential development. It has experienced more repetitive loss than any other area in Solano County and has three RL areas: Heather Lane, Hartley Road, and Sweeney Creek. The flooding source is primarily Sweeney Creek; however, there are multiple drainage and water supply canals that contribute to flooding issues.

In 1996, the Sweeney Creek Workgroup was formed to address flood issues along the creek. The Solano County Water Agency (SCWA) also requested easements from landowners between the Putah South Canal and the Ulatis Project, but landowners were unwilling to grant SCWA easements at that time. After 1998 and several large storm events, landowners became interested in improving Sweeney Creek. SCWA was then able to obtain easements from landowners and now maintains a majority of the stretch between Sweeney Creek from the Putah South Canal down to the Ulatis Project. SCWA also completed a watershed study for the area, which proposed enlarging Sweeney Creek; however, landowners were not interested in the project.

Landowners were also not interested in other proposed projects, such as forming an assessment district to fund maintenance of the Putah South Canal or improving the Heather Lane ditch. SCWA did establish the Home Raising Program to help landowners in the Sweeney Creek area to raise or berm their homes and SCWA administers a small grants program to assist landowners. FEMA has worked with the county to identify, assess, and communicate the Allendale community’s flood hazards. Revised FIRM mapping for Solano County became effective on August 2, 2012. Previous to the FEMA remapping study, none of the RL homes were reported to be in a SFHA. As a result of the recent restudy, property owners and the county have a more accurate picture of what properties are at risk of flooding and where to focus flood mitigation efforts.

Heather Lane Repetitive Loss Area: The Heather Lane Repetitive Loss area consists of three repetitive loss properties located on Heather Lane just north of Sweeney Creek, as shown in Figure 4-32. All three of these properties are located in the 100-YR flood zone. Repeated flooding in this area is attributed to Sweeney Creek at the crossing with the Putah South Canal. The low-lying nature of these properties along with an undersized crossing at the canal contribute to flooding in this area.

Hartley Road Repetitive Loss Area: The Hartley Road Repetitive Loss Area consists of three repetitive loss properties located between Store Road and Udell Road, just west of Hartley Road, as shown in Figure 4-33.

The low-lying nature of these single-family properties and their location in the 100-YR flood zone contribute to repeated flooding in the area. Flooding is also attributed to issues associated with Sweeney Creek.

Sweeney Creek Repetitive Loss Area: The Sweeney Creek Repetitive Loss Area consists of two repetitive loss properties on Peaceful Glen Road that are in close proximity to Sweeney Creek. This area is depicted in Figure 4-34. Only one of the two properties in this area is located in the 100-YR flood zone; DWR Flood Awareness Zones are also mapped to show additional flood risks in the area. The location of both properties in proximity to Sweeney Creek contributes to repeated flooding in this area. These areas are privately- owned, and all maintenance is the responsibility of the landowners. The County will work with these landowners in the future to identify and mitigate flood risks.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 181 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 138 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-79

Figure 4-32: Heather Lane Repetitive Loss Area
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 182 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 139 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-80

Figure 4-33: Hartly Road Repetitive Loss Area
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 183 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 140 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-81

Figure 4-34: Sweeney Creek Repetitive Loss Area
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 184 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 141 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-82

4.5.2.5 Measuring Frequency and Severity
The frequency and severity of flooding are measured using a discharge probability, a statistical tool that defines the probability that a certain river discharge or flow level will be equaled or exceeded within a given year. Flood studies use historical records to determine the probability of occurrence for the different discharge levels. The flood frequency equals 100 divided by the discharge probability. For example, the 100- YR discharge has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The “annual flood” is the greatest flood event expected to occur in a typical year. These measurements reflect statistical averages only; it is possible for two or more floods with a 100-YR or higher recurrence interval to occur in a short time period. The same flood can have different recurrence intervals at different points on a river.

The extent of flooding associated with a one percent annual probability of occurrence (the base flood or 100- YR flood) is used as the regulatory boundary by many agencies. Also referred to as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), this boundary is a convenient tool for assessing vulnerability and risk in flood -prone communities. Many communities have maps that show the extent and likely depth of flooding for the base flood. Corresponding water surface elevations describe the elevation of water that will result from a given discharge level, which is one of the most important factors used in estimating flood damage.

4.5.2.6 Frequency and Probability of Future Occurrences Solano County will experience flooding in the future, with the probability of flooding in Solano County between 10 and 100 percent annually. The majority of the floods in Solano County have occurred from winter-through-spring rainfall. The Pacific high is known to cause increased intensity in weather patterns.

As it moves southwards, it encourages storm formation across the state, producing widespread rain at low elevations and snow at high elevations. It is responsible for occasional heavy rains that are known to cause serious flooding. The semi-permanent high-pressure area of the north Pacific Ocean is also responsible for storms, causing heavy rains and widespread flooding during winter months. (Western Regional Climate Center, 2020)
Flooding in California is often associated with the El Niño weather phenomenon. El Niño is a term originally used to describe the appearance of warm (surface) water from time to time in the eastern equatorial Pacific region along the coasts of Peru and Ecuador. This ocean warming can strongly affect weather patterns all over the world. El Niño events are often associated with above-normal precipitation in the southwestern United States and often occur during the winter. La Niña is the opposite or “cold phase” of the El Niño cycle.

Current understanding suggests that El Niño has a return period of four to five years. When an El Niño event occurs, it often lasts from 12 to 18 months. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , 2020) FINAL for adoption Packet Page 185 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 142 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-83

4.5.2.7 Severity and Extent
The main factors affecting flood damage are water depth and velocity. Deeper and faster flood flows can cause more damage. Shallow flooding with high velocities can cause as much damage as deep flooding with low velocity. This is especially true when a channel migrates over a broad floodplain, redirecting high velocity flows and transporting debris and sediment. Figure 4-36 shows FEMA predictions for the extent of a 100-YR and 500-YR flood in Solano County.

Flood severity is often evaluated by examining peak discharges; FEMA Flood Insurance Mapping Studies (FIS) use peak flows to map Solan County Floodplains. Table 4-18 provides some highlights of peak flows in the 2013 FEMA Preliminary FIS.

Table 4-18: Summary of Discharges in Solano County
Drainage
Sq. Miles
Peak Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Flooding Source/Location 10% Annual
Chance
2% Annual
Chance
1% Annual
Chance

0.2% Annual
Chance
Alamo Creek
Pleasant Valley Road N/D 2,000 2,700 2,900 3,600
Interstate Highway 80 N/D 2,700 3,200 3,400 3,500
Alamo Drive N/D 4,400 5,700 6,200 6,700
Leisure Town Road 25.1 3,500 3,700 3,700 3,900
Blue Rock Springs Creek
At Confluence with Rindler Creek 2.36 806 987 1,049 1,135 Just Downstream of Interstate 80 2.32 791 978 1,040 1,126 Just Upstream of Interstate 80 2.28 776 968 1,030 1,117 Gibson Canyon Creek
At Browns Valley Road 1.16 390 530 580 710
Upstream of Putah South Canal 1.93 620 850 940 1,200
Downstream of Putah South Canal 1.93 440 480 490 520
Approximately 675 feet downstream of
Eubanks Road

2.10 470 520 530 570
At Interstate Highway 505 2.78 620 730 770 850
Upstream of Confluence of South
Branch Gibson Canyon Creek

2.81 630 740 780 860
At Leisure Town Road 4.19 510 520 520 530
At Sewage Treatment Plant 4.63 600 730 810 790
Upstream of Interstate Highway 80 7.36 1,800 2,300 2,400 2,900 Downstream of Interstate Highway 80 7.62 1,800 2,300 2,500 3,000 At Byrnes Road 8.03 1,900 2,500 2,700 3,100
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 186 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 143 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-84
Drainage
Sq. Miles
Peak Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Flooding Source/Location 10% Annual
Chance
2% Annual
Chance
1% Annual
Chance

0.2% Annual
Chance
Green Valley Creek
At Cordelia Road 18.0 1,225 2,400 2,950 4,350
At Interstate Highway 80 17.8 1,225 2,350 3,300 5,100
At Green Valley Road (Lower Crossing) 16.3 1,130 2,200 3,350 6,600 At Mason Road 10.6 990 1,800 2,150 2,700
At Rockville Road 8.2 770 1,550 1,750 2,350
At Wild Horse Creek 6.8 710 1,550 2,500 4,800
At Green Valley Road (Upper Crossing) 3.2 350 790 1,260 2,520 Horse Creek
Upstream of Putah South Canal 1.10 370 500 560 680
Downstream of Putah South Canal 1.10 370 420 425 430
Upstream of Confluence with
South Branch Horse Creek

1.18 400 460 460 480
At Interstate Highway 505 2.38 800 890 910 970
Upstream of Confluence with
Pine Tree Creek

2.42 810 900 920 990
At Interstate Highway 80 (Westbound) 3.88 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 At Orange Drive 5.19 1,600 1,900 1,900 2,000
At Leisure Town Road 7.84 2,200 2,700 2,700 3,300
At Willow Avenue 8.24 2,300 2,800 2,900 3,500
Lagoon Drain
At Interstate Highway 80 3.5 370 650 850 1,400
Lemon Street Canal
At Lemon Street 1.95 989 1,275 1,397 1,649
At Fahey Court 1.78 884 1,143 1,234 1,446
At Confluence with Magazine Street Canal 1.29 667 711 734 783 At the Upstream Limit of Study 0.91 390 403 417 444
Miller Ditch
At Vervais Avenue 1.77 1,274 1,475 1,647 2,027
Approximately 1,500 Feet Upstream of Carolina
Street

1.68 1,072 1,432 1,612 1,990
At Thelma Avenue 1.43 896 1,303 1,490 1,859
At Oakwood Avenue 1.28 819 1,195 1,368 1,708
At Heartwood Drive 0.36 232 334 339 521
Pine Tree Creek
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 187 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 144 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-85
Drainage
Sq. Miles
Peak Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Flooding Source/Location 10% Annual
Chance
2% Annual
Chance
1% Annual
Chance

0.2% Annual
Chance
Upstream of Union Pacific Railroad 0.20 75 100 110 140
Upstream of Putah South Canal 0.84 340 450 500 750
Downstream of Putah South Canal 1.11 280 300 320 370
At Interstate Highway 505 1.46 390 440 460 520
At Interstate Highway 80 1.4 225 500 650 825
At Nut Tree Airport 0.9 225 425 525 1,250
At Putah South Canal 0.8 225 425 800 2,000
At Browns Valley Road 0.6 240 425 950 2,200
Suisun Creek
At Cordelia Road 49.5 2,550 3,300 3,300 3,300
At Interstate Highway 80 48.8 2,550 3,610 3,610 3,610
At Rockville Road 48.3 2,500 4,200 4,200 4,310
At Suisun Valley Road 47.3 2,550 4,900 5,850 6,400
At Wooden Valley Road 44.0 2,450 5,000 6,900 10,270
At Napa County-Solano County Limits 40.7 2,200 4,800 6,500 12,400 Sweeney Creek
Upstream of Conf. with McCune Creek 15.5 N/D N/D 2,660 N/D At Putah South Canal Bridge 10.1 N/D N/D 3,780 N/D
At Peaceful Valley Road Bridge 7.65 N/D N/D 3,830 N/D
Ulatis Creek
Leisure Town Road 16.6 2,700 2,800 2,800 2,800
At Interstate Highway 80 N/D 3,300 4,700 5,200 6,100
Farrell Road N/D 3,000 4,200 4,700 5,800
Putah South Canal N/D 3,300 4,400 4,500 4,700
Source: Selection taken from Table 8 Summary of Discharges from FEMA Preliminary FIS Text, 2013.

Note: N/D signifies no data. See original text for additional information, including footnotes.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 188 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 145 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-86

4.5.2.8 Warning Time
The type and rate of flooding experienced in Solano County varies. In general, warning times for floods can be between 24 and 48 hours to prepare communities to reduce flood damages. Seasonal notification for flooding can enhance awareness for citizens at risk, and, when communicated effectively, advance notification can reach target audiences on a large scale.

DWR Awareness Zones Notification
The Flood Risk Notification Program (FRN Program) is part of DWR’s FloodSAFE California Initiative. The program’s key goal is to increase flood risk awareness by effectively communicating that risk to individual property owners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies. This includes encouraging people to understand the levee system that protects them; be prepared and aware of their flood risk; and take appropriate actions before, during, and after flooding to protect themselves, minimize damage to their property or personal possessions, and facilitate recovery.

To achieve this goal, the FRN Program:
▪ Sends out an annual notice to property owners whose property is at risk of flooding, ▪ Maintains accurate Levee Flood Protection Zone (LFPZ) maps6 and an associated parcel information database,
▪ Provides people with useful ways to assess risk and reduce flood loss, ▪ Establishes outreach and educational projects with public involvement, ▪ Expands its interactive Flood Risk Notification website, and ▪ Collaborates with federal agencies, local agencies, and communities.

In September of 2010, DWR provided the first annual written notice of flood risks to each landowner whose property is protected by State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC) levees and is within an LFPZ. The notice informs recipients of their property’s potential flood risks and potential sources of flooding and offers flood emergency planning and preparedness tips. It also encourages recipients to take preventative actions, such as purchasing flood insurance, elevating or “floodproofing” their buildings, and preventing blockage of channels, drains, and ditches.

4.5.2.9 Secondary Hazards
The most problematic secondary hazard for flooding is levee failure and bank erosion, which in some cases can be more harmful than actual flooding. Flooding is also responsible for landslides when high flows over- saturate soils on steep slopes cause them to fail. Hazardous materials spills are a secondary hazard of flooding if storage tanks rupture and spill into streams or storm sewers. (Department of Environmental

6 These maps are different from Federal Emergency Management Agency regulatory maps.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 189 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 146 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-87
Conservation, 2020) Wildland fires within a watershed can exacerbate flood hazards by virtue of increased rate and volume of runoff and attendant erosion and sediment discharge. (USGS, 2020) A majority of the flood risk within Solano County is particularly subject to inundation as a result of levee failure and heavy rainfall. This plan includes a vulnerability analysis for levee failure; this is not a separate subhazard, but an additional source of information to understand flood hazard.

Public Health
Following any natural disaster that leaves excess moisture or standing water in its wake, such as a flood, the risk of mold growth in homes or other buildings greatly increases. Controlling moisture within a structure is the most critical factor for preventing mold growth. Any exposed buildings should be cleaned up and dried out quickly, within about 24 to 48 hours if possible, and any remaining wet porous items should be removed. People with asthma, allergies, respiratory conditions, or immune suppression are at the greatest risk for health effects from contact with mold. (CDC, 2020)

4.5.2.10 Climate Change Impacts
The effects of climate change are numerous and include warmer and more varied weather patterns, melting ice caps, and poor air quality, for example. As a result, climate change will likely worsen a number of natural hazards, including flooding. Climate change will shift rainfall patterns, making heavy rains more frequent in many areas. An increase in heavy rain events will lead to more flooding, including flash floods that happen suddenly as a result of heavy rain, as well as localized flooding. Heavy rain events can inundate and overwhelm stormwater drainage systems resulting in localized flooding where pooling of water in low-lying areas can cause significant damage to buildings. Overwhelmed stormwater drainage facilities can also cause hazardous conditions on roadways where pooled water creates dangerous driving conditions. (US EPA, 2020)

4.5.2.11 Flood Vulnerability Analysis
Both an exposure analysis and Hazus loss estimation analysis were conducted to develop the flood vulnerability analysis for Solano County. Flood exposure numbers were generated using the inventories outlined in Section 4.5.2.11.1. County inventories were overlaid with FEMA delineated flood plains to determine exposure. These risk assessment exposure analysis values do not include Hazus-generated results.

Hazus flood vulnerability data was generated using a Level 2 Hazus 4.2 analysis. Hazus is a FEMA software product that uses a GIS to analyze 100-YR depth grids derived from FEMA 100-YR “A” zones with Base Flood Elevations to estimate loss. Parcel data defined in Section 4.5.2.11.1 was imported into Hazus as User Defined Facilities (UDF) and serves as the basis for replacement and content cost estimations, as well as associated loss. Where flood vulnerability is mentioned absent of Hazus, exposure analysis figures are used. Figure 4-36 displays a snapshot of flood exposure and damage estimation in unincorporated Solano County.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 190 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 147 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-88
Flood Exposure
The tables and graphs in this section detail the populations, properties, and infrastructure exposed to flooding in unincorporated Solano County. Flood exposure is categorized by exposure to different flood hazard zones, including the floodway, flood fringe, 100-YR floodplain, and 500-YR floodplain. The tables and graphs also include a category of the 100-year total, which is a combined total of floodway, flood fringe, and 100-YR floodplain categories. The 500-YR sans 100-YR category includes only the 500-YR floodplain, and the 500-YR total includes all of the categories combined. Refer to Section 4.5.2 for floodplain definitions to better understand these flood hazard areas.

Population
Population counts of those living in the floodplain were generated by analyzing County Assessor and parcel data that intersect with the 100-YR and 500-YR floodplains identified on FIRMs. Using GIS, U.S. Census Bureau information was used to intersect the floodplain, and an estimate of population was calculated by weighting the population within each census block and track with the percentage of the flood risk area.

Using this approach, Table 4-19 and Figure 4-35 display the results of this analysis showing how much of the county population is exposed to flood hazard zones. Population exposure counts were also generated using the same method for areas protected by levee and exposed to potential levee failure, summarized in Table 4-20. Figure 4-37 depicts areas within Solano County that are protected by levee and subject to potential inundation from levee failure. Impacts from levee failure would primarily affect the eastern region of Solano County and approximately six percent of the population would be exposed.

Flooding can disproportionately impact vulnerable communities. Lower-income populations, for instance, are more likely to live near industrial areas and hazardous waste sites, which can put them at higher risk to toxic leaks associated with flood and storm damage or in rental homes that may not adequately address mold issues. In areas with greater risk of flooding, housing prices are often cheaper which can lead to greater numbers of lower income populations living in higher risk areas. Additionally, lower-income populations are less likely to be able to afford flood insurance. (Sherwin, 2019)

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 191 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 148 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-89

Figure 4-35: Population Exposure to Flood (Unincorporated County)

Table 4-19: Summary Population Exposure to Flood (Unincorporated County) Total Population
Unincorporated County 19,665

Flood Hazard Zone Population Count % of Total
Flood Fringe 5,054 25.70% Floodway 24 0.12%
100-YR Coastal 4 0.02% 100-YR Total 5,082 25.84% 500-YR sans 100-YR 672 3.42% 500-YR Total 5,754 29.26% Protected by Levee (FEMA) - 0.00%

Table 4-20: Summary Population Exposure to Levee Failure (Unincorporated County) Total Population
Unincorporated County 19,665

Area Protected by Levee (NLD) Population Count % of Total Leveed Area 1,198 6.09%
5,273
24 5,297
662
5,958
4 - -
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Flood Fringe Floodway 100-YR Total 500-YR sans
100-YR
500-YR Total 100-YR Coastal Protected by
Levee (FEMA)
Population Exposure
Population Count in the 100-Year
and 500-YR Floodplains
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 192 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 149 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-90

Figure 4-36: FEMA Flood Risk Exposure and Snapshot Map
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 193 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 150 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-91

Figure 4-37: Area Protected by Levee (NLD) Exposure

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 194 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 151 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-92
Economy
Flooding can significantly impact the agricultural industry, including wine producers, which was recorded at $363,977,000 in 2018 and is a large driver of Solano County’s economy. (County of Solano and Solano Economic Development Corporation, 2020) Flooding interferes with crop production and impacts the growth of wine grapes and other produces by preventing oxygen absorption, leading to plant death and affecting yields. Oxygen deprivation is the primary source of damage to plants from flooding, other than from lodging. Surface floodwaters and water-logged soils significantly reduce the amount of oxygen available to plants, which require oxygen to produce high-energy compounds used in nearly all life reactions, and also cause build-up of harmful chemicals. The effect is drastically reduced metabolism and, eventually, death if oxygen levels are reduced for more than 36 to 48 hours; the effects are often reversible if the duration of low oxygen conditions are limited within this tolerance. (Wiebold, 2007) Structures and Parcel Value
Table 4-21 summarizes parcels in unincorporated Solano County that are exposed to flood hazard areas. The beginning of Section 4.5.2 includes definitions of the various flood hazard areas. Table 4-22 summarizes parcels in unincorporated Solano County that are exposed to levee failure.

Table 4-21: Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones (Unincorporated County) Total Parcels
Total Market
Value ($)
Total Content
Value ($) Total Value ($)
Unincorporated County 6,668 $3,186,640,275 $2,078,097,240 $5,264,737,515

Flood Hazard Zone Parcel Count % of Total Market Value
Exposure ($)
Content Value
Exposure ($)
Total Exposure
($)
% of
Total
Flood Fringe 923 13.8% $333,411,569 $221,999,250 $555,410,819 10.5% Floodway 18 0.3% $15,956,000 $11,654,500 $27,610,500 0.5% 100-YR Coastal 38 0.6% $13,158,000 $6,579,000 $19,737,000 0.4% 100-YR Total 979 14.7% $362,525,569 $240,232,750 $602,758,319 11.4% 500-YR sans 100-YR 206 3.1% $108,168,358 $73,414,222 $181,582,580 3.4% 500-YR Total 1,185 17.8% $470,693,927 $313,646,972 $784,340,899 14.9% Protected by Levee (FEMA) 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Note: The table above does not display loss estimation results; the table exhibits total value at risk based upon the hazard overlay and Solano County Assessor data.

Table 4-22: Parcels Exposed to Levee Failure (Unincorporated County) Total Parcels

Total Market
Value ($)
Total Content
Value ($) Total Value ($)

Unincorporated County 6,668 $3,186,640,275 $2,078,097,240 $5,264,737,515

Area Protected by Levee
(NLD) Parcel Count % of Total Market Value
Exposure ($)
Content Value
Exposure ($) Total Exposure ($) % of Total
Leveed Area 328 4.9% $90,362,831 $69,851,466 $160,214,297 3.0%

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 195 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 152 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-93
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Table 4-23 summarizes the critical facilities and infrastructure located in the flood fringe, floodway, and 100-YR and 500-YR floodplains of Solano County. Table 4-24 and Table 4-26 summarize the critical facilities and infrastructure located in areas protected by levees.

Table 4-23: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain
Infrastructure Type Flood
Fringe Floodway 100-YR
Coastal
100-YR
Total
500-YR
sans 100-
YR
500-YR
Total
Protected
by Levee
(FEMA)
Essential Facility 3 - - 3 - 3 -

EOC - - - - - - -
Law Enforcement - - - - - - -
Fire Station 3 - - 3 - 3 -
Emergency Services - - - - - - -
Hospital - - - - - - -
High Potential Loss 28 - - 28 34 62 - Dam 3 - - 3 1 4 -
Historic Building - - - - - - -
Library - - - - - - -
School 2 - - 2 - 2 -
Historic Site - - - - - - -
Community Center - - - - - - -
Jurisdiction Real Property Asset* - - - - - - - Park 2 - - 2 - 2 -
Wastewater Treatment Facility 1 - - 1 - 1 - Emergency Shelter 1 - - 1 - 1 -
Administrative - - - - - - -
Child Care Facility 1 - - 1 - 1 -
Healthcare Facility - - - - - - -
Senior Center - - - - - - -
County Real Property Asset* 15 - - 15 33 48 - Early Learning 3 - - 3 - 3 -
Transportation and Lifeline 265 4 - 269 27 296 - Airport - - - - - - -
Bridge 75 4 - 79 2 81 -
Power Plant 1 - - 1 2 3 -
Substation 3 - - 3 1 4 -
Bus Facility - - - - - - -
NG Station 14 - - 14 1 15 -
Bus Stop - - - - - - -
Railway Bridge - - - - - - -
Cell Tower - - - - - - -
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 196 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 153 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-94
Infrastructure Type Flood
Fringe Floodway 100-YR
Coastal
100-YR
Total
500-YR
sans 100-
YR
500-YR
Total
Protected
by Levee
(FEMA)
Breakout Tank - - - - - - -
Oil Facility - - - - - - -
Transmission Line Tower 172 - - 172 21 193 - Wind Turbine - - - - - - -
Ferry - - - - - - -
Amtrak Station - - - - - - -
Train Station - - - - - - -
Hazmat 27 - - 27 2 29 -
Hazmat 27 - - 27 2 29 -
Hazardous Waste facility 2 - - 2 - 2 - Grand Total 323 4 - 327 63 390 - *Note: Real Property Assets are digitized insurance rolls for demonstrating value and ownership and may have overlapping points with other categories such as fire stations and law enforcement.

Table 4-24: Critical Facility Points in Area Protected by Levee Infrastructure Type Leveed Area
Essential Facility 2
EOC -
Law Enforcement -
Fire Station 2
Emergency Services -
Hospital -
High Potential Loss 1
Dam -
Historic Building -
Library -
School -
Historic Site -
Community Center -
Jurisdiction Real Property Asset* -
Park -
Wastewater Treatment Facility -
Emergency Shelter -
Administrative -
Child Care Facility -
Healthcare Facility -
Senior Center -
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 197 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 154 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-95
Infrastructure Type Leveed Area
County Real Property Asset* 1
Early Learning -
Transportation and Lifeline 81
Airport -
Bridge 13
Power Plant -
Substation 2
Bus Facility -
NG Station 10
Bus Stop -
Railway Bridge -
Cell Tower -
Breakout Tank -
Oil Facility -
Transmission Line Tower 56
Wind Turbine -
Ferry -
Amtrak Station -
Train Station -
Hazmat 6
Hazmat 6
Hazardous Waste facility 1
Grand Total 90
*Note: Real Property Assets are digitized insurance rolls for demonstrating value and ownership and may have overlapping points with other categories such as fire stations and law enforcement.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 198 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 155 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-96
Linear Utilities
It is important to determine who may be at risk if infrastructure is damaged by flooding. Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged can isolate residents and can prevent access throughout the county, including for emergency service providers needing to get to vulnerable populations or to make repairs. Bridges washed out or blocked by floods or debris also can cause isolation. Water and sewer systems can be flooded or backed up, causing health problems, and underground utilities can be damaged. Levees can fail or be overtopped, inundating the land that they protect. Table 4-25 shows critical facilities (linear) in the floodplain and Table 4-26 shows critical facilities (linear) in levee protected areas for the county.

Table 4-25: Lifelines in the Floodplain (Unincorporated County) Lifelines (miles) - Flood Risk Exposure
Infrastructure Type (linear) Flood Fringe Floodway 100-YR Coastal 100-YR Total 500-YR sans
100-YR
500-YR
Total
Protected
by Levee
(FEMA)
Bus Route 2.2 0.1 0.2 2.5 2.9 5.4 -
Levee (FEMA) 635.0 - 0.1 635.1 0.3 635.4 0.1
Levee Flood Wall 0.1 - - 0.1 - 0.1 -
Levee Cross Section 2.1 - - 2.1 - 2.1 -
NG Pipeline 66.4 0.0 0.3 66.7 1.8 68.5 -
Railroad 17.4 - - 17.4 0.7 18.1 -
Street 987.6 2.0 0.1 989.7 29.5 1,019.2 0.0
4WD trail 5.0 - - 5.0 - 5.0 -
Alley - - - - - - -
Cul-de-sac 0.2 - - 0.2 0.0 0.2 -
Driveway 86.7 0.2 - 86.9 5.0 91.9 -
Ferry 0.2 - - 0.2 - 0.2 -
Interstate 15.7 0.0 0.1 15.9 0.9 16.7 -
Local road 630.2 0.8 0.0 631.1 12.4 643.5 -
Local road, major 184.8 0.8 - 185.6 7.8 193.4 0.0
Primary highway - - - - - - -
Ramp 0.8 - - 0.8 0.0 0.9 -
Service road 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0 0.1 -
State/county highway 63.4 0.2 - 63.6 3.3 67.0 -
Traffic circle 0.0 - - 0.0 - 0.0 -
Walkway 0.3 - - 0.3 - 0.3 -
Transmission Line 85.7 0.5 0.9 87.1 7.8 95.0 -
Grand Total 1,796.5 2.6 1.7 1,800.7 43.1 1,843.8 0.1

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 199 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 156 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-97
Table 4-26: Lifelines in Areas Protected by Levee (Unincorporated County) Lifelines (miles) - Area Protected by Levee (NLD)
Infrastructure Type (Linear) Leveed Area
Bus Route -
Levee (FEMA) 131.3
Levee Flood Wall -
Levee Cross Section -
NG Pipeline 33.6
Railroad 3.7
Street 436.4
4WD trail 3.1
Alley -
Cul-de-sac 0.2
Driveway 51.0
Ferry -
Interstate 8.2
Local road 264.5
Local road, major 78.4
Primary highway -
Ramp 5.6
Service road -
State/county highway 24.4
Traffic circle -
Walkway 0.3
Transmission Line 28.4
Grand Total 633.4

Roads
Solano County Office of Emergency Services maintains a hazard map that can be used to find which roads in the county may be closed during a flood event. This list can be viewed at the following link:
https://doitgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c5dedd9f30934a99bc34439244c957fa .

Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Water and sewer systems can be affected by flooding. Floodwaters can back up drainage systems, causing localized flooding. Culverts can be blocked by debris from flood events, also causing localized urban flooding. Floodwaters can get into drinking water supplies, causing contamination. Sewer systems can be backed up, causing wastewater to spill into homes, neighborhoods, rivers, and streams.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 200 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 157 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-98
Flood Damage Estimation
Hazus calculates losses to structures from flooding by analyzing the depth of flooding and type of structure.

Using historical flood insurance claim data, Hazus estimates the percentage of damage to structures and their contents by applying established damage functions to an inventory. For this analysis, all non-vacant parcels with current market values were used instead of the default inventory data provided with Hazus.

Table 4-27 and Figure 4-38 show the 100-YR flood loss estimation (based on depth) in NFIP flood zones by occupancy type. Figure 4-39 and Table 4-28 show the 500-YR flood loss estimation (based on depth) in NFIP flood zones by occupancy type.

Solano County’s insurance data was obtained and formatted for use in Hazus for a detailed damage estimation of county-owned facilities. This combined government dataset has additional information, including the number of floors, building value, content value, and construction type that greatly enhances Hazus results.

Damage Estimation for 100-YR Floodplain
Table 4-27 and Figure 4-38 display damage estimation summaries for the 100-YR floodplain in unincorporated Solano County by improved parcel and government property loss. Appendix A provides a full list of critical facilities and damage estimations.

Table 4-27: 100-YR Flood Damage Estimation by Occupancy Type Building Type
Building Damage
($)
Building
Damage
(% of total
loss) Content Damage ($)
Content
Damage
(% of total
loss)
Total Damage
($)
Proportion of
Loss (%)
Agriculture $9,376,380 8.1% $13,882,650 11.9% $23,259,031 20% Commercial $1,575,984 1.4% $3,614,943 3.1% $5,190,927 4% Education* $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Emergency $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Government $53,252 0.0% $319,509 0.3% $372,761 0%
Industrial $891,820 0.8% $2,164,317 1.9% $3,056,138 3%
Religion $199,289 0.2% $1,551,641 1.3% $1,750,930 2%
Residential $63,816,768 54.8% $18,999,999 16.3% $82,816,767 71% Total $75,913,494 65% $40,533,060 35% $116,446,553
*School district asset information not available during time of Hazus analysis.

Note: Total Inventory Values
1 - Building Replacement Costs = $3,773,922,295
2 - Content Replacement Costs = $2,667,166,517
3 - Total Value = $6,441,088,812
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 201 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 158 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-99

Figure 4-38: 100-YR Flood Damage Estimation by Occupancy

Damage Estimation for 500-YR Floodplain
Table 4-28 displays the damage estimation for the 500-YR floodplain in unincorporated Solano County by improved parcel. Appendix A provides a full list of critical facilities and damage estimations. Appendix A provides a full list of critical facilities and damage estimations.

$0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 Agriculture
Commercial
Education
Emergency
Government
Industrial
Religion
Residential
Content Damage ($)Building Damage ($)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 202 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 159 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-100
Table 4-28: Damage Estimation Summary for 500-YR. Floodplain Building Type Building Damage
($)
Building Damage
(% of total lossl)
Content Damage
($)
Content
Damage
(% of
total
loss)
Total Damage ($) Proportion of
Loss (%)
Agriculture $240,642 0.8% $958,992 3.1% $1,199,634 4%
Commercial $832,636 2.7% $2,755,509 8.9% $3,588,145 12% Education* $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Emergency $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Government $2,035,426 6.6% $12,058,289 39.1% $14,093,715 46% Industrial $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Religion $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Residential $8,953,888 29.0% $2,990,903 9.7% $11,944,791 39% Total $12,062,592 39% $18,763,694 61% $30,826,286
*School district asset information not available during time of Hazus analysis.

Note: Total Inventory Values
1 - Building Replacement Costs = $3,773,922,295
2 - Content Replacement Costs = $2,667,166,517
3 - Total Value = $6,441,088,812

Figure 4-39: 500-YR Flood Damage Estimation by Occupancy Type $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 Agriculture
Commercial
Education
Emergency
Government
Industrial
Religion
Residential
Content Damage ($)Building Damage ($)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 203 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 160 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-101
Damage Estimation for 100-YR Coastal Floodplain
Table 4-28 displays the damage estimation for the 100-YR coastal floodplain in unincorporated Solano County by improved parcel. Appendix A provides a full list of critical facilities and damage estimations.

Table 4-29: Damage Estimation Summary for 100-YR. Coastal Floodplain Building Type
Building Damage
($)
Building Damage
(% of total loss)
Content
Damage ($)
Content
Damage
(% of total
loss)
Total Damage
($)
Proportion of
Loss (%)
Agriculture $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Commercial $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Education* $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Emergency $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Government $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Industrial $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Religion $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0%
Residential $9,544,477 80.3% $2,346,896 19.7% $11,891,373 100% Total $9,544,477 80% $2,346,896 20% $11,891,373
*School district asset information not available during time of Hazus analysis.

Note: Total Inventory Values
1 - Building Replacement Costs = $3,773,922,295
2 - Content Replacement Costs = $2,667,166,517
3 - Total Value = $6,441,088,812

Figure 4-40: 100-YR Coastal Flood Damage by Occupancy Type

$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 Agriculture
Commerc…
Education
Emergen…
Governm…
Industrial
Religion
Residential
Content Damage ($)Building Damage ($)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 204 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 161 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-102

4.5.2.12 Future Trends in Development
Infrastructure has been developed to protect communities from flood damage, the Green Valley Project in particular. The county is equipped to handle future growth within flood hazard areas and the county’s General Plan offers goals and policies to avoid and mitigate flood impacts from new development. The County Code (Article V. Provision for Flood Hazard Reduction) further limits and mitigates new development in floodplains.

Solano County also institutes additional review measures in sensitive, flood-prone marsh areas in Suisun Marsh and White Slough. See Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Environment in Section 4.5.2.1. These plans provide additional oversight to ensure properties are not flooded and to ensure marshlands continue to provide important environmental services.

4.5.2.13 Flood Hazard Problem Statements
As part of the mitigation action identification process, the Planning Committee for the county and for each jurisdiction identified issues and weaknesses, also called problem statements, for their respective facilities.

Identification was based on the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis utilizing the RAMP mapping tool and flood data. Flood problem statements for the county are listed in Table 4-30; problem statements for all other participating jurisdictions are accessed in Volume 2 of this plan.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 205 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 162 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-103
Table 4-30 Flood Problem Statements
Problem
No.

Hazard
Type
Area of
Concern
Mitigation
Alternatives
Primary
Agency Problem Description Related MA
ps-FL-SC-
112
Flood Impact PPRO - Property
Protection ,
PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness , SP
- Structural
Projects
Solano
County
The Allendale area north of Vacaville is
an area of concern and experiences
routine flooding.
ma-FL-SC-21
ps-FL-SC-113 Flood Impact PPRO - Property
Protection ,
PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness , SP
- Structural
Projects
Solano
County
Midway and Vineyard RV Parks off of
Midway Rd. are vulnerable to impacts of
flooding.
ma-FL-SC-25
ps-WF -SC-
114
Flood Impact SP - Structural
Projects
Solano
County
There are 79 County bridges located in
the 100-YR flood zone.
ma-FL-SC-174,
ma-FL-SC-173
ps-FL-SC-115 Flood Impact PRV -
Prevention , SP
- Structural
Projects
Solano
County
The Cordelia Slough, south of Cordelia,
experiences flooding and needs further
investigation for flood mitigation.
ma-FL-SC-26
ps-FL-SC-
116
Flood Victim PPRO - Property
Protection ,
PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness , ES
- Emergency
Services , SP -
Structural
Projects
Solano
County
There are approximately 4,917 people
living in the 100-YR flood zone in
Unicorp. County.
ma-FL-SC-22,
ma-FL-SC-32,
ma-AH-SC-8,
ma-AH-SC-5,
ma-FL-SC-24,
ma-AH-SC-14,
ma-FL-SC-19,
ma-FL-SC-21
ps-FL-SC-
117
Flood Threat PRV -
Prevention , SP
- Structural
Projects
Solano
County
Suisun Creek west of Fairfield gets
backed up due to debris and impacts I-

80. ma-EQ-SC-18,
ma-FL-SC-173
ps-FL-SC-
118
Flood Threat PRV -
Prevention
Solano
County
Identification of drainages requiring
routine debris management is needed.
ma-EQ-SC-18,
ma-FL-SC-174,
ma-AH-SC-10,
ma-FL-SC-28

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 206 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 163 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-104

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 207 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 164 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-105
Earthquake Hazard Profile
Earthquake is the sudden shaking of the ground caused by the passage of seismic waves through the Earth’s rocks. Seismic waves are produced when some form of energy stored in the Earth’s crust is suddenly released, usually when masses of rock straining against one another abruptly fracture and “slip.” Earthquakes associated with this type of energy release are called tectonic earthquakes. The energy also can be released by elastic strain, gravity, chemical reactions, or even the motion of massive bodies. Earthquakes occur most often along geologic faults, narrow zones where rock masses move in relation to one another. (United States Geological Survey, n.d.)
Earthquakes have different properties
depending on the type of fault that
causes them. See Figure 4-41. The usual
fault model has a “strike” (that is, the
direction from north taken by a
horizontal line in the fault plane) and a
“dip” (the angle from the horizontal
shown by the steepest slope in the
fault). The lower wall of an inclined
fault is called the footwall. Lying over
the footwall is the hanging wall. When
rock masses slip past each other
parallel to the strike, the movement is
known as strike-slip faulting.

Movement parallel to the dip is called
dip-slip faulting. In dip-slip faults, if the hanging-wall block moves downward relative to the footwall block, it is called “normal” faulting. The opposite motion, with the hanging wall moving upward relative to the footwall, produces reverse or thrust faulting. (Id.)
As a fault rupture progresses along or up the fault, rock masses are flung in opposite directions and then spring back to a position where there is less strain. (Id.) Soil Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is when loosely packed, water-logged soils lose strength in response to an earthquake, which can cause major structural damage. (United States Geological Survey, n.d.) Soil liquefaction is an important characteristic to understand earthquake impacts in Solano County, as a significant amount of the county lies within moderate, high, or very high liquefaction potential. See Figure 4-42 for locations of various liquefaction probability ratings from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Note: Liquefaction is not a subhazard of earthquake, but is instead one very important impact to consider in examining earthquake vulnerability.

Figure 4-41: Earthquake Faulting
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 208 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 165 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-106

Figure 4-42 Solano County Liquefaction Overview

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 209 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 166 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-107
Artificial Induction
Earthquakes are sometimes caused by human activities, including the injection of fluids into deep wells, pumping of groundwater, the excavation of mines, and the filling of large reservoirs. In fluid injection, the slip is thought to be induced by premature release of elastic strain, as in the case of tectonic earthquakes, after fault surfaces are lubricated by the liquid. (United States Geological Survey, n.d.) Earthquake Classifications
Earthquakes are typically classified either 1) by the amount of energy released, measured as magnitude; or 2) by the impact on people and structures, measured as intensity. (United States Geological Survey, n.d.) The most common method for measuring earthquakes is magnitude, which measures the strength of earthquakes. While the majority of scientists generally use the Moment Magnitude (Mw) Scale to measure earthquake magnitude, the Richter (M) Scale is the most universally-known measurement. The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the total area of the fault that ruptured, as well as the amount of offset (displacement) across the fault. As shown in Table 4-31, there are seven earthquake magnitude classes on the Mw scale, ranging from great to micro. A magnitude class of great can cause tremendous damage to infrastructure, compared to a micro class, which results in minor damage to infrastructure. (Id.) Table 4-31: Moment Magnitude Scale

Intensity
The effects of an earthquake are also measured by intensity. Earthquake intensity decreases with increasing distance from the epicenter of the earthquake. The Modified Mercalli Intensity value assigned to a specific site after an earthquake has a more meaningful measure of severity to the nonscientist than the magnitude because intensity refers to the effects experienced at that place. (United States Geological Survey)
The lower numbers of the intensity scale generally deal with the manner in which the earthquake is felt by people. The higher numbers of the scale are based on observed structural damage. Structural engineers usually contribute information for assigning intensity values of VIII or above. Table 4-32 is an abbreviated description of the levels of Modified Mercalli Intensity. (Id.) Earthquake Magnitude Classes (Mw)
Magnitude Class
Magnitude Range (M =
Magnitude) Description
Great M > 8 Tremendous damage
Major 7 <= M < 7.9 Widespread heavy damage
Strong 6 <= M < 6.9 Severe damage
Moderate 5 <= M < 5.9 Considerable damage
Light 4 <= M < 4.9 Moderate damage
Minor 3 <= M < 3.9 Rarely causes damage.

Micro M < 3 Minor damage
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 210 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 167 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-108
Table 4-32: Modified Mercalli Intensity Level Descriptions Intensity Shaking Description/Damage
I Not felt Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions.

II Weak Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings.

III Weak
Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings.

Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations are similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.

IV Light
Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened.

Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Similar to a heavy truck striking a building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.

V Moderate Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.

VI Strong Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.

VII Very
strong
Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.

VIII Severe
Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures.

Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.

IX Violent
Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.

X Extreme
Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.

Source: USGS, Abridged from The Severity of an Earthquake, USGS General Interest Publication 1989-288-913

Ground Motion
Earthquake hazard assessment is based on expected ground motion. This involves determining the annual probability that certain ground motion accelerations will be exceeded, then summing the annual probabilities over the time period of interest. The most commonly-mapped ground motion parameters are the horizontal and vertical peak ground accelerations (PGA) for a given soil or rock type. Instruments called accelerographs record levels of ground motion due to earthquakes at stations throughout a region. These readings are recorded by state and federal agencies that monitor and predict seismic activity. (Pacific Northwest Seismic Network)
Maps of PGA values form the basis of seismic zone maps that are included in building codes such as the International Building Code. Building codes that include seismic provisions specify the horizontal force due to lateral acceleration that a building should be able to withstand during an earthquake. PGA values are FINAL for adoption Packet Page 211 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 168 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-109
directly related to these lateral forces that could damage “short period structures,” such as single-family dwellings. Longer-period response components determine the lateral forces that damage larger structures with longer natural periods, such as apartment buildings, factories, high-rises, and bridges. Table 4-33 lists the damage potential and perceived shaking by PGA factors, compared to the Mercalli scale. (USGS) Table 4-33: Modified Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Potential Structure Damage Estimated PGA
Modified Mercalli Scale Perceived Shaking Resistant Buildings Vulnerable Buildings (%g) I Not Felt None None 124%
Sources: USGS, 2008; USGS, 2010
Note: PGA measured in percent of g, where g is the acceleration of gravity

4.5.3.1 Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Environment
Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1972) The 1971 San Fernando Earthquake resulted in the destruction of numerous structures built across its path.

This led to passage of the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972. This Act prohibits the construction of buildings for human occupancy across active faults in the State of California. Similarly, extensive damage caused by ground failures during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake focused attention on decreasing the impacts of landslides and liquefaction. This led to the creation of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which increases construction standards at locations where ground failures are probable during earthquakes. Figure 4-43 displays these zones of required investigation in Solano County. 2019 California Building Standards Code
The 2019 California Building Code, adopted by Solano County in December 2019, includes materials requirements, construction methods, and maintenance standards for earthquake protection and resiliency.

Solano County General Plan
The 2008 Solano County General Plan includes a number of policies in the Public Health and Safety Element to mitigate the effects of earthquakes. Its policies require new development proposals in seismic hazard areas to limit development in those areas or consider seismic risks, as well as include project features that minimize such risks.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 212 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 169 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-110

4.5.3.2 Past Events
A number of significant (more than M4.5) earthquakes have occurred in and near Solano County ov er the last 16 years. See Table 4-34 for earthquake events M4.5 or higher since 2005. The South Napa earthquake was one of the most recent earthquakes to occur nearest to Solano County. Its epicenter was just north of Vallejo, and it was one of the largest in the Bay Area in about 25 years. (USGS, 2014) Table 4-34: Earthquakes in or Near Solano County 4.5 Magnitude or Greater Since 2005 Date Location Magnitude (M)
08/24/2014 South Napa 6.0
10/31/2007 San Francisco Bay Area 5.5
08/03/2006 Northern California 4.5
Source: USGS

4.5.3.3 Location
The Alquist-Priolo Act established earthquake fault zones in California. These Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones encompass surface traces of active faults that have a potential for future surface fault rupture and are mapped as estimated fault locations across California. These fault zones require future investigation to determine the location of the fault and are referred to as zones of required investigation. Not all fault lines require additional investigation for development. Figure 4-43 shows the location of quaternary faults in Solano County, with required zones of investigation shown outlined in black.

These zones have been established by the State Geologist and indicate an active fault within the zone. The fault may pose a risk to existing or future structures from a surface fault rupture. The major faults include the Green Valley fault system, running north and south through the county; the Great Valley 06 (Midland) fault zone, which extends north to south through most of the western side of the county; the Great Valley 04b Gordon Valley; the Great Valley 05 Pittsburg – Kirby Hills; and the Franklin fault, which extends through most of the westernmost tip of the county.

Exposure to the zones of required investigation is shown in the earthquake vulnerability assessment, Section 4.5.3.8, to illustrate population, parcel, and critical infrastructure exposure to more active faulting in the county.

4.5.3.4 Frequency and Probability of Future Occurrences According to the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, earthquakes large enough to cause moderate damage to structures—those of M5.5 or larger—occur three to four times a year statewide. Strong earthquakes of M6 to M6.9 strike on an average of once every two to three years. Major earthquakes of M7 to M7.9 occur in California about once every 10 years.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 213 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 170 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-111

Figure 4-43: Zones of Required Investigation
Note: Quaternary faults, as illustrated in red in Figure 4-43, are those active faults that have been recognized at the surface and which have evidence of movement in the past 1.6 million years (the duration of the Quaternary Period).

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 214 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 171 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-112
Both mapping tools are described in more detail below. Importantly, these probabilistic maps were used to determine the earthquake scenarios for the vulnerability analysis. This plan focuses on the Concord-Green Valley and the Hayward-Rodger’s Creek scenarios because they are the scenarios with the highest likelihood of severe shaking and of producing a M6.7 earthquake within the next 30 years. See Figure 4-46 for an overview map of the scenarios and Section 4.5.3.4.3 for further explanation on why these scenarios were chosen.
30-Year Earthquake Probability (UCERF3)
Probability of earthquake events is based on the approximate location of earthquake faults within and outside the Solano County region. The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)7 is a comprehensive model of earthquake occurrence for California. It represents the best available science for authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and likelihood of potentially damaging earthquakes in California. According to UCERF3 and as shown in Figure 4-44, the Hayward- Rodger’s Creek fault has a 10 percent to 100 percent probability of occurrence within 30 years, the highest probability affecting the county. The most recent earthquake to happen in the Solano area was a M6.0 earthquake along the West Napa fault line, south of Napa City in 2014. (Id.) Earthquake Shaking Potential
The Earthquake Shaking Potential Map, Figure 4-45, shows potential seismic shaking from anticipated future earthquakes. It is probabilistic in the sense that the analysis takes into consideration the uncertainties in the size and location of earthquakes and the resulting ground motions that can affect a particular site. (CGS, 2020) It is also useful in understanding the probability of severe shaking in different locations throughout the county, as discussed in Section 4.5.3.4.

The map is expressed in terms of the probability of exceeding a certain ground motion. The map shows a two percent probability of exceeding one second of ground motion in 50 years. Earthquake shaking potential in California is calculated based on the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model and in partnership with California Geological Survey (CGS). Earthquake shaking potential also considers historic earthquakes, slip rates on major faults, deformation throughout the region, and the potential for amplification o f seismic waves by near-surface geologic materials. (CGS, 2020)
Figure 4-44 depicts a range of lower hazard to higher hazard probability, where higher hazard areas are those regions near major, active faults that will on average experience stronger earthquake shaking more frequently. This intense shaking can damage even strong, modern buildings.

7 Quaternary faults are those active faults that have been recognized at the surface and which have evidence of movement in the past 1.6 million years (the duration of the Quaternary Period).

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 215 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 172 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-113

Figure 4-44: Fault Probability Map for Solano County
Lower hazard areas are those regions that are distant from known, active faults that will experience lower levels of shaking less frequently. In most earthquakes, only weaker, masonry buildings would be damaged.

However, very infrequent earthquakes could still cause strong shaking in those locations. (D. Branum, 2016) The shaking potential is calculated as the level of ground motion that has a two percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years, which is the same as the level of ground-shaking with about a 2500-year average repeat time. Relatively long-period (1.0 second) earthquake shaking is shown. Long-period shaking affects tall, relatively flexible buildings, but also correlates with overall earthquake damage. Although the great est hazard is in areas of highest intensity, as shown in Figure 4-45, no region is immune from potential earthquake damage. (Id.)
The potential for earthquake ground shaking, as defined by the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model, is used by engineers to design buildings for larger ground motions than what we think will occur during a 50-year interval, which will make buildings safer than if they were only designed for the ground motions that we expect to occur in the next 50 years. (USGS, 2020)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 216 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 173 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-114

Figure 4-45: Earthquake Shaking Potential
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 217 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 174 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-115
Concord-Green Valley and the Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Earthquake Scenarios The Concord-Green Valley and the Hayward-Rodger’s Creek earthquake scenarios were chosen for the vulnerability analysis from a range of regional, scenario-based shaking potential maps available from USGS.

The shaking potential data consist of peak ground velocity, peak ground acceleration, and peak spectral accelerations in an earthquake scenario. The Hayward-Rodger’s Creek fault has the near highest probability of an earthquake greater than M6.7 within Solano County, with a greater than 10 percent annual probability.

The Concord-Green Valley fault also has a greater than 10 percent annual probability. See Figure 4-44 for these probabilities. Likewise, the most significant shaking potential depicted in the ShakeMap in Figure 4-45 centers around the Concord-Green Valley and the Hayward-Rodger’s Creek fault systems, the epicenter of which is shown on the same.

The M6.8 Concord-Green Valley scenario is shown in Figure 4-46 and the M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek fault scenario is shown in Figure 4-47. Section 4.5.3.8.1 analyzes Solano County’s exposure to these scenarios and Section 4.5.3.8.2 details damage estimation to residential properties and county facilities for these scenarios.

4.5.3.5 Severity and Extent
As we know from past events, even a moderate earthquake occurring in or near the Solano County region could result in deaths, casualties, property and environmental damage, and disruption of normal services and activities. The severity of the event could be aggravated by collateral emergencies, such as fires, hazardous material spills, utility disruptions, landslides, transportation emergencies, or inundation from levee failure.

Neither the occurrence of an earthquake nor the severity can be predicted. Instead, scientists can only calculate the probability that a significant earthquake will occur in a specific area within a certain number of years.

The probabilistic Earthquake Shake Potential Map, Figure 4-45, illustrates the areas of the county most likely to experience an earthquake exceeding one second of ground motion in 50 years, which aids in understanding locations in Solano County with the greatest probability of experiencing a severe earthquake.

The greatest probability of a severe earthquake focuses on the Concord-Green Valley and Hayward-Rodger’s Creek faults. This is merely a probability, as the same map also illustrates that most of the county is susceptible to moderate-to-severe earthquakes depending on the location, intensity, and magnitude of the earthquake.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 218 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 175 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-116

Figure 4-46: M6.8 Concord-Green Valley
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 219 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 176 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-117
Figure 4-47: M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 220 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 177 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-118

4.5.3.6 Warning Time
There is currently no reliable way to predict the day or month that an earthquake will occur at any given location. Research is being done with warning systems that use the low energy waves that precede major earthquakes. Seconds and minutes of advance warning can allow people and systems to take actions to protect life and property from destructive shaking. Even a few seconds of warning can enable protective actions specific to various sectors of the population, such as:
▪ Public: Citizens, including schoolchildren, drop, cover, and hold on; turn off stoves; safely stop vehicles.
▪ Businesses: Personnel move to safe locations; automated systems ensure elevator doors open; production lines are shut down; sensitive equipment is placed in a safe mode. ▪ Medical services: Surgeons, dentists, and others stop delicate procedures. ▪ Emergency responders: Open firehouse doors; personnel prepare and prioritize response decisions. ▪ Power infrastructure: Protect power stations and grid facilities from strong shaking.

4.5.3.7 Secondary Hazard – Tsunami
Earthquakes can create tsunamis as a secondary hazard, which have the potential to affect the coastal delta areas of Solano County. Tsunamis are typically caused by earthquakes generated in subduction zones, areas where ocean plates are forced down into the mantle by plate tectonic forces. This creates an enormous friction between the plates and eventuates in an accumulated seismic energy released in the form of a tsunami when the plates spring back into unrestrained positions.

The actual height of a tsunami wave in open water is generally only one to three feet and can often be unnoticeable to people aboard ships. However, the energy of a tsunami passes through the entire water column to the seabed, unlike surface waves which typically reach only to a depth of 30 feet or so. A tsunami wave travels across the ocean at speeds up to 700 miles per hour. As the tsunami enters shallower water near coastal shorelines, it slows to about 20 to 30 miles per hour and the wave can increase to a height of 90 feet or more as it approaches the coastline and compresses. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2018) Tsunamis can result in severe property damages and loss of life. They can also disrupt emergency services and transportation routes. (Geology.com, 2020) Tsunamis affect beaches that are open to the ocean, bay mouths, tidal flats, and the shores of large coastal rivers. Tsunami waves can also diffract around land masses. Because tsunamis are not symmetrical, the waves may be much stronger in one direction than another, depending on the nature of the source and the surrounding geography.

Figure 4-48 illustrates the area of Solano County that may be subject to tsunami run-up, primarily near Vallejo and the mouth of the Napa River, according to the California Geological Survey.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 221 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 178 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-119

Figure 4-48 Solano County Tsunami Runup

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 222 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 179 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-120

4.5.3.8 Earthquake Vulnerability Analysis
Earthquakes are a considerable threat to life and property in Solano County. A moderate to severe seismic incident on any fault zone in close proximity to the county is expected to cause:

Community needs would quickly exceed the response capability of the Solano County Office Emergency Management, requiring mutual assistance from state, federal, volunteer, and private agencies.

In an earthquake, the primary consideration is saving lives. Time and effort must also be given to providing for people's mental health by reuniting families, providing shelter to displaced persons, and restoring basic needs and services. A major effort will be needed to remove debris and clear roadways, demolish unsafe structures, assist in reestablishing public services and utilities, and provide continuing care and temporary housing for affected residents.

After an earthquake, there will be a loss of income both in private and public sectors. Individuals can lose wages due to businesses inability to function because of damaged goods or facilities. Resulting from business losses, Solano County and the cities in the planning area will lose revenue. Economic recovery from even a minor earthquake is critical.

Note the earthquake exposure analysis includes liquefaction exposure and expo sure to zones of required investigation. These are not subhazards of earthquake but are meant to further illustrate the types of impacts to which the population, parcels, and infrastructure are exposed.

▪ Extensive property damage, particularly to
pre-1930’s unreinforced masonry structures.
▪ Broken gas mains and petroleum
pipelines.
▪ Possible fatalities and injuries. ▪ Disruption to electrical utility lines. ▪ Damage to water and sewage systems. ▪ Disruption of transportation arteries. ▪ Disruption of communications systems. ▪ Competing requests for regional aid resources.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 223 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 180 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-121
Earthquake Exposure
An exposure analysis was conducted to develop earthquake vulnerability data throughout Solano County using the methods outlined in Section 4.4. To develop earthquake exposure data for the county, asset inventories for people, property, and critical facilities were superimposed with several overlays that illustrate potential earthquake impacts: 1) exposure to two earthquake scenarios, 2) exposure to zones of required investigation, and 3) exposure to liquefaction.

This section first provides summary mapping for all three types, scenarios, zones of required investigation, and liquefaction, and then discusses individually the population, property types, and critical infrastructure that would be exposed.

Summaries of earthquake exposure include:
▪ Exposure to Scenarios: Exposure to shaking magnitudes in two earthquake scenarios (M6.8 Concord-Green Valley and M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek faults). As discussed in Section 4.5.3.4, these scenarios were selected because they present the highest probability for a severe earthquake and severe shaking in Solano County. An exposure analysis was conducted to develop earthquake vulnerability data throughout Solano County using the methods outlined in Section 4.4. To develop earthquake exposure data for the county, asset inventories for people, property, and critical facilities were superimposed with earthquake shaking intensity data from the USGS. Figure 4-49 and Figure 4-50 depict the exposure summaries for both fault lines. Most Solano County residents and structures would be exposed to moderate to severe shaking in these scenarios. ▪ Exposure to Zones of Required Investigation: The Alquist-Priolo Act established earthquake fault zones in California, referred to as “zones of required investigation.” These zones encompass surface traces of active faults that have a potential for future surface fault rupture and are mapped as estimated fault locations across California. Figure 4-51 summarizes exposure to zones of required investigation.
▪ Exposure to Liquefaction: The Colorado Geological Survey assesses susceptibility to liquefaction during an earthquake event, rated from very light to very high susceptibility. This exposure summary shows exposure to moderate, high, and very high liquefaction susceptibility. Figure 4-42 summarizes exposure to liquefaction.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 224 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 181 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-122

Figure 4-49: Concord-Green Valley Exposure and Snapshot Map FINAL for adoption Packet Page 225 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 182 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-123

Figure 4-50: Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Exposure and Snapshot Map

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 226 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 183 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-124
Population
A significant number of people in Solano County are exposed to earthquake impacts based on assessing two scenarios, the zones of required investigation, and liquefaction. Vulnerable populations, including low- income communities, in particular might be located in areas with older housing which is more susceptible to damage from earthquakes.

Scenarios: Figure 4-51 and Table 4-35 summarize population exposure results for the M6.8 Concord- Green Valley Scenario. Figure 4-52 and Table 4-36 summarize population exposure results for the M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Scenario. The entire population of Solano County is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from both earthquake scenarios. The degree of exposure depends on many factors, including the age and construction type of dwellings, the soil types on which their homes are constructed, and proximity to fault location. Whether directly or indirectly impacted, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of functions of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself.

Figure 4-51: Population Exposure to M6.8 Concord-Green Valley Scenario (Unincorporated County)

Table 4-35: Population Exposure to M6.8 Concord-Green Valley Scenario (Unincorporated County) Total Population
Unincorporated County 19,665

Shake Severity Zone Population Count % of Total
IX - Violent - 0.00% VIII - Severe 4,016 20.42% VII - Very Strong 4,616 23.47% VI - Strong 10,959 55.73% Total 19,591 99.62% -
4,016 4,616
10,959
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
IX - Violent VIII - Severe VII - Very Strong VI - Strong FINAL for adoption Packet Page 227 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 184 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-125

Figure 4-52: Population Exposure to M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Scenario (Unincorporated County)

Table 4-36: Population Exposure to M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Scenario (Unincorporated County) Total Population
Unincorporated County 19,665

Shake Severity Zone Population Count % of Total
IX - Violent - 0.00% VIII - Severe 484 2.46% VII - Very Strong 2,099 10.67% VI - Strong 9,180 46.68% Total 11,763 59.81%

-
484
2,099
9,180
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
IX - Violent VIII - Severe VII - Very Strong VI - Strong FINAL for adoption Packet Page 228 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 185 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-126
Zone of Required Investigation and Liquefaction Susceptibility: Table 4-37 depicts the population count within a zone of required investigation in the county. It also depicts the susceptibility of the population to liquefaction.

Table 4-37: Population Count of Required Investigation and Liquefaction Susceptibility Total Population

Unincorporated County 19,665

Population Count % of Total
Zone of Investigation 336 1.71%

Liquefaction Susceptibility Population Count % of Total Very Low 7,625 38.77%
Low 2,817 14.32%
Medium 7,321 37.23%
High 1,108 5.63%
Very High 300 1.52%
Total 19,170 97.48%

Property and Building Ages
The vulnerability of buildings and structures to an earthquake depends on determining two important factors:
(1) The year in which seismic codes were initially adopted and enforced by the jurisdiction having authority, and
(2) The year in which seismic codes were improved and enforced.

These are known as benchmark years, marking significant milestones in California Building Code requirements that directly affect the structural integrity of development in California.

Solano County adheres to the 2019 California Building Code. Table 4-38 provides a listing of code improvements. Benchmark years are indicated in bold. For reference, Table 4-39 provides the definitions of building types.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 229 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 186 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-127
Table 4-38: Seismic Benchmark Years
Code Edition Effective Date Building Type
(2019 CBC) January 1, 2020
(2016 CBC) January 1, 2017
(2013 CBC) January 1, 2014 N/A
(2012 IBC)
(2010 CBC) January 1, 2011 N/A
(2009 IBC)
(2007 CBC) January 1, 2008 N/A
(2006 IBC)
(2001 CBC) November 1, 2002 N/A
(1997 UBC)
(1998 CBC) July 1, 1999 W1a, S2, S2a, RM1, PC1, PC1a
(1997 UBC)
(1994 UBC) January 7, 1996 S1, S1a, C1, C2, C2a, RM2
(1991 UBC) November 29, 1992 URM
(1988 UBC) April 29, 1990 S2 & S2a
(1985 UBC) November 8, 1987 N/A
(1982 UBC) December 9, 1984 N/A
(1979 UBC) June 21, 1981 N/A
(1976 UBC) November 1, 1977 W1 and W2
(1973 UBC) April 13, 1975 N/A
(1970 UBC) August 29, 1971 N/A
(1967 UBC) July 12, 1968 N/A
(1964 UBC) July 1, 1965 N/A
(1961 UBC) August 17, 1962 N/A
(1958 UBC) October 1, 1958 N/A
(1955 UBC) January 1, 1956 N/A
(1955 UBC) January 1, 1956 N/A
(1946 UBC) June 18, 1948 N/A
(1943 UBC) July 13, 1944 N/A
(1940 UBC) April 4, 1941 N/A
(1937 UBC) September 10, 1937 N/A
(1930 UBC) March 20, 1933 N/A
Source: ASCE 41-13. County Building Dept.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 230 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 187 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-128
Table 4-39: Definitions of FEMA Building Types
FEMA Building Type Definition
W1 Wood Light Frame
W1A Wood Light Frame (multi-unit residence)
W2 Wood Frame (commercial and industrial)
S1 Steel Moment Frames
S2 Steel-Braced Frames
S3 Steel Light Frames
S4 Steel Frames with Concrete Shear Walls
S5 Steel Frames with Infill Masonry Walls
C1 Concrete Moment Frames
C3 Concrete Frames with Infill Masonry Shear Walls
C2 Concrete Shear Walls
PC1 Tilt-Up Concrete Shear W alls
PC2 Precast Concrete Frames with Shear Walls
RM1 Reinforced Masonry Walls with Flexible Diaphragms
RM2 Reinforced Masonry Walls with Stiff Diaphragms
URM Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Walls

Soft-Story Buildings
A soft-story building is a multi-story building with one or more floors that are “soft” due to structural design.

If a building has a floor that is 70 percent less stiff than the floor above it, it is considered a soft-story building. These floors can be especially dangerous in earthquakes because they cannot cope with the lateral forces caused by the swaying of the building during a quake. As a result, the soft story may fail, causing what is known as a soft-story collapse. Soft stories are typically associated with retail spaces and parking garages, often on the lower stories of a building. A soft-story collapse can cause the rest of the building to collapse as well, resulting in serious structural damage that may render the structure totally unusable.

Soft-story collapse is one of the leading causes of earthquake damage to private residences. The level of vulnerability due to this type of construction within the planning area is not currently known. This type of data should be generated to support future earthquake risk assessments.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 231 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 188 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-129
Property Value Exposure
A significant number of properties in Solano County are exposed to earthquake impacts based on assessing the two scenarios, the zones of required investigation, and liquefaction.

Scenarios: An inventory of current market values and the content value was completed using the County Assessor’s parcel data. GIS was used to create centroids, or points, to represent the center of each parcel polygon, assumed to be the location of the structure for analysis purposes. The centroids were then superimposed with the USGS probabilistic shaking severity zones to determine the at-risk structures. Table 4-40 shows the count of at-risk parcels and their associated building and content exposure values to the M6.8 Concord-Green Valley earthquake scenario. Table 4-41 shows the count of at-risk parcels and their associated building and content exposure values to the M7.1 Hayward- Rodger’s Creek scenario.

Table 4-40: Parcel Exposure to M6.8 Concord-Green Valley (Unincorporated County)

Total
Parcels
Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($)

Unincorporated County 6,668 $3,186,640,275 $2,078,097,240 $5,264,737,515

Shake Severity Zone
Improved
Res. Parcel
Count
% of Total Market Value Exposure
($)
Content Value Exposure
($) Total Exposure ($) % of Total
IX - Violent 0 0% $0 $0 $0 0%
VIII - Severe 1,162 17.4% $682,609,232 $423,333,201 $1,105,942,433 21.0% VII - Very Strong 410 6.1% $238,170,107 $157,194,829 $395,364,936 7.5% VI - Strong 5,071 76.0% $2,256,659,191 $1,492,518,746 $3,749,177,937 71.2% Total 6,643 99.6% $3,177,438,530 $2,073,046,776 $5,250,485,306 99.7%

Table 4-41: Parcel Exposure to M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek (Unincorporated County)

Total
Parcels
Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($)

Unincorporated County 6,668 $3,186,640,275 $2,078,097,240 $5,264,737,515

Shake Severity Zone
Improved
Res. Parcel
Count
% of Total Market Value Exposure
($)
Content Value Exposure
($) Total Exposure ($) % of Total
IX - Violent 0 0% $0 $0 $0 0%
VIII - Severe 1 0.0% $437,750 $218,875 $656,625 0.0% VII - Very Strong 59 0.9% $22,278,263 $13,576,262 $35,854,525 0.7% VI - Strong 2,866 43.0% $1,420,440,907 $857,848,110 $2,278,289,018 43.3% Total 2,926 43.9% $1,443,156,920 $871,643,247 $2,314,800,167 44.0% FINAL for adoption Packet Page 232 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 189 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-130
Zone of Required Investigation and Liquefaction Susceptibility: Figure 4-58 depicts the parcel count within a zone of required investigation in the county. It also depicts the susceptibility of parcels to liquefaction.

Table 4-42: Parcel Count of Required Investigation and Liquefaction Susceptibility Total Parcels

Total Market
Value ($)
Total Content
Value ($) Total Value ($)

Unincorporated County 6,668 $3,186,640,275 $2,078,097,240 $5,264,737,515

Parcel Count % of Total Market Value
Exposure ($)
Content Value
Exposure ($) Total Exposure ($) % of Total
Zone of Investigation 235 3.5% $135,306,585 $68,568,236 $203,874,821 3.9%

Liquefaction Susceptibility
Very Low 2,627 39.4% $1,356,495,026 $766,331,869 $2,122,826,895 40.3% Low 1,274 19.1% $524,012,865 $309,479,585 $833,492,450 15.8% Medium 2,183 32.7% $1,115,652,219 $863,157,091 $1,978,809,310 37.6% High 409 6.1% $116,839,985 $93,660,543 $210,500,528 4.0% Very High 154 2.3% $63,852,354 $39,913,120 $103,765,474 2.0% Total 6,647 99.7% $3,176,852,449 $2,072,542,208 $5,249,394,657 99.7%

Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
A significant number of critical facilities and infrastructure in Solano County are exposed to earthquake impacts based on assessing the two scenarios, the zones of required investigation, and liquefaction.

Earthquakes pose numerous risks to critical facilities and infrastructure. Seismic risks, or losses, that are likely to result from exposure to seismic hazards include:
▪ Utility outages;
▪ Economic losses for repair and replacement of critical facilities, roads, buildings, etc.; ▪ Indirect economic losses, such as income lost during infrastructure downtime; and ▪ Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged, preventing access throughout the area and isolating residents and emergency service providers that need to reach vulnerable populations or make repairs.

Linear utilities and transportation routes are vulnerable to rupture and damage during and after a significant earthquake event. The cascading impact of a single failure can have effects across multiple systems and utility sectors. Degrading infrastructure systems and future large earthquakes with epicenters close to critical regional infrastructure could result in system outages that last weeks for the most reliable systems, and multiple months for others. Additionally, earthquakes may cause the loss of function of cellular phone sites or cell towers, which can limit emergency services such as tracking and evacuation.

Scenarios: A significant number of critical facilities in Solano County are exposed to the two earthquake hazard scenarios, as shown in Table 4-43 and Table 4-44.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 233 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 190 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-131
Table 4-43: Critical Facility Exposure to M6.8 Concord-Green Valley Scenario (Unincorporated County) Critical Infrastructure - M6.8 Concord-Green Valley
Infrastructure Type IX - Violent VIII - Severe VII - Very Strong VI -Strong Essential Facility - 2 1 8

EOC - - - -
Law Enforcement - - - -
Fire Station - 2 1 8
Emergency Services - - - -
Hospital - - - -
High Potential Loss - 26 54 128
Dam - 3 6 3
Historic Building - - - 2
Library - - - -
School - 3 - 2
Historic Site - - - -
Community Center - - - -
Jurisdiction Real Property Asset* - - - -
Park - 4 - 3
Wastewater Treatment Facility - 1 - -
Emergency Shelter - 2 - 1
Administrative - - - -
Child Care Facility - 2 - 6
Healthcare Facility - - - -
Senior Center - - - -
County Real Property Asset* - 9 48 108
Early Learning - 2 - 3
Transportation and Lifeline - 92 116 2018
Airport - - - -
Bridge - 28 11 109
Power Plant - - - 25
Substation - 2 - 20
Bus Facility - - - -
NG Station - - 5 45
Bus Stop - 3 - 5
Railway Bridge - 1 - -
Cell Tower - 5 6 6
Breakout Tank - - - -
Oil Facility - - - -
Transmission Line Tower - 53 94 889
Wind Turbine - - - 919
Ferry - - - -
Amtrak Station - - - -
Train Station - - - -
Hazmat - 18 23 65
Hazmat - 18 23 65
Hazardous Waste facility - - - 5
Grand Total - 138 194 2219
*Note: Real Property Assets are digitized insurance rolls for demonstrating value and ownership and may have overlapping points with other categories such as fire stations and law enforcement.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 234 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 191 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-132
Table 4-44: Critical Facility Exposure to M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Scenario (Unincorporated County) Critical Infrastructure - M7.1 Hayward-Rodger's Creek
Infrastructure Type IX - Violent VIII - Severe VII - Very Strong VI - Strong Essential Facility - - - 4

EOC - - - -
Law Enforcement - - - -
Fire Station - - - 4
Emergency Services - - - -
Hospital - - - -
High Potential Loss - 1 8 120
Dam - - - 10
Historic Building - - - 1
Library - - - -
School - - - 5
Historic Site - - - -
Community Center - - - -
Jurisdiction Real Property Asset* - - - -
Park - - 2 2
Wastewater Treatment Facility - - - 1
Emergency Shelter - - - 2
Administrative - - - -
Child Care Facility - - - 4
Healthcare Facility - - - -
Senior Center - - - -
County Real Property Asset* - 1 6 93
Early Learning - - - 2
Transportation and Lifeline - 24 11 351
Airport - - - -
Bridge - - 6 43
Power Plant - - - 2
Substation - - - 2
Bus Facility - - - -
NG Station - - - 9
Bus Stop - - - 8
Railway Bridge - - - 1
Cell Tower - - 5 6
Breakout Tank - - - -
Oil Facility - - - -
Transmission Line Tower - 24 - 236
Wind Turbine - - - 44
Ferry - - - -
Amtrak Station - - - -
Train Station - - - -
Hazmat - 4 4 40
Hazmat - 4 4 40
Hazardous Waste facility - - - -
Grand Total - 29 23 515
*Note: Real Property Assets are digitized insurance rolls for demonstrating value and ownership and may have overlapping points with other categories such as fire stations and law enforcement.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 235 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 192 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-133

Zone of Required Investigation and Liquefaction Susceptibility: Table 4-45 depicts the amount of critical infrastructure within the county that lie within a zone of required investigation. It also depicts the susceptibility of the county’s critical infrastructure number to liquefaction.

Table 4-45: Critical Infrastructure in Zone of Required Investigation and Susceptible to Liquefaction Liquefaction Susceptibility Zone of Investigation Infrastructure Type Very Low Low Medium High Very High Essential Facility 4 1 5 - 2 1

EOC - - - - - -
Law Enforcement - - - - - -
Fire Station 4 1 5 - 2 1
Emergency Services - - - - - -
Hospital - - - - - -
High Potential Loss 46 29 113 10 8 6
Dam 5 2 2 2 - 2
Historic Building 1 - 1 - - -
Library - - - - - -
School 1 2 2 - - -
Historic Site - - - - - -
Community Center - - - - - -
Jurisdiction Real Property Asset* - - - - - -
Park 2 - 3 1 1 1
Wastewater Treatment Facility - - 1 - - -
Emergency Shelter - - 2 1 - 1
Administrative - - - - - -
Child Care Facility 3 1 3 1 - 1
Healthcare Facility - - - - - -
Senior Center - - - - - -
County Real Property Asset* 34 24 97 2 7 1
Early Learning - - 2 3 - -
Transportation and Lifeline 1466 340 284 70 47 16
Airport - - - - - -
Bridge 8 14 66 19 36 3
Power Plant 17 5 2 1 - -
Substation 9 4 5 4 - 1
Bus Facility - - - - - -
NG Station 21 14 8 7 1 -
Bus Stop 2 3 3 - - -
Railway Bridge 1 - - - - 1
Cell Tower 14 - 3 - - -
Breakout Tank - - - - - -
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 236 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 193 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-134
Liquefaction Susceptibility Zone of Investigation Infrastructure Type Very Low Low Medium High Very High Oil Facility - - - - - -
Transmission Line Tower 475 300 197 39 10 11
Wind Turbine 919 - - - - -
Ferry - - - - - -
Amtrak Station - - - - - -
Train Station - - - - - -
Hazmat 49 11 38 5 2 -
Hazmat 49 11 38 5 2 -
Hazardous Waste facility 1 1 3 - - -
Grand Total 1565 381 440 85 59 23
*Note: Real Property Assets are digitized insurance rolls for demonstrating value and ownership and may have overlapping points with other categories such as fire stations and law enforcement.

HazMat Fixed Facilities
Earthquakes can produce hazardous materials (HazMat) threats at extremely high levels. Depending on the year of build and construction of each facility containing HazMat, the earthquake-initiated hazardous material release (EIHR) potential will vary. HazMat contained within masonry or concrete structures built before certain benchmark years may be particularly vulnerable.

Utilities
A significant number of utilities in Solano County are exposed to earthquake impacts based on assessing the two scenarios, the zones of required investigation, and liquefaction.

Scenarios: Linear utilities and transportation infrastructure would likely suffer considerable damage in the event of an earthquake. Due to the amount of infrastructure and sensitivity of utility data, linear utilities are difficult to analyze without further investigating individual system components. Table 4-46 and Table 4-47 provide the best available linear utility data; it should be assumed that these systems are exposed to breakage and failure.

Zone of Required Investigation and Liquefaction Susceptibility: Table 4-48 depicts the number of critical lines within the county that lie within a zone of required investigation. It also depicts the susceptibility of critical lines to liquefaction.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 237 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 194 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-135
Table 4-46: Lifeline Exposure M6.8 Concord-Green Valley Scenario (Unincorporated County) Lifelines (miles) - M6.8 Concord-Green Valley
Infrastructure Type (Linear) IX - Violent VIII - Severe VII - Very Strong VI - Strong Bus Route - 30.6 8.5 24.5
Levee (FEMA) - 169.0 220.5 238.1
Levee Flood Wall - - - 0.1
Levee Cross Section - 0.1 - 2.2
NG Pipeline - 9.5 30.9 232.1
Railroad - 15.5 2.4 44.1
Street - 290.3 368.1 1,902.4
4WD trail - - 8.0 10.5
Alley - - - 0.0
Cul-de-sac - 0.1 0.1 0.6
Driveway - 33.6 29.0 280.5
Ferry - - - 0.2
Interstate - 16.9 17.8 36.5
Local road - 146.5 231.3 969.2
Local road, major - 66.8 65.0 400.0
Primary highway - - - -
Ramp - 4.5 0.2 12.1
Service road - 1.5 - -
State/county highway - 20.4 16.6 188.0
Traffic circle - 0.1 - 0.0
Walkway - - 0.1 4.3
Transmission Line - 36.1 49.6 290.6
Grand Total - 551.0 679.9 2,734.1

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 238 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 195 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-136
Table 4-47: Lifeline Exposure M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Scenario (Unincorporated County) Lifelines (miles) - M7.1 Hayward-Rodger's Creek
Infrastructure Type (Linear) IX - Violent VIII - Severe VII - Very Strong VI - Strong Bus Route - 30.6 8.5 24.5
Levee (FEMA) - 169.0 220.5 238.1
Levee Flood Wall - - - 0.1
Levee Cross Section - 0.1 - 2.2
NG Pipeline - 9.5 30.9 232.1
Railroad - 15.5 2.4 44.1
Street - 290.3 368.1 1,902.4
4WD trail - - 8.0 10.5
Alley - - - 0.0
Cul-de-sac - 0.1 0.1 0.6
Driveway - 33.6 29.0 280.5
Ferry - - - 0.2
Interstate - 16.9 17.8 36.5
Local road - 146.5 231.3 969.2
Local road, major - 66.8 65.0 400.0
Primary highway - - - -
Ramp - 4.5 0.2 12.1
Service road - 1.5 - -
State/county highway - 20.4 16.6 188.0
Traffic circle - 0.1 - 0.0
Walkway - - 0.1 4.3
Transmission Line - 36.1 49.6 290.6
Grand Total - 551.0 679.9 2,734.1

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 239 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 196 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-137
Table 4-48: Critical Lines in Zone of Required Investigation and Susceptible to Liquefaction Liquefaction Susceptibility
Zone of Investigation
Infrastructure Type (Linear) Very Low Low Medium High Very High Bus Route - - - - - -
Levee (FEMA) 2.9 1.6 388.3 222.7 7.3 2.8
Levee Flood Wall - - - - - -
Levee Cross Section - - - - - -
NG Pipeline 97.8 67.2 68.6 27.0 3.9 2.0
Railroad 4.8 30.9 11.3 0.8 13.5 1.4
Street 770.2 270.3 956.5 513.1 46.2 18.3
4WD trail 9.2 - 4.0 5.2 0.0 -
Alley - 0.0 0.0 - - -
Cul-de-sac 0.3 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 -
Driveway 162.6 49.4 88.5 43.9 3.3 2.6
Ferry 0.0 - - - - -
Interstate 13.0 10.9 40.3 0.8 3.0 1.3
Local road 377.9 102.8 533.3 298.4 23.9 6.0
Local road, major 149.3 77.7 186.6 109.4 10.9 6.9
Primary highway - - - - - -
Ramp 2.5 3.3 10.2 0.0 0.1 0.5
Service road 0.2 - 1.2 - 0.0 -
State/county highway 51.8 25.5 91.6 54.7 4.6 1.0
Traffic circle 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 - -
Walkway 3.3 0.5 - 0.5 - -
Transmission Line 128.5 88.8 94.2 33.1 5.3 2.5
Grand Total 1,004.1 458.8 1,518.9 796.6 76.2 27.0

Water Supply Utilities
Solano water supply is sourced primarily from the Solano Project and the North Bay Aqueduct. The Solano Project includes Monticello Dam and Lake Berryessa. The North Bay Aqueduct is a State Water Project facility. The Solano County Water Agency provides water for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses in Fairfield, Suisun City, Vacaville, Vallejo, Benicia, the Solano Irrigation District and Maine Prairie Water District service areas, UC Davis, and the California State Prison in Solano County. Other water sources in the unincorporated county are the Rural North Vacaville Water District, the City of Vallejo, Suisun-Solano Water Authority, and private and community wells. Additionally, some wastewater from the Fairfield/Suisun area is recycled and used for agricultural purposes. (Solano County General Plan, 2008) FINAL for adoption Packet Page 240 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 197 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-138
An earthquake could impact water supply delivery from breaking of water delivery lines, wellheads, and the loss of power critical for pumping. Exposure to liquefaction and zones of required investigation could also cause large amounts of damage to water supply lines.

Natural Gas Utilities
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Solano County’s natural gas and electricity utility, is responsible for designing, constructing, maintaining, and operating natural gas infrastructure safely and efficiently. This includes all the facilities used in the delivery of gas to any customer up to and including the point of delivery to a customer’s gas piping system.

Damage to natural gas systems primarily results from damage on the customer side to the structures in which the systems are housed or damage to the equipment to which gas lines are connected. The shifting or toppling of gas appliances, such as water heaters or stoves, is the principal cause of post-earthquake fire ignitions that are gas-related; however, building collapse and deformation of structural components can also cause damage to interior gas piping. (California Seismic Safety Commission, 2002) In addition, utility natural gas systems can be damaged through ground displacements, including surface faulting, landslide-like movements, and soil failure or liquefaction produced by strong ground shaking.

However, this is mainly a concern for older pipelines that may be weakened by corrosion or were constructed using outdated methods and materials. Cast iron, aging bare steel pipe, and pipe with threaded connections are the most susceptible to damage from ground shaking. (Id.) Breaks in the system will affect large portions of the county, and restoration of natural gas service could be significantly delayed.

Common characteristics of earthquakes and their impacts on natural gas safety include:
▪ Ground shaking generally leads to substantially more instances of building damage than fire ignitions.
▪ Building damage caused by substantial ground shaking is the most likely to impact utility and customer gas systems and lead to gas-related fire ignitions. ▪ Twenty percent to 50 percent of post-earthquake fire ignitions will be related to natural gas. ▪ The consequences of post-earthquake fire ignitions for residential gas customers are largely financial. A fire ignition only becomes a life safety concern when inhabitants are unable to exit the building following earthquakes. While experience in past earthquakes indicates that egress from earthquake-damaged single-family homes is generally possible, residents in larger multifamily units, especially on higher floors, may be at risk since they provide a greater chance for damaging the structure and trapping the occupants and greater difficulty evacuating. (Id.) Gas customers and Solano County residents are responsible for using gas safely on their property and within their buildings and other facilities. Customers meet this responsibility by maintaining their gas appliances in good working condition, assuring that only qualified individuals are engaged to modify or maintain their gas service and facility piping, and knowing what to do before and after earthquakes to maintain the safe operation of their natural gas service.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 241 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 198 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-139
The following conditions, when combined, pose the greatest risk for post-earthquake fire damage:
▪ Unoccupied buildings, as they post problems with mitigating damage to gas systems or control small fires.
▪ Liquefaction.
▪ High building density.
▪ Dense vegetation that could catch fire.
▪ High wind and low humidity weather conditions.
▪ Damage to water systems to limit firefighting capabilities. ▪ Impaired communications, numerous requests for assistance, direct damage to fire stations, restricted access because of traffic congestion and damaged roadways, and delays in mutual aid from neighboring fire districts, which can create delays in firefighting response. (Id.) Telecommunication
Telecommunication systems will be affected by a system failure, overloads, loss of electrical power, and possible failure of some alternate power systems. Immediately following an event, numerous failures will occur, compounded by system use overloads. This will likely disable up to 80 percent of the telephone system for one day. County UHF/VHF and microwave radio systems are expected to operate at 40 percent effectiveness for the first 12 hours following an earthquake, increase to 50 percent effectiveness for the second 12-hour period, then begin to slowly decline to approximately 40 percent effectiveness within 36 hours. (City and County of San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2014) Microwave systems will likely be 30 percent or less effective following a major earthquake.

Public Schools
The Field Act was enacted on April 10, 1933, one month after the Long Beach Earthquake in which many schools were destroyed or suffered major damage. Since then, public school construction has been governed by the Act and enforced by the Division of the State Architect. In any community, public schools constructed under the Field Act after 1978 are likely to be among the safest buildings in which to experience a major earthquake. The Field Act requires:
▪ School building construction plans to be prepared by qualified California licensed structural engineers and architects.
▪ Designs and plans to be checked by the Division of the State Architect (DSA) for compliance with the Field Act before a contract for construction can be awarded. ▪ Qualified inspectors, independent of the contractors and hired by the school districts, to continuously inspect construction and verify full compliance with plans. ▪ The responsible architects and structural engineers to observe the construction periodically and prepare changes to plans, if needed, subject to approval by DSA. ▪ Architects, engineers, inspectors, and contractors to file reports, under penalty of perjury, to verify compliance of the construction with the approved plans emphasizing the importance of testing and inspections to achieve seismically safe construction. Any person who violates the provisions FINAL for adoption Packet Page 242 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 199 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-140
or makes any false statement in any verification report or affidavit required pursuant to the Act is guilty of a felony. (Seismic Safety Commission, 2009)
Private schools are not subject to the Field Act and fall solely under the jurisdiction of the local building departments and building code requirements. Private schools are covered under the Private Schools Building Act of 1986, with the legislative intent that children attending private schools be afforded life safety protection similar to that of children attending public schools. (Id.) In the late 1960s, regulations were put in place to have pre-Field Act (1933) buildings retrofitted, removed from school use, or demolished. (Cal. Edu. Code § 15516, Appendix X, 1968) The Field Act also prohibits the use of unreinforced masonry buildings as school buildings. Seismic building standards, in general, were greatly strengthened after significant damage to buildings was observed, especially in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The Field Act regulations in place since 1978 are considered adequate for public school buildings in most cases. (Id.)
Transportation
Earthquake events can significantly impact bridges and overpasses, which often provide the only access to some neighborhoods. Since soft soil regions generally follow floodplain boundaries, bridges that cross watercourses are considered vulnerable. Areas which experience liquefaction or zones of required investigation are also particularly vulnerable and transportation in these areas is susceptible to increased risk.

There are multiple transportation routes and transit providers and facilities throughout Solano County.

Regional access routes in the county include Interstates 80, 505, 680, and 780, and State Routes (SRs) 12, 29, 37, 84, and 113. Portions of these routes could become impassable after an earthquake event, which could isolate portions of the county until road crews are able to complete road restoration. Throughout Solano County, Amtrak and Greyhound bus lines provide long-distance inter-city service. In addition, transit routes 2-2 connect with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations in Contra Costa County and transit links are provided to Napa, Sacramento, and Yolo Counties. Public aviation airports in Solano County include the Nut Tree Airport and Rio Vista Municipal Airport. Table 4-46 and Table 4-47 show transportation infrastructure exposed to shake severity zones in the event of the Concord-Green Valley and the Hayward-Rodger’s Creek earthquake scenarios. (Solano HMP, 2014)

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 243 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 200 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-141
Earthquake Damage Estimation
Damage estimations for the two scenarios in this MJHMP were calculated using FEMA’s Hazus software, namely a Level 2 Hazus 4.2 analysis. For the Solano County Hazus analysis, the M6.8 Concord-Green Valley and M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek earthquake scenarios were used.

Hazus uses GIS to analyze multiple factors influencing earthquake damage estimates, including peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground acceleration (PGA) and soil of a given scenario , and geographic area.

Once the location and size of a hypothetical earthquake is identified, Hazus software estimates the intensity of the ground shaking, number of buildings damaged, number of casualties, damage to transportation systems and utilities, number of people displaced from their homes, and the estimated cost of repair and clean up.

The parcel data defined in Section 4.3 was imported into Hazus as User Defined Facilities (UDF) serving as the basis for replacement and content cost, as well as associated damage estimation and loss. Building damage outputs from Hazus are categorized into slight, moderate, and extensive damage. Ranges of damage are used to provide the user with an understanding of a building’s physical condition. Table 4-49 provides a physical description of each damage state.

County Assessor data does not include detailed information for tax-exempt structures, such as federal and local government buildings. These data were added through the development of GIS data by utilizing insurance schedule tables for each municipality’s insured assets.

While there are several limitations to the FEMA Hazus earthquake models, it does allow for potential loss estimation for each building construction category. County-wide loss estimation results are summarized by building category type in Table 4-50 (Concord-Green Valley) and Table 4-51 (Hayward-Rodger’s Creek). It is important to understand that the Hazus loss estimation values for earthquakes are categorized in exceedance values. From reviewing Table 4-50 and Table 4-51, one might infer the probability of structures exceeding extensive damage is relatively low. However, if damage were to occur, the economic loss is averaged and summarized for each building type defined in the software.

Important to note: Loss estimation is the worst-case scenario. Loss estimation does not include damage to transportation routes, infrastructure, and other public and private utilities located throughout the county.

An important concept in loss data is the “probability” of damage to exceed a certain degree. It is unlikely that buildings in county would receive “extensive” damage from earthquake shaking.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 244 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 201 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-142
Table 4-49: Hazus Building Damage Descriptions
Damage
State
Damage Description
Slight Small plaster cracks at corners of door and window openings and wall/ceiling intersections; small cracks in masonry chimneys and masonry veneers. Small cracks are assumed to be visible with a maximum width of less than 1/8 inch (cracks wider than 1/8 inch are referred to as “large” cracks).

Moderate Large plaster or gypsum-board cracks at corners of door and window openings; small diagonal cracks across shear wall panels exhibited by small cracks in stucco and gypsum wall panels; large cracks in brick chimneys; toppling of tall masonry chimneys.

Extensive Large diagonal cracks across shear wall panels or large cracks at plywood joints; permanent lateral movement of floors and roof; toppling of most brick chimneys; cracks in foundations; splitting of wood sill plates and/or slippage of structure over foundations.

Complete Structure may have large permanent lateral displacement or be in imminent danger of collapse due to cripple wall failure or failure of the lateral load resisting system; some structures may slip and fall off the foundation; large foundation cracks. Three percent of the total area of buildings with Complete damage is expected to be collapsed, on average.

Damage Estimation Improved Parcel and Government Property Loss Hazus 4.2 was used to estimate the loss potential to residential properties and government service facilities exposed to both the M6.8 Concord-Green Valley and M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek earthquake scenarios.

Hazus reports the damage potential and loss potential from a given earthquake scenario in four categories:
slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage, and economic loss. Economic loss consists of estimations on the cost of repair and replacement to damaged or destroyed buildings and contents, relocation expenses, capital-related income, wage losses, and rental income losses. County insurance data was obtained and formatted for use in Hazus for a detailed damage estimation. This dataset has additional information, including number of floors, building value, content value, and construction type, that greatly enhances results from the default Hazus database.

The results shown in Table 4-50 and Table 4-51 summarize improved parcels and government property loss.

Appendix A provides a full list of critical facilities and damage estimations.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 245 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 202 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-143

Table 4-50: Loss Estimations for M6.8 Concord-Green Valley Scenario Building Type
Average of
Potential
Damage to
Exceed “Slight”
Average of
Potential
Damage to
Exceed
“Moderate”
Average of
Potential
Damage to
Exceed
“Extensive”
Average
Economic Loss
for Each Building
Category
Sum of Economic
Loss
Proportion of
Loss (%)
Agriculture 36% 20% 5% $25,899 $34,730,830 14%
Commercial 33% 11% 2% $114,743 $11,359,604 4%
Education* 31% 15% 2% $13,569 $13,569 0%
Emergency 80% 64% 37% $609,376 $1,828,128 1%
Government 26% 5% 0% $287,316 $24,421,897 10%
Industrial 41% 23% 7% $501,339 $42,613,850 17%
Religion 29% 10% 2% $40,505 $688,585 0%
Residential 29% 7% 1% $26,992 $138,146,977 54%
Total $253,803,439
*School district asset information not available during time of Hazus analysis.

Note: Total Inventory Values
1 - Building Replacement Costs = $3,773,922,295
2 - Content Replacement Costs = $2,667,166,517
3 - Total Value = $6,441,088,812

Figure 4-53: M6.8 Concord Green Valley Damage Estimation by Occupancy

$0 $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000
Agriculture
Commercial
Education
Emergency
Government
Industrial
Religion
Residential
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 246 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 203 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-144

Table 4-51: Loss Estimations for M7.1 Hayward-Rodger’s Creek Scenario Building Type
Average of
Potential
Damage to
Exceed “Slight”
Average of
Potential
Damage to
Exceed
“Moderate”
Average of
Potential
Damage to
Exceed
“Extensive”
Average
Economic Loss
for Each Building
Category
Sum of Economic
Loss
Proportion of
Loss (%)
Agriculture 15% 6% 1% $ 7,170 $ 9,614,998 18%
Commercial 12% 3% 0% $ 27,082 $ 2,681,139 5%
Education 15% 6% 1% $5,537 $5,537 0%
Emergency 0% 0% 0% $- $- 0%
Government 4% 0% 0% $3,337 $ 23,360 0%
Industrial 17% 7% 1% $ 121,050 $ 10,289,286 20%
Religion 12% 2% 0% $ 11,167 $189,834 0%
Residential 9% 1% 0% $ 5,758 $29,471,403 56%
Total $52,275,556
Note: Total Inventory Values
1 - Building Replacement Costs = $73,954,683,046
2 - Content Replacement Costs = $47,728,130,547
3 - Total Value = $121,682,813,593

Figure 4-54: M7.1 Hayward Rodger's Creek Damage Estimation by Occupancy $0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000
Agriculture
Commercial
Education
Emergency
Government
Industrial
Religion
Residential
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 247 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 204 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-145

4.5.3.9 Future Trends in Development
Land use in the planning area will be directed by general plans adopted under California’s General Planning Law. The safety elements of these general plans establish standards and policies for the protection of the community from hazards. The information in this plan provides the participating jurisdictions a tool to ensure that there is no increase in exposure in areas of high seismic risk. Development in the planning area will be regulated through building standards and performance measures so that the degree of risk will be reduced. The geologic hazard portions of the planning area are heavily regulated under California’s Building Code, which has some of the most stringent seismic building standards in the nation.

4.5.3.10 Earthquake Hazard Problem Statements
As part of the mitigation action identification process, the Planning Committee for the county and for each jurisdiction identified issues and weaknesses, also called problem statements, for their respective facilities.

Identification was based on the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis utilizing the RAMP mapping tool and earthquake data. Earthquake problem statements for all participating jurisdictions are listed in Table 4-52; problem statements for all other participating jurisdictions are accessed in Volume 2 of this plan.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 248 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 205 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-146

Table 4-52 Earthquake Problem Statements
Proble
m No.

Hazard
Type
Area of
Concern
Mitigation
Alternatives
Primary
Agency Problem Description
Related
MA
ps-EQ-
SC-119
Earthquake Impact PRV - Prevention ,
ES - Emergency
Services
Solano
County
The County does not have a seismic
gas shut off valve ordinance or
program.
ma-EQ-SC-
164
ps-EQ-
SC-120
Earthquake Impact PRV - Prevention ,
PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness
Solano
County
Some County facilities may lack
seismic gas shut off valves to prevent
gas leaks. Further investigation is
needed.
ma-EQ-SC-
165
ps-EQ-
SC-121
Earthquake Impact PRV - Prevention ,
PPRO - Property
Protection , SP -
Structural Projects
Solano
County
Historic buildings are more susceptible
to ground shaking since many of these
buildings have weakened with age and
were built under old building codes.
ma-AH-SC-
3, ma-EQ-
SC-166
ps-EQ-
SC-122
Earthquake Impact PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness , SP -
Structural Projects
Solano
County
Older construction and unreinforced
masonry (URM) buildings within the
County are susceptible to the impacts
of an earthquake.
ma-EQ-SC-
166
ps-EQ-
SC-123
Earthquake Impact SP - Structural
Projects
Solano
County
There are 28 County bridges located in
a severe shake zone for the 6.8 Concord
Green Valley EQ scenario.
ma-EQ-SC-
167, ma-AH-
SC-14
ps-EQ-
SC-124
Earthquake Impact SP - Structural
Projects
Solano
County
Infrastructure in the Delta is
particularly vulnerable to the impacts
of EQ due to the presence of weak
levees.
ma-EQ-SC-
168, ma-EQ-
SC-17, ma-
AH-SC-14
ps-EQ-
SC-125
Earthquake Victim PPRO - Property
Protection , PE&A -
Public Education &
Awareness , SP -
Structural Projects
Solano
County
There are 3,941 people living in a severe
shake zone in the Unicorp. County for
the 6.8 Concord Green Valley EQ
scenario.
ma-AH-SC-
14, ma-EQ-
SC-169, ma-
AH-SC-11,
ma-AH-SC-
4, ma-AH-
SC-7, ma-
EQ-SC-16
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 249 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 206 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-147
Extreme Weather Hazard Profile
Extreme weather refers to any dangerous meteorological phenomena with the potential to cause damage, serious social disruption, or loss of human life. Extreme weather may form over wide geographic areas or occur within a more limited geographic area.

The MJHMP Planning Committee identified three types of extreme weather events that typically impact Solano County:
▪ High Wind
▪ Heavy Rain
▪ High Heat
These three types of extreme weather are also discussed in the context of climate change. The following are characteristics of extreme weather events that can occur in Solano County.

High Wind
Damaging winds are classified as those exceeding 60 mph. Damage from such wind accounts for half of all extreme weather reports in the lower 48 states and is more common than damage from tornadoes. Wind speeds can reach up to 100 mph and can produce a damage path extending for hundreds of miles.

Heavy Rain
Heavy rain can lead to flooding even on dry soil and especially on impervious surfaces. In urban areas, direct runoff is relatively extensive, not only because of the density of roofs and impermeable pavements which allow less rain to infiltrate the ground, but also because storm-sewer systems carry more water directly to streams and lakes. The average annual rainfall in Solano County is about 28 inches. Most of the precipitation falls during the winter, and substantial snowfall is limited to higher elevations. Rainfall is often from storms that move in from the northwest. Virtually no rainfall occurs during the summer months.

High Heat
Heat waves are periods of abnormally hot weather lasting days to weeks. The number of heat waves has been increasing in recent years across the United States and locally. Climate change will continue to cause extreme heat events more often. Studies show that, by the end of this century, the number of days with temperatures reaching 100°F or more is projected to increase dramatically as a result of climate change.

What the public now considers to be an exceptional event could become routine across much of the country.

As temperatures rise and extreme heat events become longer, more severe, and more frequent, experts expect to see more health problems and deaths caused by heat. (CDC, 2013) Extreme heat events are defined by summertime weather that is substantially hotter and more humid than average for a given location at that time of year. (CDC, 2017) While there is no universal definition, the California Adaptation Tool calculated extreme as a day in a year when the daily maximum/minimum temperature exceeds the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures based on FINAL for adoption Packet Page 250 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 207 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-148
observed historical data from 1961–1990 between April and October. (CalAdapt, 2021) For Solano County, CalAdapt reports 103.1 is the average threshold high heat temperature; however, the threshold for the area around Benicia is 97.3 degrees.

Heat kills by taxing the human body beyond its abilities. Among natural hazards, only the cold of winter— not lightning, hurricanes, tornados, floods, or earthquakes—takes a greater toll. (Ready.gov, 2021) In a normal year, about 600 Americans succumb to the demands of extreme heat. (CDC, 2021) In California, a record number of heat-related deaths occurred in 2006. That year, at least 140 deaths occurred between July 15 and August 1 and about 16,000 additional emergency room visits occurred due to a record-breaking heat wave. (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2019)

4.5.4.1 Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Environment
There are very few formal regulations that pertain directly to extreme weather events. The California Building Code,8 adopted by Solano County and the participating jurisdictions, is generally adequate to properly address development impacts from extreme weather events.

4.5.4.2 Past Events
Solano County extreme weather events include heavy rain, high wind, and high heat. Since 2000, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has recorded the following number of extreme weather events (noteworthy injuries, death, or property damage and year shown in parenthesis):
▪ 34 days with high/ strong wind events
o $7.4 million in damage on 1/4/2008
o $1 million on 12/30/2014
o $1 million on 2/27/2019
o Since 2000, 3 reported deaths and 2 reported injuries ▪ 7 heavy rain events
o $7,000 property damage on 2/11/2000
▪ 25 days with high heat events
o 30 injuries reported since 2000 with
o 12 injuries on 6/13/2000
o Note this number does not include the summer of 2021.

The USDA also issues disaster declaration for agriculture-related natural disaster events. The USDA has issued one excessive rain declaration for Solano County since 2012 (S4656) for damages associated with heavy rain events from 5/15/2019 – 5/30/2019. (United States Department of Agriculture, 2021) These declarations are issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and qualify producers in affected primary and

8 Available at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes .

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 251 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 208 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-149
contiguous counties to receive emergency (EM) loans as well as other emergency assistance programs.

While extreme cold does occur in Solano County, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee did not prioritize this subhazard as the vulnerabilities are minimal compared with other extreme weather hazard events and NOAA reports no property damage, injuries, or death.

4.5.4.3 Location
Extreme weather events have the potential to happen anywhere in the planning area. Wind events are most damaging to areas that are heavily wooded. Heavy rain events can be more impactful in more populous areas with greater impervious surfaces. The following figures show average weather conditions for Solano County, including:
▪ Figure 4-55: Solano County - Average Annual Precipitation ▪ Figure 4-56: Annual Average Wind Speed (Power Class)
▪ Figure 4-57: 30-Year Normal Maximum Temperature for July

4.5.4.4 Frequency and Probability of Future Events
Extreme weather events since the year 2000 have caused a total of $8,007,000 worth of property damage in Solano County. Extreme weather events occur annually in Solano County to a varying degree, not always with property damage involved. High Wind: Figure 4-56 displays average annual wind speeds by power class in Solano County and Table 4-53 describes wind power classes. Heavy Rain: Even if overall precipitation does not significantly depart from average in the future, heavy rainfall events are predicted to increase with climate change. (United States Geological Survey, n.d.) High Heat: Figure 4-57 displays the 30- year normal maximum temperature for July in Solano County Table 4-53: Classes of Wind Power Density at 10 m and 50 ma a Vertical extrapolation of wind speed based on the 1/7 power law. b Mean wind speed is based on Rayleigh speed distribution of equivalent mean wind power density. Wind speed is for standard sea -level conditions. To maintain the same power density, speed increases 3%/1000 m (5%/5000 ft) elevation.

Note: Each wind power class should span two power densities. For example, Wind Power Class = 3 represents the Wind Power Density range between 150 W/m2 Wind Power Class
10 m (33 ft) 50 m (164 ft)
Wind Power Density
(W/m2) Speedb m/s (mph)
Wind Power Density
(W/m2) Speedb m/s (mph)
1 0 0 0
100 4.4 (9.8) 200 5.6 (12.5)
2 150 5.1 (11.5) 300 6.4 (14.3)
3 200 5.6 (12.5) 400 7.0 (15.7)
4 250 6.0 (13.4) 500 7.5 (16.8)
5 300 6.4 (14.3) 600 8.0 (17.9)
6 400 7.0 (15.7) 800 8.8 (19.7)
7 1000 9.4 (21.1) 2000 11.9 (26.6)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 252 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 209 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-150
and 200 W/m2. The offset cells in the first column attempt to illustrate this concept.

Figure 4-55: Solano County - Average Annual Precipitation FINAL for adoption Packet Page 253 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 210 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-151

Figure 4-56: Annual Average Wind Speed (Power Class)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 254 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 211 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-152

Figure 4-57: 30-Year Normal Maximum Temperature for July

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 255 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 212 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-153

4.5.4.5 Severity and Extent
The most common problems associated with high wind and heavy rain are immobility and loss of utilities.

Fatalities are uncommon but can occur. In heavy rain or high wind events, roads may become impassable due to flooding, downed trees, or a landslide. Power lines may be downed due to high winds, and services such as water or phone may not be able to operate without power.

High Wind: Windstorms can be a problem in the planning area and could cause damage to utilities. It is important to note that the predicted wind speed given in wind warnings issued by the National Weather Service is for a one-minute average; gusts may be 25 to 30 percent higher.

Heavy Rain: Heavy rain has been a problem in Solano County and could cause future damage to facilities and utilities in the planning area. From 2000 to 2020, heavy rain events caused the second highest dollar amount in property damages of extreme weather, resulting in property damages of $70,000.

High Heat: High heat has been a problem in Solano County in the past and will likely cause future damage to facilities, utilities, and residents in the planning area. Climate change will exacerbate heat extremes within the county.

4.5.4.6 Warning Time
High Wind: Meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of high winds with several days of warning time.

However, meteorologists cannot predict the exact time of onset or severity of high winds. Some storms may come on more quickly and have only a few hours of warning time. A Red Flag Warning is issued when warm temperatures, very low humidity, and stronger winds are expected to combine in order to produce an increased risk of fire danger. (National Weather Service) Heavy Rain: As with high winds, meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of a storm with heavy rains.

This can give several days of warning time. However, meteorologists cannot predict the exact time of onset or severity of heavy rain, or the precise locations of heavy rainfall. Some storms may come on more quickly and have only a few hours of warning time.

High Heat: Meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of high heat weeks in advance by monitoring ocean temperatures and world-wide weather patterns. The Solano County Office of Emergency Services offers extreme heat emergency information on their webpage
( https://www.solanocounty.com/depts/oes/emergency.asp) , including links for obtaining information on extreme heat forecasts. Interested individuals can also sign up for emergency alerts from the same webpage.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 256 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 213 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-154

4.5.4.7 Secondary Hazards
High Wind: The most significant secondary hazards associated with high winds are falling and downed trees, downed power lines, and wildfire. High winds can cause damage to properties and destruction of roadways.

Strong winds can magnify wildfires and increase the rate of fire spread.

Heavy Rain: The most significant secondary hazards associated with heavy rains are flooding, which also includes falling and downed trees, landslides, and downed power lines. Heavy rain can cause damage to properties and destruction of roadways. Landslides occur when the soil on slopes becomes oversaturated and fails. Landslides are further outlined as slope failure in Section 4.5.6, while flooding is analyzed in Section 4.5.2.

High Heat: High heat can dry out local vegetation, consequently contributing to an increase in vegetative fuels and wildfire risk.

4.5.4.8 Climate Change
The effects of climate change are varied and include warmer and more diverse weather patterns, such as melting ice caps and poor air quality. As a result, climate change will likely worsen a number of natural hazards, including extreme weather. The likely effects of climate change on extreme weather are to create more frequent and prolonged periods of extreme heat. However, climate change will also result in unpredictable temperature fluctuations that could lead to freezing events during warmer months, potentially devastating the agricultural industry. (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2016) High Wind: Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and severity of high winds in portions of Solano County. (Ackerly, 2018)
Heavy Rain: The number of extreme precipitation events each year is expected to increase in Solano County under Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5, which are greenhouse gas emission scenarios. (Cal-Adapt, 2021)
High Heat: Currently, the average number of consecutive days of extreme heat in Solano County reaches between two and three days at a temperature of 100.2°F. Model projections for the longest stretch of consecutive extreme heat days per year (under an RCP 8.5 scenario and for a temperature at or above 100.2°F) in Solano County predict an average of 13 days per year during the years 2070 to 2099. (Cal-Adapt, 2021)

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 257 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 214 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-155

4.5.4.9 Extreme Weather Vulnerability Analysis
Population
The entire planning area is exposed to extreme weather events to some extent, including high wind, high rain, and high heat. Certain areas are more exposed due to geographic location and local weather patterns.

Populations living at higher elevations with large stands of trees or overhead power lines may be more susceptible to wind damage and blackout.

Vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, low-income or linguistically isolated populations, or people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in rural areas may become isolated from major roads in extreme weather events. Power outages can be life-threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support systems, like oxygen. These populations face isolation and exposure during extreme weather events and could suffer more secondary effects of the hazard.

High Wind: High wind can impact the mobility of vulnerable populations, particularly the elderly and people with disabilities. Associated impacts from downed power infrastructure can also negatively impact these populations, many of whom rely on power for life support systems.

Heavy Rain: Heavy rain can pose a similar risk to vulnerable populations as high wind. In addition, heavy rain can limit mobility, decrease visibility, and isolate people who live more remotely.

High Heat: High heat can be dangerous for vulnerable populations and even fatal, especially for the elderly or very young children. Extreme heat is associated with cardiovascular and respiratory disorders, as well as heat stroke. End of century predictions for annual average maximum temperatures in Solano County depict an increase in temperature of 4.9°F and 7.9°F under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios, respectively. (Cal-Adapt, 2021) Property
All property is vulnerable during extreme weather events, but properties in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations may risk the most damage. Those located in higher elevations and on ridges may be more prone to wind damage and high rain. Property located under or near overhead power lines or near large trees may be vulnerable or may be damaged in the event of a collapse. Crops may be damaged by high wind, high heat, or heavy rain.

High Wind: High winds can cause significant property damage. Associated impacts to property include roofs being blown off, trees and branches falling onto property, fences being blown down, and damage to surrounding infrastructure.

Heavy Rain: Heavy rain can cause extensive property damage. It can flood properties and cause secondary impacts, such as waterlogged branches or trees falling onto property.

High Heat: High heat can cause property damages in some cases. High temperatures can cause roofs to expand and warp and can weaken the structural integrity of buildings.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 258 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 215 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-156
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
All critical facilities are likely exposed to high wind, heavy rain, and high heat. Facilities on higher ground may also be more exposed to wind damage or damage from falling trees. The most common problem associated with extreme weather is the loss of utilities. Downed power lines can cause blackouts, leaving large areas isolated and phone, water, and sewer systems inoperable. Roads may become impassable due to flooding, downed trees, or landslides.

High Wind: High winds can knock down critical infrastructure, such as powerlines, which can prevent information communication systems from functioning sufficiently. Severe winds can also cause structural and non-structural damage to critical facilities.

Heavy Rain: Heavy rains, especially when accompanied by a windstorm, can cause water damage to critical facilities and compromise functionality.

High Heat: High heat can impact the performance of critical facilities, especially ones which provide emergency services such as hospitals. Hospitals rely on well-regulated air temperatures and may not have the capacity to deal with extreme temperatures. Additionally, high temperatures can cause materials like concrete and asphalt to expand. This can cause infrastructure, like sidewalks, to expand and buckle at points where two pieces of concrete or asphalt meet. (Federal Highway Administration, 2013) Lifelines
Loss of roads or power and communication lines are the primary transportation failures resulting from extreme weather and are mostly due to secondary hazards, such as floods, downed trees, landslides, and wildfire. Prolonged obstruction of major routes due to landslides, debris, or floodwaters can disrupt the shipment of goods and other commerce. Large, prolonged storms can have negative economic impacts on an entire region.

High Wind: Severe windstorms and downed trees can create serious impacts on power and above-ground communication lines. Loss of electricity and phone connection would leave certain populations isolated because residents would be unable to call for assistance. High winds can also cause significant damage to trees and power lines, blocking roads with debris, damaging transportation infrastructure, isolating populations, and disrupting ingress and egress routes.

Heavy Rain: Heavy rains can cause secondary hazards, such as landslides and floods, and they can cause trees to fall. These secondary hazards can compromise roads or power and communication lines.

High Heat: High heat can cause transmission lines to function less efficiently. The combination of an increase in demand and warmer air can cause the lines to swell and, consequently, compromise parts of the infrastructure. (US Department of Energy, 2019, p. 12)

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 259 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 216 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-157
Future Trends in Development
All future development will be affected by severe storms. The ability to withstand impacts lies in sound land use practices and consistent enforcement of codes and regulations for new construction. Participating jurisdictions have adopted the California Building Code, which corresponds to the International Building Code, to meet California mandates. This code is equipped to deal with the impacts of extreme weather events, including high wind, heavy rain, and high heat. Land use policies identified in general plans within the planning area also address many of the secondary impacts of extreme weather, such as floods and landslides. With these tools, the participating jurisdictions are well equipped to deal with future growth and the associated impacts of extreme weather.

Extreme Weather Hazard Problem Statements
As part of the mitigation action identification process, the Planning Committee for the county and for each jurisdiction identified issues and weaknesses, also called problem statements, for their respective facilities.

Identification was based on the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis utilizing the RAMP mapping tool and extreme weather hazard data. Extreme weather problem statements for Solano County are listed in Table 4-54; problem statements for all other participating jurisdictions are accessed in Volume 2 of this plan.

Table 4-54 Extreme weather Problem Statements
Problem
No.

Hazard
Type
Area of
Concern
Mitigation
Alternatives
Primary
Agency Problem Description Related MA
ps-EW-SC-
128
Extreme
Weather
Impact SP - Structural
Projects
Solano
County
Heavy rain events can create localized
flooding around County facilities
including County roads.
ma-FL-SC-19,
ma-FL-SC-22,
ma-FL-SC-29,
ma-FL-SC-20
ps-EW-SC-
129
Extreme
Weather
Victim PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness , ES
- Emergency
Services
Solano
County
High heat events disproportionally
impact senior citizens and lower
income residents who lack access to air
conditioning.
ma-EW-SC-
170, ma-EW-
SC-171
ps-EW-SC-
130
Extreme
Weather
Threat PPRO - Property
Protection ,
PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness , ES
- Emergency
Services
Solano
County
High winds will exacerbate the threat
and impact of wildfire.
ma-WF-SC-37,
ma-WF-SC-34
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 260 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 217 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-158
Problem
No.

Hazard
Type
Area of
Concern
Mitigation
Alternatives
Primary
Agency Problem Description Related MA
ps-EW-SC-
131
Extreme
Weather
Threat PRV -
Prevention ,
PPRO - Property
Protection ,
PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness ,
NRP - Natural
Resource
Protection , SP -
Structural
Projects
Solano
County
High winds can increase the risk of
older and weaker tree species breaking,
posing a threat to people, roads, and
bridges.
ma-EW-SC-172

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 261 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 218 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-159
Drought Hazard Profile
California's water resources have been stressed by periodic drought cycles and overuse in some places, creating the need for unprecedented state and local restrictions in water use. Climate change is expected to increase drought and extreme weather, including high heat. While the duration and severity of drought is always in question, it is certain that California and Solano County will continue to be impacted by drought. (California Drought Contingency Plan, 2010) Drought has impacted almost every county in California at one time or another, causing more than $2.6 million in damage. Droughts exceeding three years are relatively rare in northern California, the source of much of the state’s water supply. The 1929 to 1934 drought established the criteria commonly used in designing storage capacity and yield for large northern California reservoirs. The driest single year in California’s measured hydrologic history was 1977. (California Department of Water Resources, 2015) Drought impacts in California are felt first by those most dependent on annual rainfall, including agencies fighting wildfires, ranchers engaged in dryland grazing, rural residents relying on wells in low-yield rock formations, or small water systems lacking a reliable water source. (Id.) Most of California’s precipitation comes from storms moving across the Pacific Ocean. The path followed by the storms is determined by the position of an atmospheric high-pressure belt that normally shifts southward during the winter, allowing low-pressure systems to move into the state. On average, 75 percent of California’s annual precipitation occurs between November and March, with 50 percent occurring between December and February. If a persistent Pacific high-pressure zone takes hold over California mid- winter, the water year tends to be dry. (Western Regional Climate Center, 2020) A typical water year produces about 100 inches of rainfall over the North Coast and 50 inches of precipitation (a combination of rain and snow) over the Northern Sierra compared to 18 inches in the Sacramento area and 15 inches in the Los Angeles area. In extremely dry years, these annual totals can fall to as little as one half or one third of these average amounts. (Id.)

4.5.5.1 Solano County Water Supplies
Solano County obtains its water supply from local surface water resources and groundwater, as well as imported water from the Solano Project and the State Water Project. Solano County has an array of surface water resources, such as creeks, drainages, sloughs, and marshes, and extensive infrastructure for delivering water for irrigation and municipal uses. Through the Solano Project, Putah Creek and Lake Berryessa provide the majority of the county’s surface water for urban and agricultural consumption. The Sacramento, San Joaquin Delta, and the Cache Slough Complex also provide a significant urban and agricultural water supply source. The Suisun Marsh and other marshlands located along the Bay-Delta play an important role in maintaining and protecting water quality for human and natural communities. (Solano County General Plan, 2008)
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 262 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 219 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-160
Solano County uses groundwater for both municipal and agricultural water supply. The cities of Rio Vista and Dixon are served solely by groundwater, while the city of Vacaville obtains approximately a third of its municipal water supply from groundwater. A majority of the agricultural producers within the Solano Irrigation District, Maine Prairie Water District, and Reclamation District No. 2068 use surface water.

Agricultural producers located outside the jurisdiction of districts that provide surface water rely exclusively on groundwater. Many rural residential landowners use individual shallow groundwater wells.

A number of small rural residential water systems also provide groundwater to their customers. (Id.)

4.5.5.2 Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Environment
California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
On September 16, 2014, Governor Brown signed into law a package of bills (SB1168, AB1739 and SB1319) collectively called the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing the sustainability plans. For critically over-drafted basins, that date will be 2040. For the remaining high and medium priority basins, 2042 is the deadline.

California Drought Contingency Plan
The 2010 California Drought Contingency Plan was created to minimize drought impacts. The plan identifies strategies for improving agency coordination, enhancing monitoring and early warning capabilities, conducting water shortage impact assessments, and ensuring preparedness, response, and recovery programs. The plan uses an integrated regional approach in addressing drought, drought action levels, and appropriate agency responses as drought conditions change.

Statewide Emergency Water Conservation Regulations
In 2016, the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) adjusted emergency water conservation regulations in recognition of the differing water supply conditions and ongoing drought across the state to comply with an Executive Order from the California Governor declaring a drought emergency. Executive Order B-37-16 Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life updates temporary emergency water restrictions and transitions to permanent, long-term improvements in water use by:
▪ Providing for wiser water use,
▪ Eliminating water waste,
▪ Strengthening local drought resilience, and
▪ Improving agricultural water use efficiency and drought planning.

In April of 2017, a new Executive Order lifted the drought emergency but retained many of the conservation requirements. Most regulations are still in effect with the exception of water supply “stress test” requirements and conservation standards for urban water suppliers. The temporary restrictions established a baseline of the types of benefits that are possible from water conservation requirements. The Executive Orders are here. waterboards.ca.gov/executive_orders (abbreviated link).

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 263 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 220 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-161

California Water Plan
The California Water Plan presents strategic plan elements, including a vision, mission, goals, guiding principles, and recommendations for current water conditions, challenges, and activities. The plan includes future uncertainties and climate change impacts, scenarios for 2050, and a roadmap for improving data and analytical tools needed for integrated water management and sustainability. The California Water Plan was updated most recently in 2018. See: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/California-Water-Plan .

Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP)
Jurisdictions either supplying over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serving more than 3,000 urban connections are required to submit an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and update these plans every five years. Most jurisdictions participating in this MJHMP have UWMPs, which are explored in more detail in jurisdictional annex capabilities assessments in Volume 2. The Solano County Water Agency also voluntarily authors an UWMP for areas of the county served by Solano Project water.

UWMPs contain information on long-term water supply planning and managing demands in times of drought, and are important for drought hazard planning. UWMPs also explore stormwater capacity and assist in planning and funding future stormwater needs, further described in Section 4.5.2. (CDWR, 2021) County-Wide Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plans Drought can be particularly impactful to small, rural water systems or residents on individual wells. Urban water management and drought contingency planning are not required for these smaller systems. In the 2016 drought, this gap left these systems and residents unaware of how to react and opportunities for assistance during drought. A 2018 law, AB 1668, directed the California Department of Water Resources to identify small suppliers and rural communities at risk of drought and water shortage vulnerability and to develop recommendations for improving drought contingency planning for those areas. (DWR, 2021) Solano County does not currently have a county-wide drought and water shortage contingency plan; the County developed a mitigation action to initiate the first plan during the life of this iteration of the MJHMP.

Solano County General Plan
The 2008 Solano County General Plan includes a number of polices in its public facilities and services element that encourage water conservation. These provisions ensure adequate water supplies by promoting water conservation through water-efficient landscaping, reuse of treated wastewater, rainwater harvesting, and water conserving appliances.

Solano Project Members’ Agreement
The Solano Project is a federal project maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation which stores water in Lake Berryessa for supply to water users throughout Solano County. The Solano Project Members’ Agreement (Drought Agreement) was created to provide a phased response to drought among its members. When the water in Lake Berryessa falls below certain levels, the Drought Agreement mandates each party to reserve amounts of Solano Project water.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 264 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 221 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-162
As lake levels return to normal, initial allocations are resumed. Members of the agreement include Solano Irrigation District, Maine Prairie Water District, Fairfield, Vacaville, Vallejo, and Suisun City.

4.5.5.3 Past Events
California experienced massive changes over the course of the twentieth century, as evidenced by dramatic population increases and land use conversion. (Cal. Dep't of Water Resources, 2015) The driest single year in California’s measured hydrologic history is 1977. This drought period began in November 1975. It first drained the state’s reservoirs, which then lead to widespread water shortages in 1977. Additionally, 1976 is on record as the fourth driest year for California. During this period 47 of the 58 California counties declared emergencies.

The most extreme drought conditions in Solano County’s more recent history were experienced in 1991. This was part of a drought period that lasted for six years for much of California, from 1987 to 1992, and one of three significant statewide droughts during the 20th century. By the end of 1991, 23 counties had declared local drought emergencies. Other notable historic statewide droughts include the multi-year events of 1929 to 1934, 1976 to 1977, 2007 to 2009, and, most recently, 2012 to 2016. (Department of Water Resources, 2020) With California facing water shortfalls in the driest year in recorded state history, California State Governor Jerry Brown declared a drought state of emergency on January 17, 2014. In the emergency declaration, Governor Brown directed state officials to assist farmers and communities that are economically impacted by dry conditions and to ensure the state can respond if Californians face drinking water shortages. The governor also directed state agencies to use less water and hire more firefighters and initiated a greatly expanded water conservation public awareness campaign. Figure 4-58 shows a drought-impacted lake bed in Lagoon Valley Park in Vacaville in 2015. On April 17, 2017, Brown issued Executive Order B-40-17, officially ending the drought state of emergency in all California counties except Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Tuolumne. As is the case with some of California’s other iconic droughts, the 2012 to 2016 drought came to an abrupt end after a significantly wet year in 2017.

The USDA also issues disaster declaration for agriculture-related natural disaster events. The USDA has declared 12 drought disaster declarations for Solano County since 2012. See Table 4-55). These declarations are issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and qualify producers in affected primary and contiguous counties to receive emergency (EM) loans as well as other emergency assistance programs. (United States Department of Agriculture, 2021) The declaration process is significantly expedited for severe drought which occurs during the growing season – that is, eight consecutive weeks of D2 drought intensity value, or any duration of D1 or D0 drought intensity as reported by the U.S. Drought Monitor.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 265 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 222 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-163
Table 4-55: USDA Drought Disaster Declarations for Solano County, 2012 - 2021 Designation
Number
Approval
Date Begin Date End Date Conditions Present Fast Track? S3379 9/5/2012 1/1/12 continuing Drought No
S3452 12/19/2012 1/1/12 continuing Drought No
S3569 8/21/2013 5/25/2013 8/19/2013 Drought, Wind, Wildfire, Heat, Insects Yes S3626 1/15/2014 1/1/2014 continuing Drought, Wind, Wildfire, Heat, Insects Yes S3637 1/23/2014 1/14/2014 continuing Drought, Wind, Wildfire, Heat, Insects Yes S3743 9/17/2014 1/1/2014 continuing Drought No
S3797 2/25/2014 1/1/2014 continuing Drought No
S3784 2/4/2015 1/1/2015 continuing Drought, Wind, Wildfire, Heat, Insects Yes S3952 2/17/2016 1/1/2016 N/A Drought, Wind, Wildfire, Heat, Insects Yes S4163 3/22/2017 10/1/2016 N/A Drought Yes
S4697 6/16/2020 4/21/2020 N/A Drought Yes
S4916 3/5/2021 10/1/2020 N/A Drought Yes

The National Drought Monitor
provides drought data and maps
nationally and on a localized,
watershed scale. The National
Drought Monitor is the product of 11
agencies, including the NDMC, NOAA
and USDA, and is available at
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ . The
National Drought Monitor
categorizes the level of drought from
D0 through D4, with D4 being the
highest “exceptional drought.” Table
4-56 depicts drought classifications
and impacts from the level of drought
occurrence in California.

Figure 4-59 shows a time series of the
level of drought in Solano County from 2000 to 2020 according to the National Drought Monitor, as well as the watersheds in Solano County. The National Drought Monitor also classifies drought on a watershed scale according to hydrologic units established by USGS. The participating jurisdiction annexes for those jurisdictions that prioritized drought hazards depict the past 20 years of droughts within applicable watersheds.

Figure 4-58: Dried Up Lake Bed at Lagoon Valley Park in Vacaville Source: Photo by Aaron Rosenblatt Daily Republic File
FINAL for adoption Packet Page 266 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 223 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-164
Table 4-56: Drought Classifications and Impacts for California Category Description Possible Impacts
D0 Abnormally
Dry
▪ Soil is dry; irrigation delivery begins early
▪ Dryland crop germination is stunted
▪ Active fire season begins
▪ Winter resort visitation is low; snowpack is minimal
D1 Moderate
Drought
▪ Dryland pasture growth is stunted; producers give supplemental feed to cattle ▪ Landscaping and gardens need irrigation earlier; wildlife patters begin to change
▪ Stock ponds and creeks are lower than usual
D2 Severe
Drought
▪ Producers increase water efficiency methods and drought-resistant crops ▪ Grazing land inadequate
▪ Fire season is longer, with high burn intensity, dry fuels, and large fire spatial extent; more fire crews on staff
▪ Lake- and river-based tourism declines; boat ramps close ▪ Trees are stressed; plants increase reproductive mechanisms; wildlife diseases increase
▪ Water temperatures increase; programs to divert water to protect fish begin ▪ River flows decrease; reservoir levels are low and banks are exposed D3 Extreme
Drought
▪ Federal water not adequate to meet irrigation contracts; extracting supplemental groundwater is expensive
▪ Fire season lasts year-round; fires occur in typically wet parts of the state; burn bans are implemented
▪ Ski and rafting business is low; mountain communities suffer ▪ Low water levels impede fish migration and cause lower survival rates ▪ Wildlife encroach on developed areas; little native food and water is available for bears, which hibernate less
▪ Water sanitation is a concern; reservoir levels drop significantly; surface water is nearly dry, flows are very low; water theft occurs ▪ Livestock need expensive supplemental feed, cattle and horses are sold; little pasture remains
▪ Well and aquifer levels decrease; homeowners drill new wells D4 Exceptional
Drought
▪ Fire season is very costly; number of fires and areas burned are extensive ▪ Many recreational activities are affected
▪ Fields are left fallow; orchards are removed; vegetable yields are low; honey harvest is small; agricultural unemployment is high, food aid is needed ▪ Fish rescue and relocation begins; pine beetle infestation occurs; forest mortality is high; wetlands dry up; fewer wildflowers bloom; wildlife death is widespread; algae blooms appear
▪ Poor air quality affects health; greenhouse gas emissions increase as hydropower production decreases; West Nile outbreaks rise ▪ Water shortages are widespread; surface water is depleted; federal irrigation water deliveries are curtailed; water prices are extremely high; wells are dry, more and deeper wells are drilled; water quality is poor Source: Adapted from U.S. Drought Monitor Drought Classifications and Impacts via https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DmData/StateImpacts.aspx FINAL for adoption Packet Page 267 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 224 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-165

Figure 4-59: Solano County Drought Severity Timeline 2000-2021

4.5.5.4 Location
Drought is one of the few hazards with the potential to impact the entire population of Solano County directly or indirectly through water restrictions, higher water and food prices, reduced air and water quality, or restricted access to recreational areas. No portion of the county is immune from drought conditions.

Lack of winter snowfall in the mountains can eventually lead to agricultural impacts due to decreased stream flows. Reduced base flows may introduce additional challenges for communities that depend on direct drinking water supplies from rivers and tributaries. Droughts of just a few weeks during critical periods of plant development can have disastrous effects on agriculture production. Reduced reservoir storage from decreased runoff in the mountains can lead to water shortages. Droughts that occur in populated areas may not have direct effects on the residents but may increase the threat of wildfire in wildland urban interface areas.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 268 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 225 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-166

4.5.5.5 Frequency and Probability of Future Occurrences Predicting the precise probability of future drought depends on comprehensive and reliable data. Cal-Adapt, an authority on climate variance in California, projects an extended period of drought over a 20-year period. (Cal-Adapt, 2020) Empirical studies conducted over the past century have shown that meteorological drought is never the result of a single cause. It is the result of many causes, often synergistic in nature.

These include global weather patterns that produce persistent, upper-level high-pressure systems along the West Coast with warm, dry air, resulting in less precipitation.

According to the results of the risk factor exercises for the participating jurisdictions, the probability of drought occurring in Solano County is highly likely (100 percent annual probability). Figure 4-59 provides a time series from the National Drought Monitor that shows Solano County has been in some form of drought for much of the period from 2000 to 2020.

4.5.5.6 Severity and Extent
The severity and extent of a drought depends on the degree of moisture deficiency, the duration, and the size and location of the affected area. The longer the duration of the drought and the larger the area impacted, the more severe the potential impacts. Droughts are not usually associated with direct impacts on people or property, but they can have significant impacts on agriculture, which can impact people indirectly.

Unlike most disasters, droughts normally occur slowly and last a long time. On average, the nationwide annual impacts of drought are greater than the impacts of any other natural hazard. They are estimated to be between $6 billion and $8 billion annually in the United States and occur primarily in the agriculture, transportation, recreation and tourism, forestry, and energy sectors. Social and environmental impacts are also significant, although it is difficult to put a precise cost on these impacts.

Drought eventually affects groundwater sources but generally not as quickly as surface water supplies; groundwater supplies often take longer to recover. Reduced precipitation during a drought means that groundwater supplies are not replenished at a normal rate. This can lead to a reduction in groundwater levels and problems, such as reduced pumping capacity or wells going dry. Shallow wells are more susceptible than deep wells. Reduced replenishment of groundwater affects streams. Much of the flow in streams comes from groundwater, especially during the summer when there is less precipitation and after snowmelt ends. Reduced groundwater levels mean that even less water will enter streams when stream flows are lowest.

A drought directly or indirectly impacts all people in affected areas. A drought can result in farmers not being able to plant crops or the failure of planted crops. This results in loss of work for farm workers and those in food processing and winemaking jobs. Other water-dependent industries are commonly forced to shut down all or a portion of their facilities, resulting in further layoffs. A dro ught can harm recreational companies that use water (e.g., swimming pools, water parks, and river rafting companies), as well as FINAL for adoption Packet Page 269 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 226 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-167
landscape and nursery businesses because people will not invest in new plants if water is not available to sustain them.

Table 4-56 describes the impacts of the various severity levels of drought in California according to the National Drought Monitor classifications.

4.5.5.7 Warning Time
Droughts are climatic patterns that occur over long periods of time. Only generalized warnings can take place due to the numerous variables that scientists have not pieced together well enough to make accurate and precise predictions. Predicting drought depends on the ability to forecast precipitation and temperature.

Anomalies of precipitation and temperature may last from several months to several decades. How long they last depends on interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans, soil moisture and land surface processes, topography, internal dynamics, and the accumulated influence of weather systems on a global scale. (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, 2016)

4.5.5.8 Secondary Hazards
The secondary hazard most associated with drought is wildfire. A prolonged lack of precipitation dries out vegetation, which becomes increasingly susceptible to ignition as the duration of the drought extends. The Rush Fire and the Rough Fires are examples of how drought conditions, combined with increased fuel loads, can cause more frequent and intense wildfires. (Syphard, 2019)

4.5.5.9 Climate Change Impacts
The long-term effects of climate change on regional water resources are less known, but globally, water resources are already stressed from a growing population, poor water quality, groundwater overdrafts, and aging urban water infrastructure. Climate change will likely exacerbate many of these stresses.

With a warmer climate, droughts are projected to increase in severity, frequency, and duration. The associated costs from diminished water resources will also be significant. According to the University of California Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, water shortages in 2016 were projected to cost the agricultural industry a total of $550 million in direct costs and 1,815 lost jobs. More frequent extreme events like droughts could end up being more cause for concern than the long-term change in temperature and precipitation averages. (University of California, Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, 2020) According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, variances in precipitation trend toward shorter winters and prolonged dry seasons, in addition to increased frequency of drought, which could limit water supplies from more local sources. (Grantham, 2018)

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 270 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 227 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-168

4.5.5.10 Drought Vulnerability Analysis
All people, property, and environments in the county planning area would be exposed to the impacts of moderate to extreme drought conditions to some degree.

Drought produces a complex web of impacts that spans many sectors of the economy and reaches well beyond the area experiencing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is integral to the ability to produce goods and provide services. The drought vulnerability of an activity usually depends on its water demand, how the demand is met, and what water supplies are available to meet the demand.

California’s 2018 Water Plan indicates that water demand in the state will continue to increase.

Population
The residents of the county rely on healthy watersheds to provide adequate water for domestic and agricultural purposes. Solano County has experienced population growth and is projected to continue growing, with the city of Vallejo being one of the fastest-growing cities in the county. No significant life or health impacts are anticipated as a result of drought within the planning area, however, low-income populations may be disproportionately impacted by increased water shortages and mandatory water use cutbacks due to drought.

Property
During drought years, property owners with shallow wells can be impacted by drought with increased demand on groundwater resources. Surface water supplies are often lower, which can reduce available supplies and increase cost. This sometimes encourages growers who historically use surface water to switch to groundwater, which has an impact on those reliant on groundwater.

No structures will be directly affected by drought conditions, though some structures may become more vulnerable to wildfires, which are highly likely following years of drought. Droughts can also have significant impacts on landscapes, which could cause a financial burden to property owners, especially low- income populations who may not be able to afford to maintain their properties during water shortages.

However, these impacts are not considered critical in planning for impacts from the drought hazard.

The agricultural sector is particularly susceptible to drought impacts. Agricultural drought impacts are normally felt earliest by those relying on unmanaged water supplies, such as entities carrying out dryland grazing and non-irrigated crop production, usually grain crops. Impacts on irrigated agriculture depend on the source and nature of the irrigation water supply, whether it be local groundwater, local surface water, or imported surface water, and any water rights or contractual provisions that may be associated with the source. The extent to which producers may mitigate water shortage impacts depends on multiple factors but is heavily influenced by economic considerations. Factors involved in making decisions about mitigating irrigation water shortages include availability and costs of pumping groundwater, price of alternative surface water sources, capital investments associated with maintaining permanent plantings, and status of international crop markets. (California Drought Contingency Plan, 2010) FINAL for adoption Packet Page 271 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 228 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-169
Critical Facilities
Critical facilities, as defined for this plan, will continue to be operational during a drought. Critical facility elements, such as landscaping, may not be maintained due to limited resources, but the risk to the planning area’s critical facilities will be largely aesthetic. For example, when water conservation measures are in place, landscaped areas will not be watered and may die. These aesthetic impacts are not considered significant.

4.5.5.11 Future Trends in Development
The county will face challenges in providing sufficient water supplies in the future due to climate change effects, coupled with an increasing population, mostly in the incorporated areas, and increasing water demand. While Solano County has already taken steps toward achieving long-term groundwater sustainability, there is still a possibility that water supply availability may change in the future and will need to be further addressed.

The Solano Resource Conservation District exists to inform and educate the public and water community about water and land issues in Solano County. They are a resource for information on water issues in the county and provide tips for water conservation. The Solano County Water Agency also offers a water- efficient landscape rebate program. Water customers are incentivized to replace their lawns with water efficient landscaping and receive $1 per square foot rebate, up to a $1,000 maximum.

Each participating jurisdiction has an established general plan that includes policies directing land use and dealing with issues of water supply and the protection of water resources. These plans provide the capability at the local level to protect future development from the impacts of drought. All participating jurisdictions reviewed their general plans as part of their hazard mitigation capability assessments. Deficiencies identified by these reviews can be identified as mitigation actions to increase jurisdictions’ capabilities to deal with future trends in development.

4.5.5.12 Drought Hazard Problem Statements
As part of the mitigation action identification process, the Planning Committee for the county and for each jurisdiction identified issues and weaknesses, also called problem statements, for their respective facilities.

Identification was based on the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis utilizing the RAMP mapping tool and drought hazard data. Drought hazard problem statements for the county are listed in Table 4-57; problem statements for all other participating jurisdictions are accessed in Volume 2 of this plan.

Identifying these common issues and weaknesses assists the Planning Committee to understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation. The goal is to have at least one mitigation action for every problem statement. See Table 5-6 for a full list of mitigation actions and corresponding problem statements that they address. Each problem statement is coded with a problem number for cross-referencing between Table 4-57 and Table 5-6.

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 272 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 229 of 460

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

4-170
Table 4-57: Drought Problem Statements
Problem
No.

Hazard
Type
Area of
Concern
Mitigation
Alternatives
Primary
Agency Problem Description Related MA
ps-DR-SC-
126
Drought Threat PRV -
Prevention ,
NRP - Natural
Resource
Protection
Solano
County
County buildings and facilities have
irrigated landscaping including turf
grass.
ma-DR-SC-162
ps-DR-SC-
127
Drought Threat PRV -
Prevention ,
NRP - Natural
Resource
Protection
Solano
County
There is an opportunity to update the
County’s land use code to include
incentives for new development to
implement drought tolerant
landscaping that requires less water.
ma-DR-SC-163
ps-DR-SC-
179
Drought Victim PRV -
Prevention ,
PE&A - Public
Education &
Awareness
Solano
County
Residents who rely on groundwater and
small water systems may be
extraordinarily impacted by future
drought.
ma-DR-SC-201,

FINAL for adoption Packet Page 273 of 1095Attachment 2 Page 230 of 460

SOLANO COUNTY | MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

SOLANO COUNTY
4-171
Slope Failure Hazard Profile
Landslide, mudflow, debris flow, and rockfall, collectively known as slope failure, may cause damage across the county. These types of slope failure are addressed as one collective slope failure hazard in this profile, as the vulnerability assessment and mitigation strategies are similar among all types of slope failure.

Fairfield City CouncilMarch 1, 2022

Fairfield City Council
March 1, 2022