2025 Summary of California Code Changes 37
Division of the State Architect
2104A.1.3.5 TMS 602, Article 3.5 C Grout pour height
Amended language related to grout pours and grout lifts. Added amended Table 7 from TMS specifying requirements for grout space and grout pour height limits.
Added footnotes 4 and 5 to Table 7. Deleted requirement for grout admixture.
Chapter 22 – Steel
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
2201.5.1 Shear transfer at column base plate [OSHPD 1R, 2 & 5] Added a pointer to new shear lugs design provisions in ACI 318 Section 17.11 regarding anchor rods.
2202.2.2 Structural steel elements
Amended and added OSHPD banner to Item 2 to clarify that structural steel elements in seismic force resisting systems that are consistent with Seismic Design Category D, E or F in Section 2202.2.1.2 shall satisfy the requirements in AISC 341. 2202.4 [formerly 2205.4] [OSHPD 1R, 2 & 5]
2202.4.1 Modifications to AISC 358 Chapter 10
Modified the allowance to use steel and concrete ConXtech ConXL composite special moment frame. Repealed former Section 2205.4.1 2.1 Special and Intermediate Moment Frame Connection Types, Table 2-1 Prequalified Moment Connections modifications. All moment connections in AISC 358 are based on new tests since the Northridge earthquake. Welded and bolted moment connections are permitted with limited modifications.
2202.4.2 Modifications to AISC 358 Chapter 11 Welded Moment Connection, 2202.4.3 Modifications to AISC 358 Chapter 11 Bolted Moment Connection Relocated and amended existing amendments to codify exceptions allowing the current practice of adjusting gap-to-side plate thickness ratio. 2202.4.4 Modifications to AISC 358 Chapter 12
Codified existing limitations for Simpson Strong-Tie (SST) Yield-Link Moment Connection in OSHPD Preapproved Prefabricated Components and Systems (PCS - 0002). Reference to AISC 341 Table D1.1 is intended to provide ductility consistent with AISC 341 requirements for moment frame beams with significant axial load. 2202.4.5 Modifications to AISC 358 Chapter 15
Codified existing limitations for DuraFuse Frames (DFF) Moment Connection in OSHPD Preapproved Prefabricated Components and Systems (PCS -0004) Reference to AISC 341 Table D1.1 is intended to provide ductility consistent with AISC 341 requirements for moment frame beams with significant axial load.
38 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Section 2203 Structural stainless steel (formerly Section 2203 Protection of steel for structural purposes)
Renamed model code section. No California amendments made to model code language.
2204.1 General
Repealed amendment regarding the modification requirements to AISI S100 Chapter J Connections and Joints, Section J7.2, as this section no longer exists in AISI S100.
2204.2 Seismic design (formerly Section 2210.2 Seismic requirements for coldformed steel structures) Relocated existing amendment from Section 2210.2 regarding cold-formed special bolted moment connection prohibited by Section 1617A.1.2 (referenced by Section 1601.15).
2204.2.1 CFS special bolted moment frames
Deleted model code section because Section 1617A.1.4 states that cold-formed steel bolted moment frames are prohibited, therefore the AISI standards do not apply.
2204.2.2 Cold-formed steel seismic force-resisting systems Deleted model code section because California is assigned to Seismic Design Categories D, E, or F in accordance with 1613A.2, therefore requirements for systems in Seismic Design Categories A, B, or C do not apply.
Division of the State Architect
2215 Additional requirements for community colleges [DSA-SS/CC] 2215.1.1 (formerly 2212.1.1) Shear transfer at column
Added pointer to new shear lugs design provisions in ACI 318 Section 17.11 to promote code compliance.
Chapter 22A – Steel
Division of the State Architect
2201A.2 Identification
Added DSA-SS banner and amended to clarify that all material identification and testing shall be in accordance with Chapter 17A.
2202A.6 Modifications to AISC 358. [DSA-SS]
2202A.6.1 Modifications to AISC 358 Chapter 10
Added new section and DSA banner to incorporate modifications to AISC 358 regarding Steel and concrete ConXtech ConXL composite special moment frame connections.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 39
Division of the State Architect and
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
2201A.5.1 (formerly 2204A.4) Shear transfer at column
Added pointer to new shear lugs design provisions in ACI 318 Section 17.11 to promote code compliance.
2202A.2.1 Structural steel seismic force-resisting systems and composite structural steel and concrete seismic force-resisting systems Relocated existing exceptions from Section 2205A.1 to align with reorganized Chapter 22A.
2202A.2.2 Structural steel elements
Deleted reference to Seismic Design Categories B and C in accordance with Section 1613A.2. Aligned requirements with existing amendment in Section 2205A.2.1.2 requiring all lateral force resisting systems, including those listed in ASCE 7 Table
15.4-1, to be designed in accordance with AISC 341.
2202A.5.1 Section B5
Relocated existing amendment from 2205A.3.1. Reorganized code language and clarified as a modified exception to Section B5.2(a).
2203A Structural stainless steel (formerly Section 2203A Protection of steel for structural purposes)
Renamed model code section. No California amendments made to model code language.
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
2202A.3 (formerly 2205A.4) Modifications to AISC 341
Deleted existing Section 2205A.4.1. Deleted definition of inelastic rotation in the glossary section since it is no longer used in the code.
Deleted existing Sections 2205A.4.4, 2205A.4.5, 2205A.4.6, 2205A.4.7, 2205A.4.8, 2205A.4.9 and 2205A.4.10. Significant testing has been done to validate new ductility requirements in AISC 341, so these amendments are no longer necessary.
40 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
2202A.4 (formerly 2205A.5) Modifications to AISC 358
Deleted existing Section 2205A.5.1. Repealed prohibition on the use of bolted moment connections since many of these connections are already preapproved through our OSHPD Preapproved Prefabricated Components and Systems (PCS) program.
2202A.4.2 Modifications to AISC 358 Chapter 11 Welded Moment Connection, 2202A.4.3 Modifications to AISC 358 Chapter 11 Bolted Moment Connection Relocated and amended existing amendments to codify exceptions allowing the current practice of adjusting gap-to-side plate thickness ratio. 2202A.4.4 Modifications to AISC 358 Chapter 12
Codified existing limitations for Simpson Strong-Tie (SST) Yield-Link Moment Connection in OSHPD Preapproved Prefabricated Components and Systems (PCS - 0002). Reference to AISC 341 Table D1.1 is intended to provide ductility consistent with AISC 341 requirements for moment frame beams with significant axial load. 2202A.4.5 Modifications to AISC 358 Chapter 15
Codified existing limitations for DuraFuse Frames (DFF) Moment Connection in OSHPD Preapproved Prefabricated Components and Systems (PCS -0004).
Reference to AISC 341 Table D1.1 is intended to provide ductility consistent with AISC 341 requirements for moment frame beams with significant axial load. 2204A (formerly 2210A) Cold Formed Steel
2204A.1 General
Repealed amendment regarding the modification requirements to AISI S100 Chapter J Connections and Joints, Section J7.2, as this section no longer exists in AISI S100.
2204A.2 Seismic design (formerly Section 2210A.2 Seismic requirements for cold-formed steel structures)
This section is not adopted because the two following subsections are not adopted. 2204A.2.1 CFS special bolted moment frames
Deleted model code section because Section 1617A.1.4 states that cold-formed steel bolted moment frames are prohibited, therefore the AISI standards do not apply.
2204A.2.2 Cold-formed steel seismic force-resisting systems Deleted model code section because California is assigned to Seismic Design Categories D, E, or F in accordance with 1613A.2, therefore requirements for systems in Seismic Design Categories A, B, or C do not apply.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 41
Chapter 23 – Wood
Division of the State Architect
2301.1.5 Prohibition
Repealed Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) prohibition in Item 9 since ASCE 7-22 has seismic coefficients incorporated into Table 12.2-1. Clarified that the prohibition by OSHPD in Item 9 is not adopted by DSA.
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
2308.2 Limitations
Added OSHPD 1R, 2, & 5 banners to applicable requirements in subsections 2308.2.1 through 2308.2.8.
Chapter 25 – Gypsum Board, Gypsum Panel Products and Plaster Division of the State Architect and
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
2503.2 Additional requirements for inspection and testing Amended language in Item 3 to clarify that enforcement agencies are permitted to require tests in accordance with Table 2506.2. No change to regulatory effect. 2507.3 Lath attachment to horizontal wood supports
Added an option to Item 2 to secure overhead lath with a minimum No. 8 wood screw installed with a 1-inch diameter washer.
Repealed the exception to 2507.3 for OSHPD 2 Single-story Type V skilled nursing or intermediate care facilities utilizing wood-frame or light-steel-frame construction.
Chapter 30 – Elevator and Conveying Systems
State Fire Marshal
3001.2 Elevator emergency communication systems
Added reference pointer to California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Elevator Safety Orders.
3006.2 Elevator hoistway door protection required
Amended to specify the application of this section in any state institution or other state-owned or specified state-occupied building regulated by the Office of the State Fire Marshal. Renumbered the model condition regarding corridor walls to Item 9 (formerly Item 6).
3006.3 Hoistway opening protection required
Amended Item 5 to point to California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Elevator Safety Orders. Updated Item 6 pointer to refer to Section 707.6.
42 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Section 3009, Private Residence Elevators
3009.1 General.
3009.2 Hoistway enclosures.
3009.3 Hoistway opening protection
Amended to point to California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Elevator Safety Orders.
Chapter 31 – Special Construction
State Fire Marshal
3103.1.2.1 Water-filled vessels
Added to align with the California Fire Code (Part 9, Title 24). 3104.2 Flame propagation performance testing and registration Amended title to replace “certification” with “registration.” Amended model code to remove reference to NFPA 701 Test 2 testing standard to align with Title 19 testing requirements.
3111.3.5 Elevated photovoltaic (PV) support structures and subsections 3111.3.6.1 Fire separation distances
Repealed California amendment and adopted model code language.
Division of the State Architect
3103 Temporary Structures
3103.1 General
Added new amendment to clarify that school buildings as defined in Section 4-314 of the California Administrative Code (Part 1 of Title 24) are not permitted to be classified as public-occupancy temporary structures.
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
3114 Intermodal shipping containers
Clarified applicability with the addition of [OSHPD 1, 1R, 2, 4 & 5] to indicate “not permitted by OSHPD.”
Building Standards Commission
3109 Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs
3109.1 General
Amended to indicate that all swimming pools and spas shall meet the standards of the California Building Code and California laws, not the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC).
3109.2 California swimming pool safety act
Amended to include updated provisions in Health and Safety Code Sections 115921, 115922 and 115926.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 43
Chapter 35 – Referenced Standards
Division of the State Architect and
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
and State Fire Marshal
Updated and amended various referenced standards promulgated by national and international testing services and organizations.
Division of the State Architect
ANSI/AWC NDS—2024 – Added amendment to adopt the 2024 NDS Supplement.
ASCE/SEI 7-22 – Added amendment to adopt Supplement 1.
ASCE/SEI 41-23 –Adopted this reference standard in coordination with Part 10 – California Existing Building Code.
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE – PART 2.5
Chapter 1 – Scope and Administration
State Fire Marshal
R102.8 Wildland-Urban Interface
Added new section as a pointer to the new California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC) which is applicable to houses built in wildland-urban interface areas.
R105.2 Work exempt from permit
Updated the pointer to the new CWUIC that is applicable even if the project is exempt from permits.
44 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Chapter 2 – Definitions
Housing and Community Development
R202 Definitions
Amended multiple definitions to eliminate references to chapters of the IRC that are not adopted and not printed in the CRC.
State Fire Marshal
R202 Definitions
Repealed multiple existing California definitions and adopted new model code definitions that contain the same language.
Chapter 3 – Building Planning
Multiple sections and references in Chapter 3 were renumbered to align with significant numbering changes in the model code.
State Fire Marshal
Multiple sections
Repealed multiple sections regarding Photovoltaic (PV) and Energy Storage Systems and adopted new model code sections that contain essentially the same language.
R337 Materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure Repealed all of Section R337 and replaced with a “Note” directing the code user to the new CWUIC.
Chapter 44 – Referenced Standards
State Fire Marshal
Updated editions of various referenced standards promulgated by NFPA.
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE – PART 3
Article 89 – General Code Provisions
Building Standards Commission
89.101.3.2 State-regulated buildings, structures, and applications Amended to align the California Electrical Code with all other parts of Title 24.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 45
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
89.110 Department of Health Care Access and Information/Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
Added new/amended sections for OSHPD 6 to align requirements with statutory change in Health and Safety Code Section 1250.3.
Chapter 1 – General
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
100 Definitions
Moved all definitions from Article 517 to Article 100 to align with model code format.
Chapter 2 – Wiring and Protection
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
220 Branch-circuit, feeder, and load calculations
Amended to remove additional requirements for load calculations.
Chapter 4 – Equipment for General Use
Housing and Community Development
406.12 Tamper-resistant receptacles
Amended to exclude mobile homes and manufactured homes from the requirement for tamper-resistant receptacles.
Chapter 5 – Special Occupancies
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
517.1(C) Electrical equipment schedules
Amended to require documentation for special seismic certifications. 517.4 Electric power sources, feeders and services
Amended to list requirements for electrical power sources. An “Informational Note” was added to see Section 220.40 for sizing requirements for Electric Power Sources, Feeders and Services.
517.18(B)(2) Receptacle requirements
Repealed Exception #3, which stated hospital grade receptacles were not required in patient sleeping areas in nursing homes.
517.29 Type 1 Essential Electrical Systems
Amended (A.1) to include (Surgical Clinics only) to the existing OSHPD 3 banner. 517.30(A.1) Two independent power sources
Added new section with requirements for two independent power sources for OSHPD 1, 3 (surgical clinics only), 4 and 5.
46 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
517.30(B.1) Power sources for the EES
Repealed the requirements for power sources for the ESS. 517.30(B)(3) Battery systems
Repealed the requirements for a connection for a portable diesel generator. 517.30(B)(4) Health care microgrid
Repealed amendment and adopted the model code language. 517.30(B)(5) Health care microgrid
Amended to include requirements for meeting the installation and commissioning requirements in NFPA 99.
517.30(D) Temporary source of power for maintenance or repair of the alternate source of power
Added new section with requirements for temporary source of power for maintenance or repair of the alternate source of power. 517.31(D.1) Requirements for the Essential Electrical System Repealed the requirement for the EES to have the capacity and rating to meet the maximum actual demand likely to be produced by the connected load. 517.31(E) Receptacle identification
Repealed amendment and adopted model code language.
517.31(H) On-site energy storage systems and fuel supply Added new section containing requirements for on-site energy storage systems and fuel supply for OSHPD 1, 4 & 5.
517.31(H)(1)
Added new section containing requirements for on-site resources to support not less than 24 hours full-demand operation for correctional treatment centers, and sources to support not less than 72 hours full-demand operation for acute care hospitals.
517.31(H)(2)
Added new section containing requirements for Emergency Power Supply Systems for correctional treatment centers and acute psychiatric hospitals. 517.41(A.1) Two independent power sources
Added new section containing requirements for two independent power sources for OSHPD 2, 4 & 5.
517.41(B.1) Power sources for the EES
Repealed the requirements for power sources for the EES for OSHPD 2, 4 & 5. 517.41(B)(1) through (B)(4) Fuel cell systems
Repealed the list of approved power sources.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 47
517.41(D) Power sources for the EES
Added new section which lists the approved power sources for the EES for OSHPD 2, 4 & 5.
517.41(E) Permanent connection(s) points for EES maintenance and repairs Added new section containing requirements for permanent connection points for EES maintenance and repair.
517.42 Essential Electrical Systems for nursing homes and limited care facilities
517.42(E) Receptacle identification
Repealed the amendment and adopted model code language. 517.42(G) On-site energy storage systems and fuel supply Added new section containing requirements for on-site energy storage systems and fuel supply for OSHPD 2, 4 & 5.
517.42(G)(1)
Added new section containing requirements for on-site resources to be available at all times to support not less than 6 hours at full output of the EPSS for OSHPD 2, 4 and 5.
517.42(G)(2)
Added new section containing requirements for an alternate source of power for equipment required to maintain safe temperatures, life-saving equipment and oxygen generating devices for OSHPD 2.
517.44(3.1) Optional connections to equipment branch
Repealed the requirements for optional connections to the equipment branch. 517.45 Essential Electrical Systems for other health care facilities Repealed the existing language in (E.1) and replaced it with the existing language from (G). Existing Section (H) became (G).
Added new Section (H) which requires not less than 4 hours at full output for the EPSS for OSHPD 3 (Surgical Clinics only).
State Fire Marshal
517.31 Requirements for the Essential Electrical System Co-adopted new sections (H), (H)(1) and (H)(2) in coordination with OSHPD (see above).
517.42 Essential Electrical Systems for nursing homes and limited care facilities
Co-adopted new sections (G), (G)(1) and (G)(2) in coordination with OSHPD. 517.45 Essential Electrical Systems for other health care facilities Co-adopted new section (H) in coordination with OSHPD.
48 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Chapter 7 – Special Conditions
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
700.12 General Requirements
Repealed the exception in section (C) for battery systems for OSHPD 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.
Repealed all the exceptions in section (D)(2) for OSHPD 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 in coordination with SFM.
Repealed the exception in section (G) for OSHPD 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.
State Fire Marshal
700.12 General Requirements
Repealed all the exceptions in section (D)(2) in coordination with OSHPD.
CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE – PART 4
Chapter 1 – Administration
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
Amended multiple subsections to reflect the new department name: Department of Health Care Access and Information/Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development.
1.10.6 OSHPD 6
Added new banner designation “OSHPD 6” for a chemical dependency recovery hospital not within an acute care hospital building.
Chapter 2 – Definitions
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
Air, Relief
Removed OSHPD 1R from the banner.
Air terminal device
Added new definition for any device (e.g., grille, register, diffuser) placed in an opening to a room, through which controlled air enters or leaves. Component of the air-distribution system which has the purpose of achieving the predetermined movement of air into or from a treated space. Applies to OSHPD 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Building Code, Enforcing Agency, Health Facilities
Added OSHPD 6 to existing definitions.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 49
State Fire Marshal
Refrigerant, Refrigerant Concentration Limit (RCL) and Refrigerant Safety Classifications
Repealed California amendments (early adoption of definitions) and adopted model code definitions.
Chapter 3 – General Regulations
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
321.0 Essential mechanical provisions
Removed OSHPD 1R from the banner
321.3 Cooling equipment
Added new section regarding cooling equipment to maintain temperature and humidity listed in Table 4-A within certain operating rooms and other spaces as identified in the functional program.
321.6 Control components
Added to existing amendment, “fire and smoke dampers” under all control components and control systems to have essential electrical power. 322.0 Sensitive areas or rooms
Removed OSHPD 1R from the banner. Added new items and reformatted the list of sensitive areas or rooms.
State Fire Marshal
307.3, 307.4
Repealed California amendments (early adoption of refrigerant designation) and adopted model code text.
Chapter 4 – Ventilation Air
Division of the State Architect
Repealed “DSA-SS/CC” banners throughout the code. Community colleges are required to comply with all DSA adopted regulations under the authority of the Field Act, Education Code Section 81052. Alternatively, community colleges may comply with alternative structural safety provisions promulgated and adopted pursuant to the authority granted by Education Code Section 81053. These alternative standards are adopted and identified by the DSA-SS/CC banner.
The authority granted to DSA specifically for the adoption of alternative buildings standards for community colleges related to structural safety should only be used or referenced when promulgating an alternative standard pursuant to Education Code Section 81053. All other regulations related to the construction of community colleges are adopted and identified by the “DSA-SS” banner under the authority of Education Code Section 81052.
50 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
Relocated previous section numbers to new section numbers, as follows:
407.4.1.6 to 407.4.1.2
407.4.1.1 to 407.4.1.3
407.4.1.2 to 407.4.1.7
407.4.1.3 to 407.4.2
407.4.1.4 to 407.4.3
407.4.1.5 to 407.4.4
407.4.1.7 to 407.4.5
420.0 to 407.4.1.1
408.3.4 to 408.3.2
Table 4-A
Repealed the 2022 version of Table 4-A and footnotes, and adopted the ASHRAE 170-2021 Table 7-1, as amended, and added table footnotes from ASHRAE 170- 2021 Table 7-1 into Table 4-A.
Table 4-B
Amended Column 3 of the table to change the heading to “A.T.D.” and MERV filters to HEPA filters. Added new Footnote #3, renumbered remaining footnotes, and revised Footnotes #4 and #5 regarding HEPA filter location. 402.1 Occupiable spaces
Removed OSHPD 1R from the banner. Relocated a portion of the amendment in Section 402.1.2 to this section. The change combines amendments into one paragraph as they both relate to the same ventilation requirements for healthcare buildings.
402.1.2 Ventilation in health care facilities
Added to existing amendment requirement for ventilation for health care facilities to be designed and installed in accordance with the code, Table 4-A and amended list of ASHRAE 170 items.
406.0 Evaporative cooling system for health care facilities Removed OSHPD 1R from the banner. Removed food preparation area from the text.
Section 407.0 Ventilation system details
407.1.1 Air systems
Changed Exception Item 2 to allow unoccupied turndown to be permitted in accordance with Section 407.7 Unoccupied turndown. Repealed all other subitems.
Relocated previous language in Exception 2 for unoccupied mode to new Section 407.7. Added a column to Table 4-A to identify which spaces are permitted to use unoccupied turndown to match the 2021 ASHRAE 170. Revised OSHPD amendments to coordinate with the national standard.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 51
407.2.2.1 Hazardous exhaust outlets
Add new section clarifying that hazardous exhaust outlets from airborne infection isolation rooms and other hazardous rooms shall have a laboratory chemical fume hood with added discharge requirements.
407.3.1 Air balance
Added language to clarify the pressurization requirement is to be met per Table 4-A. 407.4 Air circulation
407.4.1.3
Amended to clarify air supplied to operating rooms and similar spaces shall be delivered by a primary supply diffuser array in accordance with ASHRAE 170.7.4.1. 407.4.1.4, 407.4.1.5, 407.4.1.6
Added new sections to provide requirements for the location of supply registers and return/exhaust inlets, and air supply requirements including low level inlets. 407.4.2
Revised to match CBC Section 1020.6 for air movement in corridors. Amended Exception 1 to state that use of corridors as a source of makeup air for exhaust systems is permitted where allowed by the CBC.
407.4.5 Recirculating room units
Revised to clarify requirements for recirculating room units which shall be permitted to provide a portion of total air changes in excess of minimum outside air changes where indicated in Table 4-A.
407.4.5(3)
Amended to provide for use of a MERV 8 or manufacturer’s recommended (OSHPD 2) filter upstream of any surface that is designed to condense water. 407.4.5(4)
Added new section to allow coils designed not to condense water shall maintain surfaces above the dew point temperature.
407.4.5.1 Recirculating room units for unoccupied spaces Added new section regarding filtration for unoccupied spaces not directly connected to a patient care area.
407.5 Variable air volume
407.5.1.4
Added new section for sensitive spaces or rooms to be provided with controls on the return or exhaust duct system to maintain constant flows. 407.5.1.5
Added new section to provide return air controls for each system, floor, or area with similar conditions.
52 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
407.7 Unoccupied turndown
407.7.1
Relocated Exception 2 into this new section and split the paragraph into four subsections to identify the conditions that allow the number of air changes permitted to be reduced.
407.8 Building pressurization
407.8.1
Added a new section to align with AHSRAE 170 regarding building pressurization to ensure a building does not fall under negative pressure causing nonfiltered air to be brought into the building.
408.1.5 and 408.1.6
Amended to align with the minimum requirement in ASHRAE 170 regarding HEPA filtration for high-risk operating rooms and protective environment rooms. Revised Table 4-B to align with this requirement. Repealed previous amendment, but this does not prevent a designer from voluntarily installing additional filtration in the air handler.
408.1.7
Added a new section specific to HEPA filtration to note the requirement in Table 4-B for HEPA filtration to be installed at the terminal device outlet. 408.2 Filters for hospitals
408.2.2, 408.2.3, 408.2.4
Repealed these sections since the requirements have been fully incorporated into Section 407.4.5, Recirculating Room Units.
408.3 Filters for skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, and correctional treatment centers
408.3.2, 408.3.3, 408.3.4
Repealed Sections 408.3.2 and 408.3.3 since the requirements have been fully incorporated into Section 407.4.5 Recirculating Room Units. Section 408.3.4 was renumbered to 408.3.2.
408.4 Filters for outpatient facilities
408.4.1
Revised to clarify that the air ventilation systems for outpatient facilities shall have filter bank efficiencies as listed in Table 4-B.
408.4.2
Moved the filtration requirement for recirculating room units to Section 407.4.5.
Repealed the OSHPD amendment for 408.4.2.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 53
408.5 Filters for recirculating room units
408.5.1
Added a new section pointing to Section 407.4.5 for filtration of recirculating room units. Added additional language to confirm that the full filtration required per Table 4-B is needed when Table 4-A is marked “No” for recirculating room units. 409 Ducts
409.3, 409.4
Repealed amendment. Insulation of ducts is covered in Section 605 and the amendment in 409.3 is a duplicate of the amendment in Section 605.1. Section 409.4 is renumbered to 409.3.
414.0 Airborne infection isolation rooms
414.1 Exhaust systems
Amended the seven-feet discharge height for airborne infection isolation exhaust to 10 feet. The national standard requires a minimum 10 feet exhaust height. 417.0 Testing and balancing airborne infection isolation rooms and protective environment rooms
Modified this section to include air balance testing which shall include a pressure test at all doors serving the isolation, protective environment and ante rooms to provide directional pressure relationships.
Chapter 6 – Duct systems
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
603.4 Flexible air ducts
603.4.1.1 Flexible ducts
Added a sentence to clarify that a flexible duct is not permitted when fire and/or smoke dampers are omitted in corridor construction per CBC Section 717.5.4. The CBC exception also requires the duct work to be constructed of steel of not less than a 0.019-inch thickness.
605.0 Insulation of ducts
605.2
Added room types that are considered sensitive areas and not permitted to have acoustical lining materials: Class 3 imaging, hybrid operating rooms and protective environment rooms. Added pointer to ASHRAE 170, Section 6.9 for duct lining for nonsensitive areas or rooms.
605.3
Amended to repeal the MERV 17 filter rating. A MERV 17 filter rating is not equivalent to a HEPA filter. Coordinated with the change in Table 4-B that defines the minimum requirements for a HEPA filter.
54 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Chapter 11 – Refrigeration
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
Table 1104.1 Permissible refrigeration systems
Repealed the I-2.1 occupancy from occupancy group in Table 1104.1 for Permissible Refrigeration Systems.
State Fire Marshal
Repealed requirements throughout Chapter 11 for A2L refrigerants that were early adopted as California amendments in the 2022 Supplements. Adopted model code.
The industry’s efforts to address lower Global Warming Potential (GWP) refrigerants led to the development of lower flammability refrigerants—A2Ls. Chapter 11 includes these lower flammability refrigerants in Table 1102.3 and contains specific A2L and B2L provisions to address the precautions necessary to properly use these products.
Chapter 12 – Hydronics
California Energy Commission
1217.10.1 California Energy Code Pipe Insulation Requirements Updated pointers for pipe insulation requirements within the California Energy Code (Part 6 of Title 24) for Tables 120.3-A-1 and 120.3-A-2.
Chapter 18 – Referenced Standards
State Fire Marshal
Updated the publication year for many existing referenced standards.
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
Added new reference standard for IEST RP-CC001.7 that defines the minimum requirements for HEPA and ULPA filters.
CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE – PART 5
Chapter 1 – Administration
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
Amended multiple subsections to reflect the new department name: Department of Health Care Access and Information/Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development.
1.10.6 OSHPD 6
Added new banner designation “OSHPD 6” for a chemical dependency recovery hospital not within an acute care hospital building.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 55
Chapter 2 – Definitions
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
Amended existing definitions.
Handwashing fixture
Added that the flow rate for a non-aerating laminar flow device shall not be less than 1 gallon per minute.
Scrub sink
Added requirements for controls to not involve contact with the upper extremities.
Single-lever wrist blades shall not be permitted except for the temperature pre-set valve.
Chapter 4 – Plumbing Fixtures and Fixture Fittings
Division of the State Architect
Repealed “DSA-SS/CC” banners throughout the code. Community colleges are required to comply with all DSA adopted regulations under the authority of the Field Act, Education Code Section 81052. Alternatively, community colleges may comply with alternative structural safety provisions promulgated and adopted pursuant to the authority granted by Education Code Section 81053. These alternative standards are adopted and identified by the DSA-SS/CC banner.
The authority granted to DSA specifically for the adoption of alternative building standards for community colleges related to structural safety should only be used or referenced when promulgating an alternative standard pursuant to Education Code Section 81053. All other regulations related to the construction of community colleges are adopted and identified by the “DSA-SS” banner under the authority of Education Code Section 81052.
56 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Building Standards Commission, Division of the State Architect and Department of Housing and Community Development
408.3 Water consumption
Amended to align with appliance efficiency regulations adopted by the California Energy Commission in Title 20 and showerhead requirements in CALGreen. 420.3.1 Pre-rinse spray valves
Repealed existing California amendment and adopted model code.
Building Standards Commission and Division of the State Architect 422.1.1 Fixture calculations and 422.2 Separate facilities Repealed existing California amendment and adopted model code regarding allgender multi-user restroom fixtures. Added a BSC amendment to indicate that separate private areas for urinals and water closets located in a privacy compartment shall comply with sections 422.6 and 422.7 of the California Plumbing Code.
422.6 Water closet compartment and 422.7 Urinal partitions Added an exception referring to IAPMO’s Z124.10 Type A Security for state buildings, University of California and California State University buildings, public elementary and secondary schools, community college buildings, and state-owned or state-leased essential services buildings.
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
422.3.1 Fixture requirements for special occupancy
Added a second exception that separate toilet facilities for patients, staff, and visitors in public visitor waiting areas with an occupant load of 10 or less shall be permitted for use by both sexes.
Chapter 6 –Water Supply and Distribution
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
604.0 Materials
604.1 Pipe, tube, and fittings
Added Exception for OSHPD 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 regarding the use of CPVC which is not permitted for potable water.
609.0 Installation, testing, unions, and location
609.10 Disinfection of potable water system
Added new Item 5 for OSHPD 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 to the disinfection requirements for the timing of the disinfection procedures relative to the occupancy of a building to align with ASHRAE 188.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 57
613.0 Domestic hot-water distribution systems for health facilities and clinics Table 613.1 Hot water use
Updated Note #1 regarding rinse water temperature at warewashers or potsinks to align with the California Retail Food Code, Title 22, and Facility Guidelines Institute (FGI) guidelines. Added new Note #3 requiring dietary hot water temperatures to meet minimum temperature requirements at the point of use. 613.2 Storage
Added to existing amendment for water heaters and hot-water storage tanks.
Storage water heaters and hot water tank storage are to be maintained at 140 degrees Fahrenheit or above.
613.6 Recirculation
Added to existing amendment for hot water recirculation to coordinate with FGI and to require the hot water recirculation piping to return the recirculation loop back through the hot water source. The non-recirculated fixture branch piping shall not exceed 10 feet.
613.9 Flushing
Added new section for hot water distribution to add test ports and valved openings for flushing of portions of the system in accordance with the facilities water management program defined in Appendix N.
614.0 Dialysis water-distribution systems
614.1 and 614.7 Piping materials
Added to an existing amendment for the piping materials allowed in dialysis feedlines to include CPVC to coordinate with AAMI standard RD 62. 616.0 Emergency water supply
616.1 Emergency water supply
Added SPC 4D rating to list of ratings to support 72 hours of continuing operation of on-site water supply in the event of an emergency.
616.3 Water disinfection
Added new section regarding storage tank connections and circulation to limit water stagnation and temperature stratification.
Chapter 7 – Sanitary Drainage
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
727.1 Emergency sanitary drainage
Added SPC 4D rating to list of ratings to support 72 hours of continuing operation of onsite holding tanks to store sewage and liquid waste sufficient to operate essential hospital utilities and equipment in the event of an emergency.
58 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Chapter 15 – Alternate Water Sources for Nonpotable Applications Building Standards Commission and Department of Housing and Community Development
1506.10.2 Minimum water quality
Added IAPMO IGC 324 as an applicable standard for water quality for on-site treated nonpotable gray water when there are no local water quality requirements.
Department of Water Resources
1505.1 General
Amended to refer to the new “State Water Resources Control Board’s CrossConnection Control Policy Handbook” along with existing reference to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Titles 22 and 23. Deleted Title 17 from referenced CCR titles in this section.
1505.4 Connections to potable or recycled water supply systems Amended Exception #4 to clarify the source of regulatory information for recycled water application and uses shall be the new “State Water Resources Control Board’s Cross-Connection Control Policy Handbook” which replaces Title 17 provisions.
Chapter 16 – Nonpotable Rainwater Catchment Systems
Building Standards Commission and Department of Housing and Community Development
1603.20 Rainwater diversion valves
Amended to remove reference to IAPMO PS 59 and IAPMO IGC 352 standards to allow use of other available approved diverter valves.
Chapter 17 – Referenced Standards
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development and State Fire Marshal
Updated existing referenced standards to the latest edition and added two new referenced standards:
ANSI/AAMI/ISO 23500-2 – Preparation and Quality Management of Fluids for Haemodialysis and Related Therapies – Part 2: Water Treatment Equipment for Haemodialysis Applications.
ANSI/AAMI/ISO 23500-3 – Preparation and Quality Management of Fluids for Haemodialysis and Related Therapies – Part 3: Water for Haemodialysis and Related Therapies
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 59
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE – PART 6
Please visit the California Energy Commission’s website for Part 6 updates. energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiencystandards/online-resource-center/overview CALIFORNIA WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE CODE – PART 7
Overview
The new California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC), based on the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code, was created by relocating chapters, sections and language from several parts of Title 24, including the California Building Code (Chapter 7A), California Residential Code (Section R337) and the California Fire Code (Chapter 49). Additionally, it incorporates other provisions from Title 24 (not relocated), and sections from Title 14 (Natural Resources) and Title 19 (Public Safety) of the California Code of regulations, and sections from the Government Code, the Health and Safety Code, and Public Resources Code.
Section H107, Cross Reference Tool, was added to Appendix H of the CWUIC. It lists each section of the code and identifies the source document and section for each provision.
As part of the effort to consolidate language from the multiple areas of law and regulations, a reasonable amount of “clean-up” was made before codifying the language into the CWUIC. This consisted of clarifying intent, correcting minor errors from previous code cycles, and reorganizing sections to align with model code.
60 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Chapter 1 – Scope and Administration
This chapter contains administrative provisions. Consistent with other parts of Title 24, it consists of two divisions: Division I details the state agencies’ administrative provisions and Division II contains model code sections with amendments incorporated from the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and California Residential Code (CRC). The sections in Division I have been incorporated from the California Building Code (Part 2), the California Fire Code (Part 9) and Title 14.
Chapter 2 – Definitions
Definitions in this chapter are an aggregate collection of terms used in the laws and regulations referenced above.
Chapter 3 – Wildland-Urban Interface Areas
Language in Chapter 3 has been migrated from the California Fire Code and also incorporates provisions from the Public Resources Code and the Government Code to provide the framework for defining and designating wildland-urban interface areas within the state.
Chapter 4 – Wildland-Urban Interface Areas Requirements Chapter 4 provides the access, water supply, and fire protection plan requirements that apply to all occupancies in the wildland-urban interface based on designated fire hazard severity zones. Amendments delete and/or replace model code language where it conflicts with existing California laws and regulations, and incorporate sections from the CFC as well as requirements found in Title 14 and Title 19.
Chapter 5 – Special Building Construction Regulations
Chapter 5 contains regulations that establish minimum standards for the location, design and construction of buildings and structures within designated fire hazard severity zones or WUI areas. Amendments delete and/or replace model code language where it conflicts with existing California laws and regulations, and incorporate provisions from the Health and Safety Code. All of the regulations from Chapter 7A in the CBC and Section R337 in the CRC have been relocated into Chapter 5.
Chapter 6 – Fire Protection Requirements
Chapter 6 contains additional requirements for development and construction in Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) and areas designated as State Responsibility Areas (SRA). Amendments delete and/or replace model code language where it conflicts with existing California laws and regulations, relocate provisions from CFC Chapter 49, and incorporate provisions found in Title 14 and Title 19 for the code user’s
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 61
convenience. The chapter includes requirements for the establishment and maintenance of defensible space and other mitigation strategies to reduce the hazards of fire originating within a structure spreading to wildland, and fire originating in wildland spreading to structures.
Chapter 7 – Referenced Standards
Chapter 7 contains referenced standards of the 2024 IWUIC and is amended to incorporate all relevant standards referenced in various sections of the CWUIC.
Appendix A – General Requirements
Appendix A, while not adopted by SFM, can be enforced by a local jurisdiction when specifically included in its adopting ordinance. This appendix provides fire protection measures supplemental to those found in Chapter 6 to reduce the threat of wildfire in a wildland-urban interface area and improve the capability for controlling such fires.
Appendix B – Vegetation Management Plan
Appendix B, while not adopted by SFM, can be enforced by a local jurisdiction when specifically included in its adopting ordinance. This appendix provides criteria for submitting vegetation management plans, specifying their content, and establishing a criterion for considering vegetation management as a fuel modification.
Appendix C – Community Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Hazard Evaluation Framework
Deleted 2024 IWUIC Appendix C – Fire Hazard Severity Form and replaced it with Appendix C – Community Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Hazard Evaluation Framework that is printed, but not adopted by SFM, in the 2025 CWUIC. This framework is provided for information purposes (not intended for adoption) and can be used as a guideline for firesafe councils and others. This appendix contains the same language as Appendix P of the 2022 CFC (renumbered to Appendix Q in 2025 CFC).
Appendix D – Model Ordinance for Fire Hazard Severity Zone Adoption Deleted 2024 IWUIC Appendix D – Fire Danger Rating System and replaced it with Appendix D – Model Ordinance for Fire Hazard Severity Zone Adoption. This appendix is a sample ordinance for a city, county, city and county, or fire district to use to establish and designate fire hazard severity zones within their jurisdiction.
Appendix E – [Reserved]
Deleted 2024 IWUIC Appendix E – Findings of Fact, and reserved Appendix E for future use.
62 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Appendix F – Characteristics of Fire Smart Vegetation
Appendix F is informational and provided for the convenience of the code user. It contains a list of the eight characteristics of fire-smart vegetation that can be used effectively within wildland-urban interface areas to reduce the likelihood of fire spread through vegetation.
Appendix G – Voluntary Home Hardening Recommendations
Deleted 2024 IWUIC Appendix G – Self-Defense Mechanism and replaced it with Appendix G – Voluntary Home Hardening Recommendations. Appendix G provides nonmandatory home hardening recommendations for existing structures to protect them from wildfire. It also provides correlation and consistency with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) home hardening guidelines.
Appendix H – Referenced California Documents
Deleted IWUIC Appendix H – Wildland-Urban Interface Code Flowchart and replaced it with Appendix H – Referenced California Documents to provide excerpts of statutes and regulations that are the sources for California amendments in the 2025 CWUIC.
This includes reprinting certain sections from California laws: Civil Code, Government Code, Public Resources Code, Health and Safety Code, and California Code of Regulations Titles 14 and 19.
Appendix I – Board of Appeals
Appendix I, while not adopted by SFM, can be enforced by a local jurisdiction when specifically included in its adopting ordinance or legislation. It provides guidelines for establishing a board of appeals to hear applications for modifications of requirements in the CWUIC.
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE – PART 9
All amendments and additions in this part are proposed by the Office of the State Fire Marshal.
Chapter 1 – Scope and Administration
1.11.2.4 Request for alternate means of protection
Updated the reference pointer to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 19 due to program changes in the requirements of Risk Management Plans and the handling of hazardous materials under the oversight of CalEPA (AB 148, Stats. 2021). These programs were previously in CCR Title 19, Division 2 (CalOES), but are now located in Title 19, Division 5 (CalEPA), and have been effective as of March 6, 2024.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 63
1.11.4.4 Fire clearance pre-inspection
Corrected the reference pointer that delegates authority from the State Fire Marshal to the local fire prevention enforcement authority, which is governed by Health and Safety Code Sections 13145 and 13146.
102.13 Wildland-Urban Interface
Added a new section providing reference to the newly adopted California WildlandUrban Interface Code (CWUIC), Part 7 of Title 24. As a result of the creation of the CWUIC, Chapter 49 is deleted from the California Fire Code (CFC). Other changes affect provisions and references in CFC Chapters 2 and 3, and Appendix P, as well as chapters in the California Building Code and California Residential Code (Parts 2 and 2.5 of Title 24).
105.5.14 Energy Storage Systems
Provided exceptions to requirements for an operational permit for stationary and mobile ESS for detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses, other than Group R-4.
Chapter 2 – Definitions
Definitions related to battery types
Amended model code definitions and added several new battery type definitions to correlate with current International Fire Code and NFPA 855 technology requirements. The intent is to increase understanding of the application of code requirements to new technologies with no associated increases in technical requirements.
203 Occupancy classification and use
Occupancy classification definitions have been relocated from Section 202 into new Section 203 in 2024 IFC, so existing 2022 amendments to these definitions have been relocated also.
203.4.2 Group E, child-care facilities
203.7.4.1 Classification as Group E
Amended the exception to Group E child-care facilities and added language with special provisions to include those occupancies providing care for 6-100 children under 36 months of age, allowing them to operate when in compliance with special requirements.
Chapter 3 – General Requirements
320 Battery storage
320.1 General
Replaced existing amendments in 2022 CFC Section 322 with new 2024 IFC Section 320 which has been amended in 2025 CFC to address all battery storage regardless of the battery type. Added Exemption 6 to clarify it is not the intent of this
64 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
section to regulate miscellaneous small consumer-size batteries in equipment (radios, power tools, etc.), or batteries staged or charging as commonly found in maintenance areas, fire stations, contractor shops, etc.
Sections 320.1.1 through 320.1.2
Added new sections to address storage of lithium-ion, lithium metal, and other battery types.
320.4.1.1 Unused or unwanted battery collection
Revised to clarify batteries placed loose into open-top containers is for collection of used or unwanted batteries from the public or a building’s employees (NFPA 855). 320.4.1.2 Waste storage
Added a common practice provision for limited storage (DOT regulations) to require batteries be placed in bags to prevent short-circuiting and space between filled with vermiculite. The quantity is still limited to 15 cf.
320.4.1.3 Miscellaneous storage
Added new section to clarify that other storage configurations are allowed. Provides for storage in original wholesale shipping containers and DOT packaging which has undergone extensive testing for shipping of lithium-ion batteries and cells. 320.4.3 Outdoor storage and subsections
Added requirements for a technical report to evaluate the fire and explosion risks associated with outdoor storage of lithium-ion and lithium-metal batteries and to make recommendations for fire and explosion protection.
Revised and updated existing amendments that were relocated and merged with new model code sections to address the following requirements:
• Distance from storage to exposures
• Storage area size limits and separation
• Fire detection
• Containers
• Weather protection
320.5 Other Battery Types General and subsections
Added amendments providing general guidance for safe storage of batteries other than lithium-ion and lithium-metal consistent with updated requirements and standards of care in the industry, including the following:
• Impact protection
• Battery charging and long-term storage practices
• Mechanical exhaust requirements
• Spill control capabilities
• Hazard warning signage and NFPA 704 placarding
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 65
Chapter 9 – Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems
Existing 2022 California amendments in Chapter 9 are carried forward, repealed, renumbered and updated to align with revised 2024 IFC formatting and language. 903.3.1.1.1 Exempt locations
Deleted existing amendment Number 6 in the listed locations regarding elevator hoistways, machine rooms, machinery spaces, control spaces and control rooms, and the reference pointer to CBC Section 3005.4.1.
903.4.3 Alarms
Deleted existing amendment regarding visible alarm notification and reference pointer to Section 907.
905.4 Location of Class I standpipe hose connections
Deleted model code language in Item 6 that was an existing amendment that was overlooked in the 2022 CFC (amendment was not carried forward). 907.2.12 Special amusement areas
Repealed and replaced some existing amendments with model code language in Section 907.2.12, and blended existing amendment regarding exit access into new model code language to carry forward existing provisions. Repealed amendments in model code Sections 907.2.12.1 - 907.2.12.3 as these sections do not exist in 2024 IFC. Matched the same modifications made to Section 907.2.12 in the California Building Code, Part 2 of Title 24.
915.4.4 Interconnection
Replaced new model language with existing amendment as 2024 IFC has copied portions of the California amendment, but left out the majority of the information needed for clarity and consistency in implementation and enforcement. 915.6.1 Enclosed parking garages
Added an amendment to coordinate with the existing provision in Section 915.6.1 of Part 2.
Chapter 10 – Means of Egress
1008.3 Illumination required by an emergency electrical system Added amendment to reinstate provisions published in several previous editions of the California Building Code to address previously adopted requirement for egress lighting for I-2 occupancies and align with provisions published in National Fire Protection Association 101 – The Life Safety Code.
1009.4.1 Standby power
1015.2 Where required
Added new amendment to align with the California Building Code.
66 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Table 1020.2 Corridor fire-resistance rating
Modified existing amendment to repeal line-item for occupancy Group E, and to require one-hour fire resistance rating for corridors with sprinklers in occupancy Group I-4. Aligned with the same section in the California Building Code, Part 2 of Title 24.
1026.6 Two-way communication
Added new amendment specifying that two-way communication systems must be installed in all horizontal exit compartments. An Exception for I-2 and I-3 facilities is provided. Aligned with the same section in Part 2.
Chapter 31 – Tents, Temporary Special Event Structures and Other Membrane Structures
3104.2 Flame propagation performance testing and registration 3106.3 Combustible materials
Added amendments to clarify that all fabrics and all interior decorative fabrics or materials shall be flame resistant in accordance with the provisions set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 19 (Public Safety), Division 1, Chapter 8.
Chapter 49 – Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Areas Added a “User Note” to direct code users to the new California Wildland-Urban Interface Code. This chapter is deleted from the CFC.
Chapter 80 – Referenced Standards
Updated adoption of referenced standards to the newest editions published and available for adoption.
CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE – PART 10
Chapter 1 – Scope and Administration
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
Amended multiple sections to reflect the change in the department name:
Department of Health Care Access and Information/Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development.
1.10.6 OSHPD 6
Added new sections for OSHPD 6 to align requirements with statutory change in Health and Safety Code Section 1250.3.
107.1 General
Clarified that only one extension is permitted for temporary uses, equipment and systems.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 67
Chapter 2 – Definitions
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
Updated applicability of several definitions to include OSHPD 1R, 2, and 5 applications.
Chapter 3 – Provisions for All Compliance Methods
Division of the State Architect
317.3.1
Added [DSA-SS] banner, which was unintentionally omitted in the last edition of Title 24, relative to seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings.
Building Standards Commission and Division of the State Architect Table 317.5
Revised footnotes and seismic performance criteria for Risk Category IV buildings to align with the model code and adopted referenced standard. 318 Definitions
Repealed the definition of REPAIR in coordination with the adoption of the model code definition for the same term contained in Section 202. 319.2 Existing conditions
Amended to coordinate with changes made in the newly adopted 2023 edition of the adopted standard, ASCE 41: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. 319.5 Configuration requirements
Relocated existing amendment from Section 319.7.2 to Section 319.5, as the basis for determination of an irregular classification belongs in the primary section addressing irregularities rather than a later section defining the conditions that require the use of Method B.
319.7 Prescriptive selection of the design method with subsections Amended to improve the presentation and clarity of provisions that define conditions requiring the use of Method B and relocated some language to Section 319.5.
Division of the State Architect and Department of Housing and Community Development
306 Accessibility for existing buildings
Removed the content of model code Section 306 as it is not adopted in California and clarified the notes about application of Chapters 11A and 11B.
68 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Department of Housing and Community Development
301.3 Alteration, addition or change of occupancy
301.3.2 Work area compliance method
Repealed the notes as HCD adopted Chapters 6-11 that address work area compliance method.
State Fire Marshal
308.1 Carbon monoxide detection
Removed model code exceptions to requirements for carbon monoxide detection.
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
304.3.3 Criteria for Incidental and minor structural alteration, additions, or repairs of pre-1973 code buildings
Added provisions for incidental and minor alteration pursuant to statutory mandate. 312.3.1 Freestanding buildings containing qualifying nonacute care services Added permitting for chemical dependency recovery services pursuant to statutory mandate contained in Health and Safety Code Section 1250.3(f). 312.3.6 Chemical dependency recovery services
Added new section recognizing that chemical dependency recovery services may be provided in a building that has been removed from general acute care pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 1250.3(f).
Chapter 3A – [OSHPD1] Provisions for All Compliance Methods Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
302A.3.1 Existing seismic force-resisting systems.
Corrected the reference to point to the California Building Code for seismic coefficients since they are not provided in the California Existing Building Code. 304A.3.4 - 304A.3.4.8 Performance objectives of performance-based methods Clarified the application of ASCE 41-13 and ASCE 41-23 specifying how they apply to various types of buildings.
304A.3.5 - 304A.3.6.9 Modifications to ASCE 41-13
Clarified modifications to ASCE 41-13 for SPC-2 and SPC-4D and added new sections to address modifications to ASCE 41-23.
311A.1.1.1.1 - 311A.1.1.1.3 Means of egress for hospital buildings Corrected code references to point to new building provisions in the California Building Code for bracing requirements of nonstructural components in the path of egress.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 69
Chapter 4 – Repairs
Building Standards Commission
401.1 Scope
Removed reference to Chapter 12 of 2024 IEBC and referred to the California Historical Building Code (CHBC).
407.1 General
Adopted Section 407.1 and co-adopted existing HCD amendment that refers to California Mechanical Code (Part 4 of Title 24).
408.1 Materials
Adopted Section 408.1 and co-adopted existing HCD amendment that refers to California Plumbing Code (Part 5 of Title 24) and added reference to Division 5.3 of the California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24, known as CALGreen).
408.2 Water closet replacement
Adopted Section 408.2 and co-adopted existing HCD amendments which correct the maximum flow rate for water closets. Deleted the model code exception.
Chapter 4A – Repairs
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
401A.3, 405A.1, 405A.2.1, 405A.2.3, 405A.2.3.1, 405A.2.3.3, 405A.2.4, 405A.2.6 Repealed existing OSHPD amendments to several sections because these provisions are now included in the model code language. 405A.2.3.3 Extent of repair for noncompliant buildings
Lowered limit for seismic load to 75% of new building design earthquake forces for consistency with ASCE 41 requirements.
408A.2 Water closet replacement
Deleted the model code exception for blowout-design water closets.
70 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Chapter 5 – Prescriptive Compliance Method
Building Standards Commission
502.1 General
Amended Exception #2 to maintain status quo requiring structural elements to comply with the requirements of Sections 317 through 322 for projects within BSC’s authority and listed in Section 1.2 of the CEBC.
507 Historic buildings
Replaced model code provisions for historic buildings with reference to the California Historical Building Code.
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
502.1 General
Added amendment to remove limitation of structural requirements to Sections 502.2 through 502.3 for applicable OSHPD applications.
State Fire Marshal
502.5, 503.16 and 503.16.1
Replaced Group I-1 with R-2.1 since Group I-1 is not used in California.
Chapter 5A – Prescriptive Compliance Method
Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
Several sections in Chapter 5A were renumbered to align with the new format of the 2024 IEBC.
502A.1 General
Deleted model code language to remove limitation of structural requirements to Sections 502.2 through 502.3 for applicable OSHPD applications. 502A.2, 502A.3, 503A.1, 503A.3, 506A.1, 506A.3
Repealed California amendments and adopted model code language. 503A.3.1 Design live load
Deleted because the language duplicated Section 304A.1. 503A.4 Existing structural elements carrying gravity load Revised existing amendments to align with changes in 2024 IEBC. Clarified the amount of reduced seismic forces to be permitted.
503A.13 Voluntary seismic improvements
Replaced with IEBC Section 503.13 and carried forward some previous amendments.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 71
506A.5 Structural
Replaced existing amendments with IEBC Section 506.5, except Section 506.5.3 Exceptions and Section 506.5.4.
507A Historic Buildings
Deleted IEBC section since there are no OSHPD 1 buildings classified as historic buildings.
Chapters 6 through 11
Building Standards Commission
708.1, 809.1 and 907.1 1104.1 Minimum requirements
Replaced model code energy conservation provisions with reference to the California Energy Code (Part 6 of Title 24).
State Fire Marshal
902.2 and 902.2.1, 1011.5.2, 1101.5
Replaced Group I-1 with R-2.1 since Group I-1 is not used in California. 904.1.8 Supervision and alarms
Deleted this new model code section to eliminate possible conflicts with existing California laws and regulations.
Department of Housing and Community Development
Chapters 6 through 11
HCD adopted Chapters 6-11 that address work area compliance method.
Chapter 16 – Referenced Standards
Building Standards Commission, Division of the State Architect, Department of Housing and Community Development, and Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
ASCE 41 2023 Adopted the 2023 edition of ASCE 41.
Division of the State Architect and Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development
ASCE 7 2022 Updated supplements to match reference in the California Building Code (Part 2 of Title 24) and the 2022 edition of ASCE 7.
State Fire Marshal
NFPA 72 2025 Adopted the 2025 edition of NFPA 72.
72 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – PART 11
Chapter 2 – Definitions
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
Residential Long-Term Bicycle Parking
Added to describe secured bicycle parking for more than twelve hours.
Residential Short-Term Bicycle Parking
Added to describe secured bicycle parking for less than twelve hours in unsheltered, open area.
California Energy Commission (CEC)
Energy Design Rating (EDR) and Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) Energy Deleted definitions.
Energy Budget
Revised to remove references to the previously used energy metric—Time Dependent Valuation (TDV)—for measuring energy consumption. New reference to the new energy metric—Long-term System Cost (LSC)—added as specified in Section 10-109 of the California Energy Code (Part 6 of Title 24) and the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Reference Manual.
Long-Term System Cost (LSC)
Added to describe California Energy Commission’s projected present value of costs to California’s energy systems over a period of 30 years.
Recovered Energy and Recovered Energy, On-Site
Added to describe the energy used in a building that is recovered from various building functions, equipment and processes; energy that would otherwise be wasted.
Solar Pool Heating System
Added to describe an assembly of components designed to heat water for swimming pools, spas, or swimming pool and spa combinations by solar thermal means, excluding pool recirculation components.
Chapter 4 – Residential Mandatory Measures
Department of Housing and Community Development
4.106.4.2.2 Multifamily dwellings
4.106.4.2.6 Hotels and motels
Removed requirements for hotels and motels from Section 4.106.4.2.2 and created new Section 4.106.4.2.6 Hotels and motels for electric vehicle (EV) charging requirements for those occupancies.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 73
Revised subsections in these two sections to clarify and address the following compliance requirements:
• Appropriate numbers of Low Power Level 2 and Level 2 EV charging receptacles for dwelling units with assigned and unassigned parking. • Parking facilities served by parking lifts.
• Charging receptacles at assigned parking spaces shall be provided with a dedicated branch circuit connected to the dwelling unit’s electrical panel, when practical.
• Percentages of parking spaces not already provided with low-power Level 2 EV charging receptacles, and common use parking, shall be provided with Level 2 EV chargers at a rate of twenty-five (25) percent of those spaces (an increase from the current ten (10) percent).
• Allowance for the designation of specific EV charger connector types—J1772 or J3400—to provide flexibility to the designer or builder to serve most EV users. • Added mandatory ALMS measures under new subsection number 4.106.4.2.2 (2)(c) as an option to reduce maximum required electrical capacity for the site.
4.106.4.3 Electric vehicle charging for additions and alterations of parking facilities serving existing multifamily buildings, hotels and motels.
Modified existing requirements for EV capable spaces to include a requirement for either a low-power Level 2 EV charging receptacle or a Level 2 EV charger.
Removed the EV capable spaces percentage requirements, and added that each parking space being added or altered will be required to be equipped with a Low Power Level 2 EV charging receptacle or a Level 2 EV charger.
Added an exception for the installation of Level 1 EV charging receptacles during alterations and additions to existing parking facilities serving multifamily buildings, hotels, and motels.
Removed Notes 1 and 2 as they are no longer relevant to this section.
4.106.4.4 Bicycle parking
Made previously voluntary measures mandatory for newly constructed multifamily buildings, hotels, and motels. Amended to clarify the type of long-term bicycle parking enclosures and anchoring required for hotels and motels.
4.303.1.4.5 Pre-rinse spray valves
Replaced references to and reprints from California Code of Regulations, Title 20, Appliance Efficiency Regulations with reference to the California Plumbing Code (Part 5 of Title 24), Section 420.3. Coordinated with the Building Standards Commission (BSC), California Energy Commission (CEC), and the Division of the State Architect (DSA) with no intended change in regulatory effect.
74 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Chapter 5 – Nonresidential Mandatory Measures
Building Standards Commission
Section 5.106.4.1.1 Short-term bicycle parking
Amended to provide a new compliance method based on the number of anticipated “peak daily visitors” instead of the number of vehicle parking spaces used by customers. Removed the exception for additions or alterations that add nine or fewer visitor vehicular parking spaces.
Section 5.106.4.1.2 Long-term bicycle parking (general) Relocated bicycle parking requirements from Section 5.106.4.1.5 into main paragraph using existing code section.
Section 5.106.4.1.2.1 Long-term bicycle parking (for new buldings) and Section 5.106.4.1.2.2 Long-term bicycle parking (for additions or alterations) and Section 5.106.4.1.2.3 Long-term bicycle parking (for shell buildings) Added and amended long-term bicycle parking requirements to provide a new compliance method based on the number of “tenant-occupants” instead of the number of vehicle parking spaces used by workers and increased percentage from five (5) percent to ten (10) percent.
5.106.5.3 Electric vehicle (EV) charging (exceptions)
Amended existing Exception #2 for parking spaces accessible only by automated mechanical car parking systems to align with HCD requirements for residential occupancies.
Table 5.106.5.3.1 Electric vehicle (EV) charging
Amended by adding a title and creating separate columns for “Other than Office and Retail” and “Office and Retail.” Increased number of required Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Amended table Footnote #2.
5.106.5.3.2.1 Receptacle configurations
Added to allow use of NEMA receptacle configuration types.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 75
5.106.5.3.2.2 EV charger connectors
Added to specify that EV chargers shall be equipped with SAE J1772 with a maximum output 240 Volts AC or SAE J3400 connectors.
5.106.5.3.2.4.1 Raceway capacity requirements
Added to allow for future upgrades to the electrical conductors serving Low Power Level 2 charging receptacles 208/240-volt 20-ampere to a dedicated 208/240-volt 40-ampere branch circuit.
Table 5.106.5.3.6 EVCS–Power allocation method
Amended by adding a title and creating separate columns for “Other than Office and Retail” and “Office and Retail.”
Amended Footnote #3 to specify that the maximum allowed kVA to be utilized for EV capable spaces is 50 percent (reduced from 75 percent).
Added new Footnote #5 to set the maximum kVA power allowed in column 4 for EV capable spaces to 25 percent. This change leaves 75 percent of the available kVA required to be used for EVCS which may increase the number of EVCS.
5.106.5.6 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)–Power allocation method Added new subsections with similar amendments found in Section 5.106.5.3.2 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS):
Section 5.106.5.3.6.1 Receptacle Configurations
Section 5.106.5.3.6.2 EV Charger Connectors
Section 5.106.5.3.6.3 Raceway Capacity Requirements
5.106.5.4.2 Existing buildings or parking areas with previously installed EV capable infrastructure
Amended to promote more installed chargers by requiring that all existing EV capable spaces, panel capacity and conduit at a site must be built out before any new EV capable spaces are added.
Section 5.506.4 Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring in classrooms Added requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring in newly constructed projects and qualifying additions and alterations for University of California, California State University, and private school classrooms, lecture and postsecondary classrooms.
Building Standards Commission and
Division of the State Architect – Structural Safety
Section 5.303.3.4.6 Pre-rinse spray valve
Replaced references to and reprints from California Code of Regulations, Title 20, Appliance Efficiency Regulations with reference to the California Plumbing Code (Part 5 of Title 24), Section 420.3. Added “Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves” to clarify application.
76 2025 Summary of California Code Changes
Division of the State Architect – Structural Safety
5.506.3 Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring in classrooms
Amended description of classrooms that shall be equipped with a carbon dioxide monitor or sensor to include “other similar rooms that are used for group instruction.” Chapter A4 – Residential Voluntary Measures
Department of Housing and Community Development
A4.106.8.2.1 Multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels
• Increased numbers of Low Power Level 2 EV and Level 2 EV charging receptacles for dwelling units with assigned and unassigned parking relative to the mandatory requirements.
• Increased EV-ready parking spaces with Low Power Level 2 EV receptacles from fifty (50) percent to sixty (60) percent.
• Specified raceway capacity requirements for future upgrades to electrical conductors.
• Clarified exceptions regarding EV charging in parking facilities served by parking lifts.
• Increased compliance requirements and percentages for EV-ready parking spaces with EV chargers from fifteen (15) percent to forty (40) percent of the total number of parking spaces.
• Clarified that, when practical, EV charging receptacles at assigned parking spaces shall be provided with a dedicated branch circuit connected to the dwelling unit’s electrical panel.
• Amended requirements for multifamily parking facilities with unassigned or common use parking spaces shall be provided with Level 2 EV chargers at a rate of forty (40) percent, an increase from current fifteen (15) percent. • Deleted Tier 2 options for EV Ready and EV charging receptacles in multifamily parking facilities.
• Deleted Tier 2 options for EV chargers for projects with 20 or more dwelling units, sleeping units or guest rooms.
A4.106.9 Bicycle parking
Deleted, relocated to Chapter 4, and amended.
California Energy Commission
Section A4.203 Performance approach for newly constructed buildings Repealed various existing voluntary code sections and provisions to renumber, reformat, modify, and adopt new sections addressing newly defined terms regarding energy efficiency, climate zone compliance margins, as well as lighting efficiency consultation requirements for local electric service providers.
2025 Summary of California Code Changes 77
Section A4.204 Requirements for alterations to existing buildings Added voluntary provisions regarding mechanical ventilation systems and solar heating systems for altered pool and spa heating in existing multifamily facilities.
Chapter A5 – Nonresidential Voluntary Measures
Building Standards Commission
Table A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1 EV capable spaces and EVCS
Table A5.106.5.3.3 Tier 2 EV capable spaces and EVCS
Amended by adding a title and creating separate columns for “Other than Office and Retail” and “Office and Retail.”
Amended Footnote #2 to clarify that each EVCS shall reduce the number of required EV capable spaces by the same number.
Table A5.106.5.3.2 Tier 1 EVCS–Power allocation method
Table A5.106.5.3.4 Tier 2 EVCS–Power allocation method
Amended by adding a title and creating separate columns for “Other than Office and Retail” and “Office and Retail.” Amended Footnote # 3 and added Footnote #5.
California Energy Commission
Section A5.203 Performance approach
Repealed various existing voluntary code sections and provisions to renumber, reformat, modify, and adopt new sections addressing newly defined terms regarding energy efficiency, climate zone compliance margins, as well as lighting efficiency consultation requirements for local electric service providers.
Section A5.204 Requirements for alterations to existing buildings Added to address provisions regarding mechanical ventilation systems, and solar heating systems for altered pool and spa heating in existing nonresidential facilities.
Section A5.211 Reserved
The requirements of A5.211 “Renewable Energy” no longer apply to voluntary measures addressing reliable reductions in wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy as directed by California Public Resources Code Sections 25213 and 25402 due to issues with implementation and enforcement.
Section A5.213 Energy efficient framing
Changed the section title from “Energy Efficient Steel Framing” to “Energy Efficient Framing.”
California Energy Commission
2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
What’s New for Single-Family Residential
Renewables and Storage
• Updates mandatory battery energy storage system (BESS) readiness for newly constructed single-family one or two dwelling units with electrical service over 125A. BESS-ready not required if BESS installed. § 150.0(s) • Updates photovoltaic (PV) sizing using total solar access roof area (SARA). SARA multiplied by 18 for steepsloped roofs and SARA multiplied by 14 for low-sloped roofs. § 150.1(c)14 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
• Clarifies that block loads (combined total load for all rooms served by central equipment) may be used to size system for additions. § 150.0(h)1
• Updates mandatory heat pump minimum heating capacity to meet California Building Code (CBC) minimum requirements, without accounting for supplementary heating; no maximum heating capacity limit; furnace heating capacity based on ACCA Manual S-2023, Table N2.5. § 150.0(h)5 • Updates mandatory installer-adjustable defrost delay timers on heat pumps must be set to 90+ minutes. Installer tests and certifies on CF2R. Exceptions: Climate Zones 6-7; 500 square feet or less of conditioned floor area in Climate Zones 3, 5-10, 15. § 150.0(h)6
• Updates mandatory heat pump supplementary heating only operates at outdoor temperatures below 35°F, except during defrost or emergency operation. Installer tests and certifies on CF2R. Exceptions: heat pumps with supplementary heat in Climate Zones 7, 15, and 500 square feet or less following Option A or B; room airconditioner heat pumps. § 150.0(h)7 • Updates mandatory electric resistance supplementary heat capacity cannot exceed heat pump nominal cooling capacity (at 95°F ambient conditions) x 2.7 kW/ton, rounded up to closest kW. § 150.0(h)8 • Updates mandatory variable or multi-speed systems controlled by third-party thermostats must be able to respond to loads by modulating compressor speed and meet § 150.0(i)2. § 150.0(h)9 • Updates mandatory thermostats controlling heat pumps with supplementary heat must display outdoor temperature from outdoor temperature sensor or internet weather service; must indicate when supplementary or emergency heat is in use, and lock out supplementary heat when outdoor temperature above 35°F. Installer tests and certifies on CF2R. Exception: systems compliant with § 150.0(h)7 or Exception 1 to § 150.0(h)7, room airconditioner heat pumps. § 150.0(i) • Revises mandatory requirements for ducts in unvented attics may be insulated to R-4.2 when other requirements met. § 150.0(m)1Bi
• Updates mandatory requirements for multi or variable speed compressor systems with controls that vary fan speed per number of zones as certified by installer may meet airflow and fan efficacy requirements by operating at maximum compressor capacity and fan speed, with all zones calling for conditioning. § 150.0(m)13 • Updates mandatory whole dwelling unit mechanical ventilation for single family dwellings to include requirements for balanced and supply-only systems regarding accessibility of indoor air quality (IAQ) filters, heat/energy recovery ventilation (HRV/ERV) recovery cores, IAQ system components, and outdoor air intake design, location, and accessibility. § 150.0(o)1C and § 150.0(o)1Civ • Updates prescriptive requirements: heating equipment to be heat pump in all Climate Zones or meet performance requirements in § 150.1(b)1; refrigerant charge verification for heat pumps in all Climate Zones, and air conditioners in Climate Zones 2, 8-15; fault indicator display required for HRV/ERV systems with ECC-rater field verification. § 150.1(c)6-7,15
• Updates for maximum heating and cooling system capacity limits for additions in Tables 150.2-A and -B that depend on relative sizes of calculated heating design load (HL) and cooling design load (CL), type of space conditioning system, and duct sizing; envelope leakage specified in load calculation must not exceed values from Table 150.2-C (average for load calculation software); with ECC-rater field verification, tested envelope leakage value may be used. § 150.2(a)1E
Electrical and Lighting
• Updates all luminaires and light sources to meet Reference Joint Appendix JA8. New exceptions: lighting integral to ceiling fan kits subject to DOE’s Appliance and Equipment Standards Program; LEDs installed outdoors,
Revised 2/19/25
decorative colored solid state lighting (SSL) luminaires, high intensity discharge (HID) light sources, and luminaires with hardwired high-frequency generator and induction lamp. Removes Table 150.0-A. § 150.0(k)1A • Updates lighting integral to kitchen range hoods and bathroom exhaust fans do not require dimming controls. § 150.0(k)2F
Envelope
• Updates mandatory wall insulation maximum 0.095 U-factor for 2 x 4 inch wood framing (minimum R-15 with 16” on center) and maximum 0.069 U-factor for 2 x 6 wood-framing (minimum R-21 with 16” on center). § 150.0(c) • Updates prescriptive Option C of Table 150.1-A ventilated attic minimum R-38 in climate zones 1, 8-16, minimum R-30 in climates zones 2-7. Adds cathedral ceilings minimum R-38 with no radiant barrier in all climate zones . § 150.1(c)1Aiii
• Updates mandatory maximum weighted average U-factor 0.40 for fenestration, including skylights. Exception:
Fenestration installed in Fire Hazard Severity Zones. § 150.0(q) • Updates prescriptive maximum U-factor 0.27 for fenestration in Climate Zones 1-5, 11-14, 16; maximum U-factor
0.30 in Climate Zones 6-10, 15 . Exception: 500 square feet or less in climate zone 5 allows maximum U-factor
0.30; up to 16 square feet of skylight in climates zones 2, 4, 6-16 allows maximum U-factor 0.30, SHGC 0.30. No SHGC requirement in climate zones 1, 3, 5, 16. § 150.1(c)3A • Updates for alterations that increase new fenestration area or replace fenestration maximum SHGC value of 0.23 in Climate Zone 15. § 150.2(b)1
Plumbing
• Updates backup heat required for heat pump water heater (HPWH) with unconditioned inlet air, unless compressor cutoff temperature below local Heating Winter Median of Extremes. § 110.3(c)7A • Adds ventilation or minimum room volume required when installing HPWH. § 110.3(c)7B • Updates future HPWH conductor requirement to minimum 30A branch circuit. § 150.0(n)1Ai • Removes exception for gas tankless water heaters in Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, 14 in buildings with heat pump space conditioning. § 150.1(c)8
• Removes gas tankless water heaters from prescriptive options for single-family additions. § 150.2(a)1D Pools and Spas
• Adds pool and spa heaters must be tested to new standards, by fuel type. § 110.4(b) • Adds requirement for primary pool/spa heaters to be heat pump, solar, or use at least 60% renewable/recovered energy, sized appropriately. Several exceptions apply. § 110.4(c) • Updates controls for heat pump pool heaters must prevent supplementary heating when load can be met by heat pump alone. § 110.4(d)
• Clarifies when dedicated-purpose pool pumps must meet Title 20, § 1605.1(g)(7). Replacement dedicatedpurpose pool pump motors must meet Title 20, § 1605.3. § 150.0(p)1A • Updates dedicated-purpose pool pumps with more than one speed shall have controls that default to the filtration flow rate when auxiliary pool loads are not operating. § 150.0(p)1D • Updates dedicated-purpose pool pumps with more than one speed must have controls that default to filtration flow rate setting within 24 hours and have override capability for servicing. § 150.0(p)1E Performance Compliance
• Energy budget is expressed in terms of long-term system cost (LSC) and source energy; LSC is categorized as Total LSC and Efficiency LSC; Total LSC is the sum of Efficiency LSC and the LSC energy for the photovoltaic system, battery energy storage system, lighting, demand flexibility, and other plug loads; Efficiency LSC energy is the sum of the LSC energy for space-conditioning, water heating, mechanical ventilation, and self-utilization credit; and the source energy budget sums the same end uses as Total LSC, but in source energy. § 150.1(a)
ATTACHMENT 1
General Law City v. Charter City
Characteristic General Law City Charter City
Ability to Govern
Municipal Affairs
Bound by the state’s general law, regardless
of whether the subject concerns a municipal
affair.
Has supreme authority over “municipal
affairs.” Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).
Form of Government State law describes the city’s form of government For example, Government
Code section 36501 authorizes general law
cities be governed by a city council of five
members, a city clerk, a city treasurer, a
police chief, a fire chief and any subordinate
officers or employees as required by law.
City electors may adopt ordinance which
provides for a different number of council
members. Cal. Gov’t section 34871. The
Government Code also authorizes the “city
manager” form of government. Cal. Gov’t
Code § 34851.
Charter can provide for any form of
government including the “strong mayor,”
and “city manager” forms. See Cal. Const.
art. XI, § 5(b); Cal. Gov’t Code § 34450 et
seq.
Elections Generally Municipal elections conducted in accordance with the California Elections Code. Cal. Elec.
Code §§ 10101 et seq..
Not bound by the California Elections Code.
May establish own election dates, rules, and
procedures. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b);
Cal. Elec. Code §§ 10101 et seq..
Methods of Elections Generally holds at-large elections whereby voters vote for any candidate on the ballot.
Cities may also choose to elect the city
council “by” or “from” districts, so long as the
election system has been established by
ordinance and approved by the voters. Cal.
Gov’t Code § 34871. Mayor may be elected
by the city council or by vote of the people.
Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 34902.
May establish procedures for selecting
officers. May hold at-large or district
elections. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).
City Council Member
Qualifications
Minimum qualifications are:
1. United States citizen
2. At least 18 years old
3. Registered voter
4. Resident of the city at least 15 days
prior to the election and throughout
his or her term
5. If elected by or from a district, be a
resident of the geographical area
comprising the district from which he
or she is elected.
Cal. Elec. Code § 321; Cal. Gov’t Code §§
34882, 36502; 87 Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 30
(2004).
Can establish own criteria for city office
provided it does not violate the U.S.
Constitution. Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b), 82
Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 6, 8 (1999).
Characteristic General Law City Charter City
Public Funds for Candidate
in Municipal Elections
No public officer shall expend and no
candidate shall accept public money for the
purpose of seeking elected office. Cal. Gov’t
Code § 85300.
Public financing of election campaigns is
lawful. Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal. 4th 389
(1992).
Term Limits May provide for term limits. Cal. Gov’t Code § 36502(b).
May provide for term limits. Cal. Const. art.
XI, § 5(b); Cal Gov’t Code Section 36502 (b).
Vacancies and Termination
of Office
An office becomes vacant in several
instances including death, resignation,
removal for failure to perform official duties,
electorate irregularities, absence from
meetings without permission, and upon nonresidency. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 1770, 36502, 36513.
May establish criteria for vacating and
terminating city offices so long as it does not
violate the state and federal constitutions.
Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).
Council Member
Compensation and
Expense Reimbursement
Salary-ceiling is set by city population and
salary increases set by state law except for
compensation established by city electors.
See Cal. Gov’t Code § 36516. If a city
provides any type of compensation or
payment of expenses to council members,
then all council members are required to
have two hours of ethics training. See Cal.
Gov’t Code §§ 53234 - 53235.
May establish council members’ salaries.
See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b). If a city
provides any type of compensation or
payment of expenses to council members,
then all council members are required to
have two hours of ethics training. See Cal.
Gov’t Code §§ 53234 - 53235.
Legislative Authority Ordinances may not be passed within five days of introduction unless they are urgency
ordinances. Cal. Gov’t Code § 36934.
Ordinances may only be passed at a regular
meeting, and must be read in full at time of
introduction and passage except when, after
reading the title, further reading is waived.
Cal. Gov't Code § 36934.
May establish procedures for enacting local
ordinances. Brougher v. Bd. of Public Works,
205 Cal. 426 (1928).
Resolutions May establish rules regarding the
procedures for adopting, amending or
repealing resolutions.
May establish procedures for adopting,
amending or repealing resolutions. Brougher
v. Bd. of Public Works, 205 Cal. 426 (1928).
Quorum and Voting
Requirements
A majority of the city council constitutes a
quorum for transaction of business. Cal.
Gov’t Code § 36810.
All ordinances, resolutions, and orders for
the payment of money require a recorded
majority vote of the total membership of the
city council. Cal. Gov't Code § 36936.
Specific legislation requires supermajority
votes for certain actions.
May establish own procedures and quorum
requirements. However, certain legislation
requiring supermajority votes is applicable to
charter cities. For example, see California
Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.240
requiring a vote of two-thirds of all the
members of the governing body unless a
greater vote is required by charter.
Characteristic General Law City Charter City
Rules Governing
Procedure and Decorum
Ralph Brown Act is applicable. Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 54951, 54953(a).
Conflict of interest laws are applicable. See
Cal. Gov’t Code § 87300 et seq..
Ralph Brown Act is applicable. Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 54951, 54953(a).
Conflict of interest laws are applicable. See
Cal. Gov’t Code § 87300 et seq..
May provide provisions related to ethics,
conflicts, campaign financing and
incompatibility of office.
Personnel Matters May establish standards, requirements and procedures for hiring personnel consistent
with Government Code requirements.
May have “civil service” system, which
includes comprehensive procedures for
recruitment, hiring, testing and promotion.
See Cal. Gov't Code § 45000 et seq.
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act applies. Cal. Gov't
Code § 3500.
Cannot require employees be residents of
the city, but can require them to reside within
a reasonable and specific distance of their
place of employment. Cal. Const. art. XI, §
10(b).
May establish standards, requirements, and
procedures, including compensation, terms
and conditions of employment for personnel.
See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).
Procedures set forth in Meyers-Milias-Brown
Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 3500) apply, but note,
“[T]here is a clear distinction between the
substance of a public employee labor issue
and the procedure by which it is resolved.
Thus there is no question that 'salaries of
local employees of a charter city constitute
municipal affairs and are not subject to
general laws.'” Voters for Responsible
Retirement v. Board of Supervisors, 8
Cal.4th 765, 781 (1994).
Cannot require employees be residents of
the city, but can require them to reside within
a reasonable and specific distance of their
place of employment. Cal. Const. art. XI,
section 10(b).
Contracting Services Authority to enter into contracts to carry out necessary functions, including those
expressly granted and those implied by
necessity. See Cal. Gov't Code § 37103;
Carruth v. City of Madera, 233 Cal. App. 2d
688 (1965).
Full authority to contract consistent with
charter.
May transfer some of its functions to the
county including tax collection, assessment
collection and sale of property for nonpayment of taxes and assessments. Cal.
Gov't Code §§ 51330, 51334, 51335.
Characteristic General Law City Charter City
Public Contracts Competitive bidding required for public works contracts over $5,000. Cal. Pub. Cont. Code
§ 20162. Such contracts must be awarded to
the lowest responsible bidder. Pub. Cont.
Code § 20162. If city elects subject itself to
uniform construction accounting procedures,
less formal procedures may be available for
contracts less than $100,000. See Cal. Pub.
Cont. Code §§ 22000, 22032.
Contracts for professional services such as
private architectural, landscape architectural,
engineering, environmental, land surveying,
or construction management firms need not
be competitively bid, but must be awarded
on basis of demonstrated competence and
professional qualifications necessary for the
satisfactory performance of services. Cal.
Gov't Code § 4526.
Not required to comply with bidding statutes
provided the city charter or a city ordinance
exempts the city from such statutes, and the
subject matter of the bid constitutes a
municipal affair. Pub. Cont. Code § 1100.7;
see R & A Vending Services, Inc. v. City of
Los Angeles, 172 Cal. App. 3d 1188 (1985);
Howard Contracting, Inc. v. G.A. MacDonald
Constr. Co., 71 Cal. App. 4th 38 (1998).
Payment of Prevailing
Wages
In general, prevailing wages must be paid on
public works projects over $1,000. Cal. Lab.
Code § 1771. Higher thresholds apply
($15,000 or $25,000) if the public entity has
adopted a special labor compliance program.
See Cal. Labor Code § 1771.5(a)-(c).
Historically, charter cities have not been
bound by state law prevailing-wage
requirements so long as the project is a
municipal affair, and not one funded by state
or federal grants. Vial v. City of San Diego,
122 Cal. App. 3d 346, 348 (1981). However,
there is a growing trend on the part of the
courts and the Legislature to expand the
applicability of prevailing wages to charter
cities under an analysis that argues that the
payment of prevailing wages is a matter of
statewide concern. The California Supreme
Court currently has before them a case that
will provide the opportunity to decide
whether prevailing wage is a municipal affair
or whether it has become a matter of
statewide concern.
Characteristic General Law City Charter City
Finance and Taxing Power May impose the same kinds of taxes and assessment as charter cities. See Cal. Gov't
Code § 37100.5.
Imposition of taxes and assessments subject
to Proposition 218. Cal. Const. art.XIIIC.
Examples of common forms used in
assessment district financing include:
Improvement Act of 1911. Cal. Sts.
& High. Code § 22500 et seq..
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913.
See Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§
10000 et seq..
Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Cal.
Sts. & High. Code §§ 8500 et seq..
Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972. Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§
22500 et seq..
Benefit Assessment Act of 1982.
Cal. Gov't Code §§ 54703 et seq..
May impose business license taxes for
regulatory purposes, revenue purposes, or
both. See Cal. Gov't Code § 37101.
May not impose real property transfer tax.
See Cal. Const. art. XIIIA, § 4; Cal. Gov't
Code § 53725; but see authority to impose
documentary transfer taxes under certain
circumstances. Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §
11911(a), (c).
Have the power to tax.
Have broader assessment powers than a
general law city, as well as taxation power as
determined on a case-by case basis.
Imposition of taxes and assessments subject
to Proposition 218, Cal. Const. art. XIIIC, §
2, and own charter limitations
May proceed under a general assessment
law, or enact local assessment laws and
then elect to proceed under the local law.
See J.W. Jones Companies v. City of San
Diego, 157 Cal. App. 3d 745 (1984).
May impose business license taxes for any
purpose unless limited by state or federal
constitutions, or city charter. See Cal. Const.
art. XI, § 5.
May impose real property transfer tax; does
not violate either Cal. Const art. XIIIA or
California Government Code section 53725.
See Cohn v. City of Oakland, 223 Cal. App.
3d 261 (1990); Fielder v. City of Los
Angeles, 14 Cal. App. 4th 137 (1993).
Streets & Sidewalks State has preempted entire field of traffic control. Cal. Veh. Code § 21.
State has preempted entire field of traffic
control. Cal. Veh. Code § 21.
Penalties & Cost Recovery May impose fines, penalties and forfeitures, with a fine not exceeding $1,000. Cal. Gov’t
Code § 36901.
May enact ordinances providing for various
penalties so long as such penalties do not
exceed any maximum limits set by the
charter. County of Los Angeles v. City of Los
Angeles, 219 Cal. App. 2d 838, 844 (1963).
Characteristic General Law City Charter City
Public Utilities/Franchises May establish, purchase, and operate public works to furnish its inhabitants with electric
power. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 9(a); Cal.
Gov't Code § 39732; Cal. Pub. Util. Code §
10002.
May grant franchises to persons or
corporations seeking to furnish light, water,
power, heat, transportation or
communication services in the city to allow
use of city streets for such purposes. The
grant of franchises can be done through a
bidding process, under the Broughton Act,
Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 6001-6092, or
without a bidding process under the
Franchise Act of 1937, Cal. Pub. Util. Code
§§ 6201-6302.
May establish, purchase, and operate public
works to furnish its inhabitants with electric
power. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 9(a); Cal.
Apartment Ass’n v. City of Stockton, 80 Cal.
App. 4th 699 (2000).
May establish conditions and regulations on
the granting of franchises to use city streets
to persons or corporations seeking to furnish
light, water, power, heat, transportation or
communication services in the city.
Franchise Act of 1937 is not applicable if
charter provides. Cal. Pub. Util. Code §
6205.
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor and Agenda Date: November 4, 2025
Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Determine Whether to Place a Charter Measure on the November 2026 Ballot and, if so, Direct Staff Regarding Method of Drafting Proposed Charter Three-Year Strategic Goals
☒ Enhance the culture and environment of “A Nice Place to Live” ☐ Attract and retain revenue producing businesses
☐ Achieve fiscal stability in accordance with the 20-Year Financial Plan ☐ Attract and retain quality staff
☐ Not applicable
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Proposed for Council consideration is the question of whether to place a proposed Charter on the November 2026 ballot. If Council determines to move forward with placing a proposed Charter on the ballot, the next determination is the appropriate method of drafting the proposed Charter.
DISCUSSION:
Cities in California are internally governed by one of two forms of government. These two governance options are referenced as being either a “General Law” City or a “Chartered” City.
A General Law City has the State Legislature as its source the laws that regulate local government conduct and its ability to adopt local laws and regulations.
A Chartered City has, as the source of its local municipal laws, the locally crafted governing enactment known as its “charter”. This “charter,” which is also referenced as a city’s local “constitution,” establishes the local municipal powers and procedures to be followed by the city via its City Council’s enactments and governance decisions.
A charter, like the laws adopted by the State of California legislature, must conform to the United States and State of California Constitutions. Further, a charter city cannot override State law on “matters of Statewide concern”. A charter city is free to regulate local matters of
Charter City
November 4, 2025
“municipal concern”. These two categories are applied to each law or regulation to determine which legislative body – the City Council or the State Legislature – can adopt laws and regulations for a particular matter. There is no rigid definition for either of these categories, and they can change over time as society needs and governance demands change.
A generally accepted definition of a “matter of statewide concern,” thus requiring uniform regulation throughout the state, is a matter with broad geographic impacts and which requires uniform rules. Examples include the Vehicle Code, public utility rights of way, environmental laws, the Penal Code and State income taxes. If each city adopted different laws within those categories, enforcement and planning processes would be chaotic, if not impossible.
Anything that is not a matter of statewide concern is, by default, a local municipal affair subject to the City Council’s legislative power and decision making.
The first determination Council must make is whether to move forward with the process of becoming a charter city. Adoption of a charter can only be done by the voters. Therefore, a charter measure would need to be placed before the voters at a future election.
If Council decides to move forward with placing a measure before the voters, Council should direct staff on the appropriate method for drafting the proposed Charter. In California, cities can adopt a charter through two primary methods: (1) charter commission or (2) Councildrafted charter.
Charter Commission Method
The Charter Commission method is the more formal and time-consuming route. For this process, the City’s voters elect a charter commission. The charter commission then has the responsibility of drafting and debating the charter. A draft charter is made available for public comment. The charter is placed on the ballot and must be approved by the voters. The typical timeline using the “Charter Commission” method is 12-18 months, depending on the complexity of the charter. A simple, one paragraph charter, would be completed quicker than a complex charter.
City Council Drafting Method
The City Council drafting method is a faster and more streamlined process. The city council drafts the charter directly. The council must then hold at least two public hearings, at least 30 days apart. The City must then submit the measure to the Registrar of Voters no later than 88 days before the election. The proposed charter is placed on the ballot for voter approval. The typical timeline is 6-9 months. As a hybrid method, some cities have determined to move forward with a City Council drafted charter, utilizing the assistance of an advisory committee.
Regardless of the method used to draft the Charter, ultimately, to become a Charter City, a majority of voters must ratify the Charter at an election.
FISCAL REVIEW:
Charter City
November 4, 2025
Preparation of a simple charter is expected to cost $20,000 in legal costs, plus internal staff time. Preparation of a complex charter is expected to cost $80,000 in legal fees, plus internal staff time. The cost of adding a Charter measure to the ballot (based on 2000 words/2 pages and 4000 words/4 pages) is estimated to be $8,500 - $17,000. The cost of holding a special election is estimated at over $200,000.
The current adopted budget does not include sufficient funding for these expenditures. Budgets amendments to the FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Adopted Biennial Budget is required. The Budget Amendment appropriates $20,000 for a simple charter, or $80,000 for a complex charter, in increased expenditure appropriations in the FY 2025-26 budget in the City Attorney Professional Services account within the General Fund. Additionally, a Budget Amendment appropriates up to $17,000 in increased expenditure appropriations in the FY 2026-27 budget in the Elections Professional Services account within the General Fund. The exact amount of the additional appropriations will be determined at a later date and included with the FY 2025- 26 Mid-Year Budget update and the FY 2026-27 Budget update.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
This item has been noticed in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Additionally, the City has provided notice via the following methods:
Social media post (Facebook, Instagram, Nextdoor)
City webpage
City website ‘Newsflash’ post
City November newsletter (digital)
Mass email to various distribution list
Air on channel 3
Flyer produced in English/Vietnamese/Spanish
o Flyer distribution to the following locations/groups:
City Hall
Fountain Valley Library
Senior Center Building
Senior Living Communities
Senior Living Buildings
Senior Groups and Clubs
Rec Center Buildings
Churches
Youth Sports Leagues
Schools/PTA’s that we have contacts for
Non-Profit Community Groups
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW:
The action of determining to move forward with a ballot initiative and the method for drafting a proposed Charter will not have any foreseeable impact on the environment.
ATTORNEY REVIEW:
Charter City
November 4, 2025
The Attorneys for the City prepared this staff report.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative No. 1:
Alternative No. 2:
Determine to Place a Charter Measure on the November 2026 Ballot and Direct Staff on Method of Drafting Proposed Charter Determine Not to Place a Charter Measure on the November 2026 Ballot
Prepared by: Colin Burns, Attorney for the City
Fiscal review by: Ryan Smith, Finance Director
Approved by: Maggie Le, City Manager
Attachments:
1. General Law City v. Charter City
2. Charter Cities: A Quick Summary for the Press and
Researchers
3. Slide Deck
4. Community Survey
ATTACHMENT 2
Charter Cities: A Quick Summary for the Press and Researchers The following summary was drafted by the League of California Cities’ legal staff, in an attempt to give the press and research communities a primer on some frequently asked questions regarding charter cities.
Charter Cities vs. General Law Cities – The Basics
The California Constitution gives cities the power to become charter cities.1 The benefit of becoming a charter city is that charter cities have supreme authority over “municipal affairs.”2 In other words, a charter city’s law concerning a municipal affair will trump a state law governing the same topic.3
Cities that have not adopted a charter are general law cities. General law cities are bound by the state’s general law, even with respect to municipal affairs. Of California’s 478 cities, 108 of them are charter cities.
The charter city provision of the State Constitution, commonly referred to as the “home-rule” provision, is based on the principle that a city, rather than the state, is in the best position to know what it needs and how to satisfy those needs.4 The home-rule provision allows charter cities to conduct their own business and control their own affairs.5 A charter maximizes local control.
A city charter, in effect a city’s constitution, need not set out every municipal affair the city would like to govern. So long as the charter contains a declaration that the city intends to avail itself of the full power provided by the California Constitution, any city ordinance that regulates a municipal affair will govern over a general law of the state.6
Defining ‘Municipal Affairs’
Determining what is and is not a “municipal affair” is not always straightforward. The California Constitution does not define “municipal affair.” It does, however, set out a nonexclusive list of four “core” categories that are, by definition, municipal affairs.7 These categories are 1) regulation of the “city police force”; 2) “subgovernment in all or part of a city”; 3) “conduct of city elections”; and 4) “the manner in which . . . municipal officers [are] elected.”8 Beyond this list, it is up to the courts to determine what is and is not a municipal affair.
To determine if a matter is a municipal affair, a court will ask whether there are good reasons, grounded on statewide interests, for the state law to preempt a local law.9 In other words, courts 1 Cal. Const. art. XI, § 3(a).
2 Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(a).
3 Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal. 4th 389, 399 (1992).
4 Fragley v. Phelan, 126 Cal. 383, 387 (1899).
5 Id.
6 There are some exceptions to this rule. For example, a charter city is bound by the Public Contract Code unless the city’s charter expressly exempts the city from the Code’s provisions or a city ordinance conflicts with a provision in the Code. See Cal. Pub. Cont. Code § 1100.7.
7 Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b); Johnson, 4 Cal. 4th at 398. 8 Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).
9 Johnson, 4 Cal. 4th at 405.
will ask whether there is a need for “paramount state control” in the particular area of law.10 The Legislature’s intent when enacting a specific law is not determinative.11 The concept of “municipal affairs” is fluid and may change over time.12 Issues that are municipal affairs today could become areas of statewide concern in the future.13 Nonetheless, there are some areas that courts have consistently classified as municipal affairs. These include:
Municipal election matters14
Land use and zoning decisions (with some exceptions)15 How a city spends its tax dollars16
Municipal contracts, provided the charter or a city ordinance exempts the city from the Public Contract Code, and the subject matter of the bid constitutes a municipal affair.17 Thus, a charter may exempt a city from the State’s competitive bidding statutes.
Likewise, there are some areas that courts have consistently classified as areas of statewide concern, including:
Traffic and vehicle regulation18
Tort claims against a governmental entity19
Regulation of school systems20
How to Become a Charter City
To become a charter city, a city must adopt a charter. There are two ways to adopt a charter:
The city’s voters elect a charter commission.21 The commission has the responsibility of drafting and debating the charter.
The governing board of the city, on its own motion, drafts the charter.22 In either case, the charter is not adopted by the city until it is ratified by a majority vote of the city's voters.23
For more information about charter cities, please visit the “Charter Cities” section of the League’s Web site at http://www.cacities.org/chartercities.
10 Id. at 400.
11 Id. at 405.
12 Cal. Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal. 3d 1, 16 (1991); Isaac v. City of Los Angeles, 66 Cal.
App. 4th 586, 599 (1998).
13 Isaac, 66 Cal. App. 4th at 599.
14 Mackey v. Thiel, 262 Cal. App. 2d 362, 365 (1968).
15 See Brougher v. Bd. of Pub. Works, 205 Cal. 426, 440 (1928). 16 Johnson, 4 Cal. 4th at 407.
17 Pub. Cont. Code § 1100.7; R & A Vending Services, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 172 Cal. App. 3d 1188, 1191 (1985); Howard Contracting, Inc. v. G.A. MacDonald Constr. Co., 71 Cal. App. 4th 38, 51 (1998). 18 Cal. Veh. Code § 21.
19 Helbach v. City of Long Beach, 50 Cal. App. 2d 242, 247 (1942). 20 Whisman v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 86 Cal. App. 3d 782, 789 (1978). 21 Cal. Gov’t Code § 34451.
22 Cal. Gov’t Code § 34458.
23 Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 34457, 34462.
Two Types of Cities
General Law Cities
• City that has not adopted
charter
• Bound by State’s General
Laws, including Laws
Pertaining to “Municipal
Affairs”
Charter Cities
• Cal Const. Provides Authority
to Adopt “Charter”
• Charter City Has Supreme
Authority Over “Municipal
Affairs”
• City Law Trumps State Law
Pertaining to Municipal Affair
California Charter
Cities
121 of 482 California cities have charters
Including
Cal Const.
Art XI sec.
5(a)
It shall be competent in any city charter to
provide that the city governed thereunder
may make and enforce all ordinances and
regulations in respect to municipal affairs,
subject only to restrictions and limitations
provided in their several charters and in
respect to other matters they shall be subject
to general laws. City charters adopted
pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede
any existing charter, and with respect to
municipal affairs shall supersede all laws
inconsistent therewith.
• Charter cities have constitutional authority to
regulate “municipal affairs.” Four areas are
designated “core municipal affairs”:
• (1) city police force
• (2) subgovernment of a city
• (3) city elections
• (4) manner and method of appointment,
compensation, removal, qualifications, tenure,
etc., for municipal officers and employees
• Matters falling within the core areas are municipal
affairs
• Areas that fall outside the four “core municipal affairs” may still be classified as “municipal affairs”; however, a case-by-case analysis
• (1) Is there an actual conflict between a state statute and a charter city law?; • (2) Does the charter city law implicate a municipal affair?; • (3) Does state law implicate a “matter of statewide concern”?; • (4) Is the state law reasonably related and narrowly tailored to resolving the statewide concern?
Areas Found Municipal
Affairs
• How a city spends its tax dollars
• Municipal contracts.
• Land use and zoning decisions (with recent
exceptions)
Fiscal Control
- Contracting for Services
- Competitive Bidding
- Prevailing Wages
- Finance and Assessments
- Penalties and Cost Recovery
Areas Found
Statewide
Concerns
• Traffic and vehicle regulation
• Tort claims against a governmental
entity
• Regulation of school systems
• Ethics and Open Government (Brown
Act / Political Reform Act Conflict
Laws)
CHARTER
LITIGATION
Win Some, Lose Some
Elections
Charter Cities have authority to
use alternative voting systems,
such as cumulative voting.
Public
Contracting
Charter cities are not required to
comply with competitive bidding
statutes provided the charter or a
city ordinance exempts the city from
such statutes, and the subject
matter of the bid constitutes a
municipal affair. Pub. Cont. Code §
1100.7; see R & A Vending
Services, Inc. v. City of Los
Angeles, 172 Cal. App. 3d 1188
(1985)
Prevailing
Wages
Charter cities may pass legislation
which provides that city contractors
are not required to pay prevailing
wages. State Building and
Construction Trades Council vs. City
of Vista.
But … SB 7
Labor Code 1782
• “A charter city shall not receive or use State
funding or financial assistance for a
construction project if the city has a charter
provision or ordinance that authorizes a contractor
to not comply with the provisions of [the Prevailing
Wages] article on any public works contract.”
• “State funding or financial assistance includes
direct state funding, state loans and loan
guarantees, state tax credits, and any other type of
state financial support for a construction project.
State funding or financial assistance does not
include revenues that charter cities are entitled to
receive without conditions under the California
Constitution.”
• FV Budgeted Annual Revenue
• State
• Gas Tax $1,667,757 (Not
Available)
• SB1 $1,534,883 (Not
Available)
• AQMD $75,000 (Not Available)
• Cal Recycle $30,000 (Not Available)
• Total $3,307,640
Voter Identification
Huntington Beach prevailed in litigation over voter
identification.
2024, Measure A amended Huntington Beach charter to
require photo identification for municipal elections.
State filed a lawsuit arguing Measure A conflicts with state law.
The state claimed voter ID laws are a matter
Orange County Superior Court dismissed lawsuit, ruling that the case was not ripe and finding no immediate conflict between the city charter and state election law.
State appealed.
Access to Library Materials
Huntington Beach Loss for Restricting Minor’s Access to Library Books Containing “Sexual Content.”
California “Freedom to Read Act” provides library materials may include sexual content, unless obscene.
Huntington Beach passed Resolution requiring library books with “sexual content” be placed in adults only area.
Minor challenged Resolution.
Huntington Beach argued State’s “Freedom to Read Act”
could not override City’s charter authority.
2025 Trial court ruled against the City: holding access to books in library is not a “municipal affair”
Planning and Zoning
Five cities successfully challenged
Senate Bill 9 (4-plex law) as
unconstitutional as applied to charter
cities. The justification for SB 9 –
encouraging affordable housing, was
not supported because nothing in SB
9 requires the units to be affordable.
General law cities must still comply
with SB 9. City of Redondo Beach, et
al., v. Rob Bonta (2024).
Huntington Beach Housing Litigation
July 2015: Kennedy Commission lawsuit –
Huntington Beach prevails in argument that it was
exempt as charter city from restoring affordable units
removed from Housing Element.
August 2018: Legislature responds by passing SB
1333 – Requiring charter cities comply with state
planning and zoning laws.
January 2019: Gov. Newsom initiated state lawsuit
against Huntington Beach over 2015 decision to
eliminate affordable housing units. State also
withheld grant funding and Huntington Beach
decided to add affordable units.
Huntington Beach
Housing Litigation
January-September 2019: Huntington Beach
filed three lawsuits against the state arguing
SB 1333 is invalid and that three new state
housing laws shouldn’t apply to charter cities.
State prevailed.
In October 2021, an Orange County Superior
Court judge rejected Huntington Beach’s claim
that charter
March 2023: Huntington Beach filed a federal
lawsuit against the state, arguing SB 1333 and
the state’s homebuilding mandates are invalid.
cities aren’t subject to the Housing
Accountability Act. State prevailed.
Huntington Beach Housing Litigation
September 2025: Court of Appeal
ruled against Huntington Beach
- Ordered Huntington Beach to
adopt Housing Element within
120 days
- Limited Huntington Beach’s
authority over permitting new
construction
- Found both remedies may be
applied against a Charter City to
compel compliance with Housing
Element Law
Times for Different Methods of Charter
Adoption
Two Methods to Draft-Prepare City Charter
1. Charter Commission
2. City Council Drafted
Charter
Commissio
n
• Formal
• Time Consuming
• City Council Initiated
• Voter election to select 15 candidates
• Commission meets over several months to
draft a charter
• Meetings must comply with Brown Act
City
Council
Timeline
• Faster
• Streamlined
• City Council meetings to discuss draft charter (September 2025 – January 2026 [Simple, 1-Paragraph Charter])
• Solicit input from ad hoc committee or advisory group (September 2025 – January 2026 )
• City Council holds two public hearings (at least 30 days apart) on proposed Charter. (February 2026 – April 2026)
• Public Outreach (with FPPC Pre-Approval) (April 2026 -November 2026) • City submits charter measure to Registrar of Voters no later than 88 days before the November election. (July 21, 2026)
• Proposed charter placed on the ballot for voter approval (November 2026) • Post Election – City files Charter with Secretary of State
Proposed Charter Language
[T]he [C]ity [of Fountain Valley, governed under this charter,] … may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in [this] charter[,] and in respect to other matters [the City of Fountain Valley] shall be subject to general laws.
The City of Fountain Valley hereby avails itself of the full charter power provided by the California Constitution. Any city ordinance or regulation regarding a municipal affair will govern over the general law of the state.
Cost of Becoming Charter City
Simple Charter
Attorney Fees - $20,000 (preparation of
ballot materials, voter outreach assistance,
correspond with FPPC, research of outreach
rules and limitations)
Election $8,500 - $17,000 (General) vs.
$200,000 (Special)
Staff time
Complex Charter
Attorney Fees - $80,000 (multiple additional
meetings and charter drafting sessions)
Election $8,500 - $17,000 (General) vs.
$200,000 (Special)
Staff time
Cost of Becoming Charter City
Cost of
Litigation Complex Writs
Third Party Attorney Fees
(Kennedy Commission
$500,000 attorney fee award)
Potential Savings – Economy of
Scale with Multi-Agency
Participation
Arguments For / Against
• Pros
• Greater Local Control
• Flexibility in Elections and Governance
• Control Over Land Use and Contracts
• Fiscal Control
• Cons
• Reduced State Oversight
• Labor and Community Pushback
• Legal Uncertainties / State Conflicts (Additional Litigation Costs) • Charter Inflexibility (More of Problem with Complex Charters)
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (September 15 - October 7)
65.43% 106
25.31% 41
9.26% 15
Q1 Are you familiar with what a charter city is?
Answered: 162 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 162
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes, I
understand it
well.
I've heard of
it, but not
sure what it...
No, I don't
know what it
is.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes, I understand it well.
I've heard of it, but not sure what it means.
No, I don't know what it is.
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (September 15 - October 7)
32.72% 53
45.06% 73
22.22% 36
Q2 Do you support the idea of the City of Fountain Valley becoming a charter city?
Answered: 162 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 162
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Not sure /
Need more
information
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not sure / Need more information
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (September 15 - October 7) Q3 What are your main concerns or hopes about becoming a charter city? Answered: 124 Skipped: 39
# RESPONSES DATE
1 A waste of money 10/29/2025 10:06 AM
2 There is no substantial benefit that would outweigh the cost associated with becoming a charter city.
10/29/2025 9:40 AM
3 Higher, unnecessary cost to maintain a charter city. Fountain Valley does not have the same level of tax revenue that Huntington Beach has. I’m afraid we would not be able to support such a structure. I would rather have our tax dollars go to maintaining our roads, events, community needs rather than paying for more staff in order to setup and maintain a charter city. The current structure has served us well.
10/29/2025 8:57 AM
4 Cost versus benefits, it’s not worth the legal fees to set up and maintain. 10/28/2025 9:26 AM 5 Autonomy 10/28/2025 7:19 AM
6 I hope Fountain Valley will still remain: “A Nice Place to Live” 10/27/2025 5:21 PM 7 Not sure what the benefits and/or losses are included. 10/27/2025 3:11 PM 8 Freedom from Newsoms forced housing mandates for a non-existant and fabricated housing shortage. Shut down all developments and start to bring back trees and vegetation to our City.. 10/26/2025 6:20 PM
9 It seems the only way to push back against Sacramento's overreach. I want to protect our residential zoning laws!
10/26/2025 3:20 PM
10 Why not? 10/26/2025 1:10 PM
11 It’s wasting city tax dollars and giving too much control to the city council. Mayor Bui when you were first elected to city council the first thing on your agenda was to remodel your office at the expense of residents. Then shortly after you ran for a state assembly or senator I can remember which but you didn’t make it out of the primary. This charter city idea is your idea and no doubt if successful will be slapped on your bio when you attempt to run for another political office. Being a charter city will not benefit residents it will only benefit Mayor Bui and the other useless council members that are in support of it. 10/26/2025 10:00 AM
12 Not being restricted by the state government of CA. 10/25/2025 7:40 PM 13 Wrongly leading people to believe the City will fight Sacramento. Cities have spent alot of taxpayer money fighting Newsom. It is wrong to lead people to believe we will do the same. 10/25/2025 4:02 PM
14 NO on Charter City! STOP wasting time & $$$$. NO!!! 10/25/2025 3:59 PM 15 To protect local control, although steadfastly against switch to OCPA 10/25/2025 3:29 PM 16 It would make it easier for extremists to get more power. 10/25/2025 2:48 PM 17 Not having to follow the ridiculous rules set forth by the governor 10/25/2025 1:56 PM 18 Since this survey is shared on social media and uses voluntary response sampling rather than random sampling, it only represents the opinions of those who respond, and cannot be generalized to a larger population, such as everyone in Fountain Valley. 10/25/2025 10:45 AM
19 Lawsuits. And becoming more like Huntington Beach, which is a disaster. 10/25/2025 9:07 AM 20 Hopes: some separation from Newsom’s agenda, less dense housing, ability to do what makes sense for fountain valley
10/25/2025 7:50 AM
21 None 10/24/2025 10:38 PM
22 Go against Sacramento’s orders 10/24/2025 8:33 PM
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (September 15 - October 7) 23 As a charter city how far afield can we go. Don’t want to turn into Huntington Beach 10/24/2025 8:15 PM 24 None 10/24/2025 3:52 PM
25 We take control of our destiny 10/24/2025 12:41 PM
26 It will cost a lot of money and not really help the city that much. It will not be worth the amount of cost and effort.
10/24/2025 12:18 PM
27 I like the fact of being more in control of State Infrastructure demands, but concerned with how the city will handle it on their own.
10/24/2025 11:22 AM
28 Could a pro/con list be published so I could see the key points? What provisions would change and what are the ramifications? I'm sure these have been discussed, but I would like to see it in writing.
10/23/2025 4:32 PM
29 My hope is that becoming a charter city would give us more local control to make decisions that truly serve our residents. I’m concerned that when the state dictates policies—especially those promoting high-density housing and over-building—it limits our ability to govern in a way that protects the character, safety, and well-being of our community. I believe our city should have the freedom to address issues like homelessness, drug activity, and responsible growth in ways that reflect what’s best for our residents.
10/23/2025 4:08 PM
30 While not inherently good or bad, setting up a charter city is an extra expense, is unlikely to provide any benefit & could be a financial liability eg HB. “If it’s not broken don’t fix it” comes to mind! Show me what’s broken otherwise I suspect that there are unspoken political motives that the last city council meeting should have made clear are not conducive to FV remaining “a nice place to live”. Let’s talk about it but don’t put it on the ballot just yet!! 10/23/2025 1:28 PM
31 I think it gives too much authority to council members. Also, I’m afraid that this idea has developed from a wish to control state housing requirements and the city will end up in legal wrangling like HB. Is there any other reason for becoming a charter city? 10/22/2025 10:10 PM
32 Why not? 10/22/2025 9:42 PM
33 None, bad idea. 10/22/2025 9:23 PM
34 I do not want it to be private nor break away from being a compliant law abiding public government agency with due process.
10/22/2025 9:13 PM
35 That the state will not harass the city as they have with H.B. 10/22/2025 7:33 PM 36 Too costly. Allows for special interests to assert their will behind closed doors (like what happened in NB allowing so many houses to convert to rehab facilities. ) Can be very political and decisive and make FV not a nice place to live (similar to what is happening in HB). 10/22/2025 6:28 PM
37 More local government control! 10/22/2025 5:37 PM
38 By being a charter city, the city can have more control over its municipal affairs and autonomy over the state. The state is currently taking more local controls away from the city, the people, and eroding the democratic process. The city and the public should have as much oversight of how they want their city to be run, what local zoning is adopted and how much development should be permitted.
10/22/2025 4:28 PM
39 Extra costs for insurance, legal defense 10/22/2025 4:22 PM 40 Cost, and what the SPECIFIC advantages are. 10/22/2025 2:50 PM 41 Impact on our city. What is the advantages/disadvantages 10/22/2025 2:35 PM 42 No one at the city has be able to articulate what FV would do different to benefit with this change. This will cost the city money to change for this and annual costs to maintain it. Also I really do not want to put. Hat additional power into the councils hands. This is a small city and these are part time jobs with no prior qualifications necessary, just votes. there is a perception that we can push back more on state housing legislation and I believe that is just false hope.
See how HB is doing in this area.
10/22/2025 2:23 PM
43 I am not sure that by changing to a charter city it will help FV. We are doing just fine now. 10/22/2025 2:21 PM 44 More cost to taxpayers, more opportunities for corruption. 10/22/2025 2:12 PM
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (September 15 - October 7) 45 Like Huntington Beach more free to make City decisions wothout people like Gavn Newsom intervening at will!
10/22/2025 1:43 PM
46 To get out of the Democratic regime. 10/22/2025 9:38 AM 47 Want authority and flexibility to do what’s best for OUR city vs what the state is forcing upon us.
10/21/2025 9:18 PM
48 Raising taxes and fees. 10/19/2025 3:48 PM
49 That we can get around the horrible mandates that the state says we must do. 10/19/2025 1:25 PM 50 After the council looked at this for 7 months and two town hall meetings. No one can provide a concrete reason why Fountain Valley should do this. If in the future there is a good reason we can revisit the idea.
10/19/2025 11:45 AM
51 The cost to litigate. 10/18/2025 9:46 PM
52 more local control and more local management 10/18/2025 8:35 PM 53 Costs. It won’t change anything 10/18/2025 3:11 PM
54 Our current council is not adept enough to support the higher level. 10/18/2025 2:31 PM 55 Bad actors coming into the city and creating corrupt policies that are anti-American. 10/18/2025 7:36 AM 56 Seems too easy to ignore state guidelines 10/17/2025 4:07 PM 57 SB 9 and SB 79 10/15/2025 4:49 PM
58 I foresee endless expensive lawsuits if we go charter. It will drain the city’s financial resources and lead to contentious debate and bad publicity.
10/15/2025 7:09 AM
59 To have the authority to limit extra building on residential lots so that Fountain Valley does not become a barrio slum.
10/14/2025 12:40 PM
60 mandated low cost housing by the State zoneing reglation controlled by the State 10/14/2025 1:20 AM 61 City leaders will have more flexible authorities to decide what are bests for the city residences. 10/13/2025 7:05 PM 62 At minimum addressing the overdevelopment that is straining the city infrastructure and negatively impacting our quality of life.
10/9/2025 9:12 PM
63 Hope for more control for the city over the state government 10/9/2025 12:32 AM 64 Need more information 10/8/2025 2:36 PM
65 How well equipped is Fountain Valley to handle the undertaking and what it means to be a charter city.
10/8/2025 7:47 AM
66 FV is a great city, and has been since its inception. So I don't understand why we need to make this big change. What problem does it address? Our neighbors who are charter cities don't seem to benefit. In fact, they spend money on lawsuits and propositions. FV doesn't need that.
10/6/2025 4:07 PM
67 Ability to locally legislate land use and zoning for Fountain Valley. 10/6/2025 2:41 PM 68 Can’t see the benefit 10/6/2025 1:43 PM
69 Funding for wducation 10/6/2025 11:57 AM
70 I've see what has happened to Huntington Beach and how off-the-rails the city council has become since becoming a charter city. I do not want to see Fountain Valley change and become an unhinged right-wing super conservative city like HB. 10/6/2025 9:03 AM
71 What do we lose and what do we gain- pros and cons 10/6/2025 8:28 AM 72 Housing!!! 10/6/2025 7:37 AM
73 I am concerned about the cost associated with becoming and maintaining a well run city under the charter city model.
10/6/2025 5:59 AM
74 Will become too confusing with different laws and rules. Too much government as it is. 10/5/2025 10:25 PM
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (September 15 - October 7) 75 Regulate housing mandates. Have some control over our city. Sacramento shouldn’t control local government.
10/5/2025 5:55 PM
76 We shouldn’t be divided within our state. 10/5/2025 4:50 PM 77 Greater costs to the city? 10/5/2025 4:48 PM
78 Advantages vs disadvantages 10/5/2025 3:06 PM
79 State mandated programs could be “vetoed” locally, such as ADU’s, multi-story apartments, sober houses, etc
10/5/2025 2:47 PM
80 Cost 10/5/2025 2:45 PM
81 Can’t give concern need more information. 10/5/2025 1:22 PM 82 Who’s the ones making the decisions in the oversight of the city 10/5/2025 10:35 AM 83 The governance. 10/3/2025 7:57 PM
84 Current city council do not listen to the public of FV and make decisions based on their own agenda. They make poor deacons already and they’re rude to residents. 10/2/2025 6:37 AM
85 We have a lack of affordable housing all across the county and I'm afraid his is to avoid dealing with the problem.
10/1/2025 4:59 PM
86 Concentrated local power with limited public inputs and reduced oversight. Cost it takes to draft and adopt charter. Lack of benefit moving to charter. Why is s this up for discussion now? Look at HB being charter city and its legal fees fighting the state on affordable housing.
Taxpayers will be paying for that.
10/1/2025 4:30 PM
87 Rules more relaxed for ADUs. Minority groups running the city without adequate immput. 10/1/2025 3:45 PM 88 Less state control. Not happy with all the mandated housing requirements . And also bad choices by the city council. Do not believe traffic surveys are incorrect. 10/1/2025 3:41 PM
89 Same old city council! 10/1/2025 2:32 PM
90 I have not heard of a good reason to become one 9/30/2025 10:22 PM 91 Too many to write here 9/30/2025 8:30 PM
92 After reviewing the minutes of the various city council meetings and study sessions on the topic of charter cities, I did not see a fiscal or practical comparative analysis of charter cities vs. general law cities. Furthermore, I did not see whether cities such as Anaheim and Irvine actually benefitted from becoming charter cities. Where is the Before and After comparison chart? Did Irvine's tax base improve greatly after becoming a charter city? Were Anaheim's property values abysmal before becoming a charter city? Did more people want to move to Fullerton because it became a charter city? Are Westminster's current political scandals due to their being a charter city? The City Council needs to do this comparative before/after fiscal analysis before it spends any more of its time and resources pursuing this idea of FV becoming a charter city.
9/30/2025 8:27 PM
93 Why change? The folks wanting the change MUST justify the expense. Tying our city to the craziness of HB is not in FV residents best interest. Do your due diligence 9/30/2025 7:54 PM
94 I am concerned that future city councils will not be fully transparent in making municipal decisions for the city.
9/30/2025 7:03 PM
95 Message to residents MUST include that the City of Fountain Valley DOES NOT intend to spend millions suing the State of California. We are NOT Huntington Beach!! 9/30/2025 5:52 PM
96 FYI Cerritos Long Beach Huntington Beach Newport Beach Irvine Carlsbad San Diego Are all charter cities. I lived in all above cities before.
9/29/2025 8:13 PM
97 Concern - Taking guardrails off city council to do whatever they want. Budget $ being spent on things residents don’t want or need. Residents having less say in what goes on in the city. City going bankrupt and asking residents for bailout or another tax increase on top of the one we already have.
9/29/2025 3:43 PM
98 Being a charter city will increase operating costs, especially legal costs. I would rather spend taxpayer dollars on improved services and facilities rather than on lawyers. 9/28/2025 3:20 PM
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (September 15 - October 7) 99 Not necessary for our small city. The only way to get extra rights as a charter is to take legal action, which is expensive. Requires elections and a vote of the people to change a charter-- another expense. FV has been a nice place to live for nearly 70 years as a general law city, and it should stay that way.
9/28/2025 3:02 PM
100 I have seen the mess in Huntington Beach being a Charter City. Lots of money being spent suing the state for things the elected officials feel they don’t have to abide by because they are a Charter City.
9/28/2025 1:05 PM
101 Revoking voters authority 9/25/2025 8:38 PM
102 My concern would be if the masses would make changes that end up hurting certain populations in the city rather than helping them.
9/24/2025 12:30 PM
103 I prefer the way our city has run over the last 33 years that we’ve lived in the city 9/23/2025 3:46 PM 104 Litigation costs with no benefit to residents. The lawyers\consultants pushing this have an agenda.
9/23/2025 7:30 AM
105 We don’t want to be Huntington Beach…….No need Fountain Valley a great place to live! 9/22/2025 7:13 PM 106 I prefer to follow California state rules & regulations , i believe in our democratic Governor in fighting for our freedom against dictator & discrimination 9/22/2025 4:38 PM
107 A small group of Representatives, deciding how our city will be run. At least with the state of California there is much more input.
9/22/2025 3:33 PM
108 Waste of money. FV is not HB. It does not have a City Attorney, nor does it have funds to pursue or defend legal action against the state when the inevitable happens and the grand ideas of those in favor of being a charter city fail. FV needs to get back to basics. Work with the state to make the city safe, including ending homelessness within FV borders and supporting robust police and fire departments. Charter city status is one of the worst ideas I’ve heard come from city leaders, and that’s saying a lot.
9/22/2025 3:10 PM
109 More local control 9/21/2025 5:13 PM
110 Not all citizens will be heard 9/20/2025 7:45 PM
111 Would being a charter city mean we get no help from the state if we needed? 9/19/2025 10:29 PM 112 Don't fix what isn't broken! 9/19/2025 8:32 PM
113 Ability to govern as we need 9/19/2025 6:50 AM
114 Corruption, embezzlement, racial profiling, discrimination, and increasing unreported crimes due to duress.
9/18/2025 1:08 AM
115 We need to follow state rules. This is a very bad idea. 9/17/2025 8:02 PM 116 Too much power for the city and city council, lack of trust 9/16/2025 3:32 PM 117 I hope that we can take care of our needs as a city, outside of mandates of the state that doesn’t care about our city. For example, mandatory HDH. This is going to cause congestion.
A bigger drain on electricity and resources. Ever since EV cars showed up, we are having a LOT more power outages. Correlation is not causation, but still! We need to manage our resources as a CITY, not be managed by entities as far away as in another state (or country if in other parts of the world).
9/16/2025 1:53 PM
118 Greater control over local issues. But what are the costs? 9/16/2025 8:57 AM 119 Maintaining local control 9/15/2025 10:46 PM
120 Distrust of city leadership 9/15/2025 9:48 PM
121 Fighting back against the city ruining housing mandates that are being used to force stack and pack housing in every inch of open land with zero regard how it impacts existing residents and the city’s infrastructure
9/15/2025 7:48 PM
122 Not confident in city’s ability to manage costs and complexity. 9/15/2025 5:05 PM 123 Tremendous effort by staff with very little if anything to gain 9/15/2025 4:47 PM
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (September 15 - October 7) 124 it will cost money in the long run & we will not benefit as a city. 9/15/2025 2:18 PM
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (September 15 - October 7)
13.16% 20
18.42% 28
14.47% 22
21.05% 32
14.47% 22
18.42% 28
Q4 How would you like to receive more information on this topic? Answered: 152 Skipped: 11
TOTAL 152
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Facebook 10/26/2025 1:10 PM
2 Email 10/25/2025 7:40 PM
3 Reach the whole city as people should know 10/25/2025 4:02 PM 4 all of the above 10/25/2025 3:29 PM
5 Email 10/24/2025 8:15 PM
6 email 10/23/2025 1:50 PM
7 As many of the above as possible. 10/22/2025 4:28 PM
8 All of the above 10/22/2025 2:50 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Public
meetings or
town halls
City website
updates
Social media
Printed mail
or flyers
City newsletter
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Public meetings or town halls
City website updates
Social media
Printed mail or flyers
City newsletter
Other (please specify)
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (September 15 - October 7) 9 All of these. 10/22/2025 2:09 PM
10 All of above- let’s make change happen 10/21/2025 9:18 PM 11 I think you need to need to promote via multiple sources 10/19/2025 1:25 PM 12 All above 10/15/2025 4:49 PM
13 Face boo, 10/13/2025 7:05 PM
14 A combination of the above; meetings, social media and website updates 10/8/2025 7:47 AM 15 For some reason, you don't allow us to pick more than one choice. I pick Social Media, Printed Mail and City Newsletter.
10/6/2025 9:03 AM
16 Someone who really knows the difference 10/6/2025 8:28 AM 17 All of the above. 10/5/2025 4:48 PM
18 Email 9/30/2025 10:22 PM
19 All of the above 9/30/2025 8:30 PM
20 Drop the effort 9/30/2025 7:54 PM
21 All of the above 9/30/2025 7:03 PM
22 All the above, especially mail to residents. 9/30/2025 5:52 PM 23 All above 9/29/2025 8:13 PM
24 Why don’t we have a city newsletter? 9/21/2025 5:13 PM 25 Email 9/19/2025 6:50 AM
26 Mail 9/16/2025 1:53 PM
27 Public meetings, emails, printed mailers, city newsletters 9/15/2025 10:46 PM 28 Email 9/15/2025 7:48 PM
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (October 1 - October 29)
67.06% 57
27.06% 23
5.88% 5
Q1 Are you familiar with what a charter city is?
Answered: 85 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 85
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes, I
understand it
well.
I've heard of
it, but not
sure what it...
No, I don't
know what it
is.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes, I understand it well.
I've heard of it, but not sure what it means.
No, I don't know what it is.
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (October 1 - October 29)
48.24% 41
35.29% 30
16.47% 14
Q2 Do you support the idea of the City of Fountain Valley becoming a charter city?
Answered: 85 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 85
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Not sure /
Need more
information
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not sure / Need more information
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (October 1 - October 29) Q3 What are your main concerns or hopes about becoming a charter city? Answered: 65 Skipped: 20
# RESPONSES DATE
1 more city council control for their own interests and biases 10/29/2025 4:44 PM 2 It seems smart, but HB is having problems and financial issues. 10/29/2025 4:42 PM 3 Fountain Valley 10/29/2025 4:14 PM
4 Possible expenses incurred as a result of the effort to become a Charter city, as well as subsequent expenses. Additionally, there may be additional legal fees incurred which the citizens of FV may be responsible for.
10/29/2025 4:08 PM
5 What are the pros and cons besides we can do our own thing- how does that work 10/29/2025 3:47 PM 6 We can choose our actions. 10/29/2025 3:06 PM
7 Becoming a charter city can save money but it can also open up FV to lawsuits and other legal issues. FV should continue to operate with good faith and should not become a charter city, which would allow them not to pay prevailing wage for projects and would affect the bidding process. If one of the reasons for exploring the issue is the state's housing laws, becoming a charter city would not help negate our responsibility to find and build more affordable and dense housing.
10/29/2025 2:58 PM
8 That we the people are in control more 10/29/2025 2:41 PM 9 Too many to list. 10/29/2025 2:15 PM
10 Not needed 10/29/2025 2:15 PM
11 Could Fountain Valley NOT be a Sanctuary City? We need to Stop preferring illegals and just take care of tax-paying, law-abiding citizens .
10/29/2025 1:38 PM
12 help eliminate unlawful mandates by Newsom and Dems 10/29/2025 1:07 PM 13 Way too likely to become political.. 10/29/2025 10:27 AM 14 Ability to self manage 10/29/2025 9:23 AM
15 To much single responsibility 10/28/2025 6:01 PM
16 It's a small city, live with it! We aren't Huntington Beach or Anaheim. The current mayor has big dreams and aspirations.
10/28/2025 4:59 PM
17 Joining with HB/. Putting much power in the hands of CC 10/28/2025 4:05 PM 18 The costs to challenge State legislation in order to achieve city-level changes will be exorbitant and ultimately be passed on to FV residents. There are other ways to achieve city goals beyond Charter.
10/28/2025 1:23 PM
19 Money and history of local cities who have become charter cities (ie Huntington Beach) 10/28/2025 12:48 PM 20 Slow demand housing and focus on infrastructure problems that the demand has created. 10/28/2025 12:15 PM 21 Cities should follow established laws and not leave room for lawlessness to take over. 10/28/2025 11:05 AM 22 This is not necessary. Anything done will require money spent in legal fees and staff time, without a clear long term benefit to the city and its residents. Also, the change to a charter city can be undone by future council bodies, creating a situation where this is nothing more than a moment in time decision based off of current political priorities. We elect our council members to consider the long term impacts of decisions, and not the flavor of the month. Let's focus on things that matter more.
10/28/2025 9:27 AM
23 Litigation costs. CA will push back on any meaningful provisions of the charter and will 10/28/2025 9:01 AM
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (October 1 - October 29) probably win like they always do. We will be stuck with legal bills. Also, I don’t think the Mayor is being transparent about his intentions, as he would not answer direct questions about this during the first town hall.
24 This let's the city voters have a voice vs being controlled by the state. I'm in favor of this. 10/28/2025 8:48 AM 25 All Asians running city. English not being required. Hope gender and education issued handled locally
10/28/2025 8:09 AM
26 What laws will change 10/28/2025 7:47 AM
27 GIVING MORE FALSE HOPE TO THE COMMUNITY. RESIDENTS ARE VERY CONFUSED
ABIUT THE MAYOR SETTING THE APPEALS MEETINGS FOR THE EUCLID AND WARNER DEVELOPMENT AND THE WARNER AND MAGNOLIA DEVELOPMENT. HE
ALSO KEPT SAYING HE DIDN'T WANT TO DERAIL OR STOP THE PROJECTS, SO THAT'S WHY RESIDENTS ARE CONFUSED. FIGHTING NEWSOM IS USELESS AND COSTLY.
10/23/2025 10:57 AM
28 How much local bureaucracy will be layered into getting things done in our city. But I like that it could render FV more independent from CA State restrictions like HB is. 10/23/2025 10:35 AM
29 Rent is going to go up and prices on everything yet the amount of homelessness is ridiculous.
There’s not enough parking, and everything is getting worse. This is not the same fountain valley and “safe place to live in” as it was 5 years ago or from 2016. 10/19/2025 8:28 PM
30 More control for our local government. We will be able to decide what is best for our city, regarding to municipal matters.
10/19/2025 1:51 PM
31 I don’t support becoming a charter city because I value consistency with state law and accountability.
10/18/2025 12:35 PM
32 Our own city is better. We want to make our own decisions 10/18/2025 12:20 PM 33 More local control. 10/18/2025 11:57 AM
34 Maintaining the character of Fountain Valley and not let the state tell us what to do 10/18/2025 11:55 AM 35 Maintaining the character of our city 10/18/2025 11:54 AM 36 More local control 10/18/2025 11:45 AM
37 My hope is that we will be able to stand by our city's values of law and order, and support our national guard, local police officers, and ICE. I hope that it will allow Fountain Valley residents to have more of a voice in our local affairs, just as it has for cities like Huntington Beach. 10/18/2025 11:13 AM
38 Why is this necessary? 10/17/2025 2:25 PM
39 Not needed in Fountain Valley. There are other ways to deal with proposed laws that the city may be opposed to. Work through state representatives to seek a compromise. I feel that this move is politically motivated and not in the best interest of Fountain Valley 10/17/2025 10:25 AM
40 1. Better handle transient matters 10/16/2025 11:47 PM 41 1. It's pointless; 2. The path as proposed (the "cheap and quick" route) is lacking community input and has no relation to the city's values or strategic plan; 3. There continues to be zero indication why the advocates of adopting charter status want to convert the city to a charter city, how doing so would somehow improve the strategic operations of the city, how much additional cost would be shouldered by the city by making the change, and why we should pursue the abbreviated "just adopt a paragraph" approach advocated in the study sessions and first town hall; and 4. See #1, above.
10/15/2025 3:06 PM
42 Wasting monies on lawsuits. Don’t want to emulate Huntington Beach 10/15/2025 8:50 AM 43 Safety and quality of life in Fountain Valley City 10/14/2025 7:55 PM 44 We need to live under the laws of our state of CA not necessary to become a charter city. 10/14/2025 3:43 PM 45 It gives too much power to the city council. Although most major changes would need a vote, the cost of those elections is ridiculous. City councils change and this might result in more power similar to what is happening in HB. I wish I could attend the town hall meeting but have other obligations. I wanted to make sure my voice was heard. 10/14/2025 8:46 AM
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (October 1 - October 29) 46 What is expected to be accomplished by becoming a charter city? What is driving the change? 10/12/2025 8:39 AM 47 Why is becoming a charter city under consideration? What is the cost vs. benefit? It appears that there is an opinion that the City can avoid state mandated housing laws. However, litigation has not been concluded to support that opinion. The City of Huntington Beach is a charter city and the base legal budget is $4.5 million. What is the legal budget for Fountain Valley? How much is it projected to increase if FV is a charter city? There does not appear to be a rationale for FV to become a charter city. If there is, it should be clearly stated as the cost vs. benefit.
10/11/2025 1:27 PM
48 Unrealistic expectations. Charter cities still must comply with most state laws. 10/10/2025 6:39 PM 49 If HB is any indication, NO on charter city. Feels like elected officials can go in directions not good for the residents on their own without resident input. 10/10/2025 1:09 PM
50 Benefits vs risks involved 10/10/2025 1:08 PM
51 Cost versus benefits. 10/10/2025 10:54 AM
52 School will have better flexibility to bring in more moral and traditions to kids. 10/10/2025 8:48 AM 53 Local control of the fate of our city. Sacramento is a mess. I hope and believe with honest local leadership we can manage our future much better than the current government in Sacramento.
10/10/2025 8:11 AM
54 FYI Cerritos Long Beach Huntington Beach Newport Beach Irvine Carlsbad San Diego Are all charter cities. I lived in all above cities. I guess the question is not which type of city Fountain valley should be. the question should be, given the size and the composition and attributes of Fountain valley, which type of city is more appropriate and beneficial for Fountain valley overall? In terms of, public security, quality of living, crowdedness, financial status, cost/expenses of living, taxes, traffic, education, environmental cleaness, etc. how does a charter city affect or impact or improve or aggravate above in long term. What municipal affairs that the state government implemented are not good for Fountain Valley and can be resolved by becoming a charter city? Can a charter city process/implementation be a side project? I.e. prepare, and get ready and don't use it until we really need it? Kind of like a defense system.
Cost analysis, budget, sources of the money/budget/expenses/capital/tax increments to citizens vs the benefits it brings in 5 to 10 years? Please provide more concrete, real and specific examples/scenarios/case studies. Also, is it a good timing right now? If it's a costly expensive process, would it save some money if doing this process when the interest rate is relatively low?
10/10/2025 7:53 AM
55 I support Fountain Valley becoming a charter city because it gives our community the ability to make local decisions that fit our unique character, instead of being limited by one-size-fits-all state rules.
10/10/2025 5:31 AM
56 Protect our neighborhoods 10/9/2025 8:31 PM
57 I want more information about what this change would mean. 10/9/2025 7:49 PM 58 More independence from California government 10/9/2025 11:58 AM 59 Becoming a charter city might give Fountain Valley more leverage and autonomy against California's blanket mandates.
10/9/2025 5:30 AM
60 We want autonomy and self-governance of our community independent of the state level who may not have the best interests for FV.
10/8/2025 10:53 PM
61 One of my main hopes for Fountain Valley becoming a charter city is gaining more local control over housing and zoning decisions including the ability to push back against state mandates like SB 9 and better regulate sober living homes, which have raised safety and neighborhood impact concerns for many residents. A charter could allow the city to create policies that reflect community values and preserve neighborhood character. 10/8/2025 12:56 PM
62 Need more information on what impact it would have on residents and businesses. 10/8/2025 12:25 PM 63 Possibility of increased costs for the city compared to the direct benefits. 10/8/2025 11:18 AM 64 Local control. I’m very concerned that state and/or federal laws & mandates have caused us to lose it.
10/8/2025 11:00 AM
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (October 1 - October 29) 65 I want Fountain Valley to continue to thrive as its own municipality. I don't think it's necessary to become a Charter City. My concern is that it would waste a lot of time and money lobbying to have this approved.
10/8/2025 10:47 AM
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (October 1 - October 29)
8.86% 7
31.65% 25
12.66% 10
22.78% 18
12.66% 10
11.39% 9
Q4 How would you like to receive more information on this topic? Answered: 79 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 79
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 legal wording 10/29/2025 3:47 PM
2 Email like this one. 10/28/2025 1:23 PM
3 Email 10/28/2025 11:05 AM
4 all of those things 10/28/2025 9:01 AM
5 Email 10/18/2025 11:45 AM
6 Email 10/14/2025 11:51 AM
7 Online public meetings and town halls 10/12/2025 8:39 AM 8 email 10/11/2025 1:27 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Public
meetings or
town halls
City website
updates
Social media
Printed mail
or flyers
City newsletter
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Public meetings or town halls
City website updates
Social media
Printed mail or flyers
City newsletter
Other (please specify)
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (October 1 - October 29) 9 All above 10/10/2025 7:53 AM
Community Survey: Should Fountain Valley Become a Charter City? (October 1 - October 29)
97.65% 83
2.35% 2
Q5 Are you a Fountain Valley resident?
Answered: 85 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 85
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor and Agenda Date: November 4, 2025
Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Resolution for Adoption of the Hazardous Mitigation Plan Three-Year Strategic Goals
☒ Enhance the culture and environment of “A Nice Place to Live” ☒ Achieve fiscal stability by evaluating processes, and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities
☐ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends ☐ Maintain, build, and modernize infrastructure to support growth and future needs of the City
☐ Not applicable
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In compliance with the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the City of Fountain Valley Emergency Preparedness Committee collaborated with Risk Management Professionals, Inc. to update our Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Plan must now be reviewed and approved by the City of Fountain Valley City Council to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mandates, through the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, that any public agency that wishes to apply for pre-and/or post-disaster hazards mitigation grants must have an approved natural hazard mitigation plan on file. A mitigation plan is a pre-disaster plan written to implement strategies and demonstrate how a community will lower its risk and exposure to disasters.
DISCUSSION
The Plan must now be reviewed and approved by the City of Fountain Valley City Council.
The Hazard Mitigation Plan submitted to Council and adopted in 2019 was created based on Federal guidelines. The six (6) sections of the plan (Introduction, Community Profile, Risk Assessment, Hazards and Strategies, Plan Maintenance, and Appendices) ensure that all aspects of hazard mitigation planning have been included and made locally applicable. The plan is intended to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities, infrastructure, private property, and the environment from natural hazards.
To be considered current, the city's Hazard Mitigation Plan must be updated every five (5) years. Approved by FEMA, the plan now needs to be adopted by the city. The plan
November 4, 2025
Resolution for Adoption of the Hazardous Mitigation Plan
aims to promote sound public policy that protects citizens, critical infrastructure, private property, and the environment from natural hazards. The City Council's adoption of the plan ensures this public policy is implemented. The plan is available via the city's website at www.fountainvalley.gov. FEMA requires the Governing Body Resolution to complete the adoption process.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/CONTACT
This item was noticed publicly as an agenda item for action by rules and regulations regarding the noticing of public meetings and agenized items and topics for discussion and/or action.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
By approving the adoption of the updated Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City will be eligible to apply for future pre- and post-hazard mitigation grants. Hazard mitigation grants enable the City to minimize the effects of disasters on City infrastructure.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative No.1: Sign the attached Governing Body Resolution to complete the adoption of the updated Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Alternative No. 2: Do not sign the attached Governing Body Resolution and provide staff direction on next steps; the adoption process will remain incomplete.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council select Alternative No. 1 and sign the attached Governing Body Resolution to adopt the updated Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Prepared By: Michelle Rudaitis, Fire Marshal
Thang Nguyen, Deputy Fire Marshal
Reviewed By: Tim Saiki, Acting Fire Chief
Fiscal Review By: Rick Smith, Finance Director
Approved By: Maggie Le, City Manager
Attachment 1: Governing Body Resolution
Attachment 2: Hazmat Mitigation Final Report
Governing Body Resolution
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
(Governing Body)
OF THE THAT
(Name of Applicant)
, OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
, OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the named applicant, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance provided by the federal Department of Homeland Security and subgranted through the State of California.
Passed and approved this day of , 20
Certification
I, , duly appointed and
(Name)
of the
(Title) (Governing Body)
do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and approved by the
(Governing body) (Name of Applicant)
day of 04 , 20__25________
(Official Position)
(Signature)
(Date)
City Council
City of Fountain Valley
The City Manager
The Fire Chief
The Fire Marshal
11 04 25
Ted Bui
Mayor City of Fountain Valley
City Council City of Fountain Valley
11 Mayor
November 04, 2025
City of Fountain Valley
Hazard Mitigation Plan
March 2025
Prepared By:
Risk Management Professionals
8717 Research Drive, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618 949/282-0123 www.RMPCorp.com Page 418
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-1
ES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ES.1 Plan Requirements and Objectives...................................................................................... 2 ES.2 Mitigation Definition.............................................................................................................. 5 ES.3 Planning Process Summary................................................................................................. 5 ES.4 Hazard Analysis ................................................................................................................... 6 ES.5: Mitigation Strategies and Implementation Plan................................................................... 7 ES.6: Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ................................................................. 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES.1: City of Fountian Valley Hazard Ranking Summary.................................................... 6 Table ES.2: Loss Estimate Summary............................................................................................ 7 Table ES.3: Mitigation Action Summary ......................................................................................10
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-2
ES.1 Plan Requirements and Objectives
The City of Fountain Valley (City) Hazard Mitigation Plan is a living document that reflects ongoing hazard mitigation activities. Hazard mitigation involves strategies to reduce short- and long-term vulnerability to identified hazards.
This document serves as the framework for the ongoing
identification and implementation of hazard mitigation
strategies developed in the City.
Background Information
In 2000, the United States Congress determined that disasters and, more importantly, lack of preparedness for disasters, were significant causes of loss of life, human suffering, loss of income, and property loss and damage.
Furthermore, because disasters often disrupt the normal functioning of governments and communities and adversely affect individuals and families with great severity, special measures designed to assist the efforts of the affected States in expediting the rendering of aid, assistance, and emergency services, and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas, were necessary. As a result, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), or Public Law 106-390, to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
This provides an opportunity for States, Tribal governments, and local jurisdictions to apply for assistance from the Federal government in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which results from such disasters by:
a. revising and broadening the scope of existing disaster relief programs; b. encouraging the development of comprehensive disaster preparedness and assistance plans, programs, capabilities, and organizations by the States and by local governments; c. achieving greater coordination and responsiveness of disaster preparedness and relief programs;
d. encouraging individuals, States, and local governments to protect themselves by obtaining insurance coverage to supplement or replace governmental assistance; e. encouraging hazard mitigation measures to reduce losses from disasters, including development of land use and construction regulations; and f. providing Federal assistance programs for both public and private losses sustained in disasters.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-3
DMA 2000 allows State, Tribal, and local jurisdictions to obtain Federal assistance through predisaster hazard mitigation planning. As part of the requirements for receiving Federal grants for improving a locality’s resistance to disasters, each locality must determine their existing vulnerabilities and develop a plan to reduce or eliminate these vulnerabilities and must have this plan approved by the appropriate State and Federal officials. Upon approval of this plan, each locality is eligible to receive various types of disaster-related assistance through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Program. This includes the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) which releases grant funds before and after a hazard event as well as the Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant (FMA) Program which appropriates funds for projects and planning that will reduce long-term risk of flood damage to structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The BRIC program provides funds for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation actions prior to a disaster event. These grants are funded and approved through FEMA on a competitive basis. The HMGP provides grants to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration.
These grants are funded by FEMA but are distributed by the State. In California, that agency is the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES).
FEMA has developed guidance to assist communities in developing both the vulnerability assessments and plans to reduce or eliminate their vulnerabilities to disasters. These tools, coupled with techniques from the safety and security industries were used to develop the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. Additional information regarding the HMGP and BRIC programs can be found in FEMA’s “Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance” document, located in FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Planning portal. Additional information including guidance and regulations can be found at the Cal OES’s Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Program portal.
In order to be eligible for certain Federal disaster assistance and mitigation funding, the City is required to have a Cal OES- and FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan in place. As a result, the City obtained grant funding to update this document to fulfill Cal OES and FEMA requirements and provide direction and guidance on implementing hazard mitigation actions on a hazard-level, probability, and cost-priority basis. The overall goal of the Hazard Mitigation Plan is to reduce the potential for damage to critical assets from natural and man-made hazards. In addition, the plan
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-4
describes past and current hazard mitigation activities and philosophies and outlines future mitigation goals and strategies.
FEMA Requirements
FEMA requires that the Hazard Mitigation Plan meet certain requirements. First, the planning process must be open and public and must allow the public to have an opportunity to comment during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval. Second, the process must allow other local jurisdictions to be involved in the planning process. Third, the Plan must incorporate, if appropriate, existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
FEMA expects that each Hazard Mitigation Plan has the following information:
1. Documentation of the planning process used to develop the plan
2. A risk assessment that provides a factual basis for upgrades and recommendations
3. A description of the natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction
4. A description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to these hazards
5. A description of land usage, and an estimate of losses should a disaster occur
6. A mitigation strategy
7. A plan maintenance process
8. Documentation that the plan has been adopted by the jurisdiction’s governing body
9. Review by the State Hazard Mitigation Officer
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-5
ES.2 Mitigation Definition
Mitigation is an ongoing effort to prevent or lessen future emergency or disaster incidents, and the impacts they might have on people, property, and the environment. Examples of mitigation activities include the following:
• Legislation, laws, and regulations;
• Variances;
• Zoning and land use management;
• Engineering and building codes;
• Hazard mitigation plans & teams;
• Technical guidance & assistance;
• Financial assistance;
• Hazard Identification;
• Risk Analysis;
• Evaluation;
• Research; and
• Education
Mitigation decreases the demand for emergency response resources, reduces the principal causes of injuries and deaths, enables a quicker lifesaving response and economic recovery because the community infrastructure remains intact, and reduces the societal impacts of the emergency because it results in less disruption to the social environment. In essence, mitigation is the foundation of sustainable community development.
ES.3 Planning Process Summary
Hazard mitigation planning is a dynamic process built on realistic assessments of past and present information that enables the City to anticipate future hazards and provide mitigation strategies to address possible impacts and identified needs. The overall approach to the Hazard Mitigation Plan included developing a baseline understanding of natural and man-made hazards, determining ways to reduce those risks, and prioritizing mitigation recommendations for implementation.
To complete these objectives, the City compiled a qualified team with various expertise, including planning, finance, public safety and health, community services, and emergency response agencies to participate in a Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC)
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-6
to guide the development of the City’s comprehensive Hazard Mitigation Plan. Additionally, the HMPC actively engaged the public throughout the planning process, with a focus on reaching vulnerable populations. This included attending a senior exposition to connect with a key at-risk group, providing opportunities for public comment during the drafting stage, and making the draft Plan accessible for review and feedback. Chapter 1: Planning Process contains descriptions of the Planning process, including information on the HMPC and public involvement.
ES.4 Hazard Analysis
The City is vulnerable to a wide range of natural and man-made hazards that threaten life and property. To identify the hazards that the City and neighboring communities perceive as the largest threat, each member of the HMPC participated in the Hazard Identification Workshop during the first HMPC Meeting. The HMPC brainstormed potential hazards based on past incidents that have impacted the City and information incorporated from other studies. (Incorporated Plans and studies are described in Section1.3 “Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans”). Each identified hazard was then qualitatively ranked based upon hazard probability/frequency, consequence/severity, and the City’s overall vulnerability using an interactive model. Section 3.2 Hazard Identification contains detailed information regarding the hazard ranking. Table ES.1 provides a summary of the hazard rankings.
Table ES.1: City of Fountian Valley Hazard Ranking Summary
HAZARD RANK SCORE
EARTHQUAKE 50
ADVERSARIAL EVENTS 40
CYBER ATTACK 40
FLOOD 18
DAM / RESERVOIR FAILURE 16
Note: The HMPC did not identify any Low or Moderately Low ranked hazards
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-7
Asset Inventory and Loss Estimates
In addition to the hazard profiles, the Risk Assessment contains a detailed asset inventory that lists the City’s assets, such as buildings, public facilities, parks, and water facilities. This asset inventory was used in the vulnerability assessment to estimate potential losses for each hazard.
The HMPC reviewed each hazard and assigned a potential percentage of damage expected. This also included loss of function values for lifeline and emergency service interruptions. Section 3.7 Loss Estimates includes a detailed breakdown of the vulnerability assessment calculations. Table ES.2, listed below, highlights the summary of loss estimates for each identified hazard.
Table ES.2: Loss Estimate Summary
Note: Values are rounded to the nearest thousand.
ES.5: Mitigation Strategies and Implementation
Plan
Plan Goals and Objectives
As part of the development process, Plan goals and objectives were revalidated to provide a framework for mitigating hazards and proposing potential mitigation actions. The goals are consistent with the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Plan and were developed by the HMPC. The City’s overall Plan goals are to:
1. Protect Life and Property
2. Promote Public Awareness and Outreach
3. Promote Partnerships and Implementation
4. Enhance Emergency Services Capabilities
HAZARD NAME
EARTHQUAKE $47,419,000
CYBERATTACK $23,532,000
DAM/RESERVOIR FAILURE $17,677,000
ADVERSARIAL EVENTS $9,291,000
FLOOD $4,527,000
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-8
In addition to the overall Plan goals, individual objectives were developed that more specifically address mitigation strategies. Section 4.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives contains the full list of the Plan goals and objectives.
Mitigation Strategies
Mitigation strategies are administrative and/or engineering project recommendations to reduce the vulnerability to the identified hazards. The HMPC identified specific mitigation actions to reduce the impact or likelihood of the hazards. The specific objectives served as a starting point for developing the mitigation actions, and additional actions were taken from the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan. Each of the mitigation recommendations fell into one or more of the following categories:
Implementation Plan
Following the identification of mitigation actions, a simplified Benefit-Cost Review was applied in order to prioritize the mitigation actions for implementation. The priority for implementing mitigation actions depended upon the overall cost effectiveness of the action, when taking into account monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits associated with each action. Additionally, the following questions were considered when developing the Benefit-Cost Review:
• How many people will benefit from this action?
• How large of an area is impacted?
• How critical are the facilities that benefit from the action? • Environmentally, does it make sense to do this project for the overall community? The Benefit-Cost Review yielded a relative priority ranking (High, Medium, or Low) for each mitigation action. Each ranking was defined as follows. • High: Benefits are perceived to exceed costs without further study or evaluations; or the action is critical.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-9
• Medium: Benefits are perceived to exceed costs but may require further study or evaluation prior to implementation.
• Low: Benefits and costs require evaluation prior to implementation.
Mitigation actions identified as high priority are typically implemented before lower ranked actions.
Results from the Benefit-Cost Review are located in Chapter 4.3 Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations. The HMPC considered responsible departments, funding resources, and estimated implementation timeframe when developing the implementation plan.
Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategies contains additional information regarding the mitigation strategies and implementation plan. Table ES.3 on the following pages provides a summary of each mitigation action, including the hazard(s) mitigated, responsible agency/department, and relative priority rank taken from the Benefit-Cost Review.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-10
Table ES.3: Mitigation Action Summary
Action ID Mitigation Action Hazards
Mitigated
Responsible
Agency/Dept. Priority
2022.HMP.01
Determine whether City-owned buildings and infrastructure require structural upgrades and implement projects. This action is intended to promote government continuity during a disaster and provide stability to programs which support identified vulnerable populations.
Earthquake Public Works Medium
2022.HMP.02
Identify elderly care facilities that would need assistance during an evacuation scenario and develop a plan, as necessary, to find housing/shelter for impacted residence.
All Hazards Fire Department High
2022.HMP.03
Implement a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
program to garner public support for proactive community involvement in mitigation and emergency preparedness. The CERT program would be leveraged to support vulnerabilities populations, as appropriate, during an emergency.
All Hazards Police
Department Medium
2022.HMP.04
Expand coordination with local schools to better prepare staff and students to identify, prevent, and respond to shootings/drug - related hazards, and other physical events.
Adversarial
Events
Police
Department High
2022.HMP.05
Evaluate existing security features at the Community Services Buildings and implement improvements to better secure the facilities against physical attacks.
Adversarial
Events
IT/Police
Department Low
2022.HMP.06
Implement upgrades to City Information Technology Systems to address dynamic challenges to protecting City data and
infrastructure.
Cybersecurity IT Department Medium
2022.HMP.07 Review vendor arrangements for security clauses and verify resident data is being protected adequately. Although this action will benefit the entire community, emphasis is placed on protecting Cybersecurity IT Department/
Administration Medium
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-11
the elderly community who are often victims of cyberattacks/identification theft. 2022.HMP.08 Expand Public Outreach with regard to Cyber Security protection. Cybersecurity Fire
Department/ IT
Department
High
2022.HMP.09
Assess drainage capacities throughout the city and determine the elements of infrastructure (catch basins and pipelines) require improvement to allow for proper drainage. The LHMP Team identified the Walnut Lift Station as a priority for this action due to frequent flooding issues.
Flood Public Works High
2022.HMP.10
Expand public outreach to provide education to the business and the community with regard to resources for flood preparation. (I.e., roof protection, sandbag availability, CERT participation) Flood Fire Department High
2022.HMP.11
Implement a CERT program to better utilize/prepare volunteer support to assist in emergency support, particularly in support of vulnerable populations.
Flood Fire Department Low
2022.HMP.12 Consider structural improvements for Reservoir No. 1 in order to meet current seismic codes.
Dam or
Reservoir
Failure/
Earthquake
Public Works Medium
2022.HMP.13
Establish a permanent Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to adequately house emergency management equipment and provide space for training opportunities for CERT/Residents.
All Hazards Fire Department Medium
2024.HMP.14
Hire a dedicated Emergency Manager for the City to champion EOC management, emergency planning, seek grant opportunities for resilience efforts, and oversee community outreach
All Hazards Fire Department Low
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-12
ES.6: Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the
Plan
The Hazard Mitigation Plan is a living document that reflects ongoing hazard mitigation activities and requires monitoring, evaluating, and updating to ensure the mitigation actions are implemented. To facilitate the Hazard Mitigation Planning process and adhere to regulatory requirements, the Plan will be reviewed annually, and any major revisions will be incorporated into the five-year update. In addition, public involvement will be requested when applicable.
Chapter 5: Plan Maintenance outlines the update requirements and planning mechanisms the City has in place for ongoing hazard mitigation.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-1
Table of Contents
1.1 Description of the Planning Process ....................................................................................... 2
1.2 Steering Committee & Public Involvement.............................................................................. 6
1.3 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans..........................................................................12 List of Tables
Table 1.1 Stakeholders Invited to Participate in the Plan Update .............................................. 1-3 Table 1.2 Steering Committee Participants................................................................................ 1-7 CHAPTER 1
PLANNING PROCESS
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-2
1.1 Description of the Planning Process
Hazard mitigation planning is a dynamic process built on realistic assessments of past and present information that engages the City of Fountain Valley (City) to anticipate future hazards and provide meaningful strategies to address possible impacts and identified needs. The hazard mitigation planning process involves the following tasks:
The overall approach to updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan includes building off the baseline understanding of the natural and manmade hazards as defined in the 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan, determining ways to continue reducing those risks, and prioritizing those recommendations for implementation. The following task descriptions provide a detailed narrative of the overall project progression.
Organize Resources
Identify Stakeholders and Compile Steering Committee
Michele Rudaitis, Fire Marshal for the City Fire Department, invited and coordinated participation for a Steering Committee from the appropriate law enforcement, emergency response, City and County representatives. The Steering Committee was responsible for providing essential insight into past hazard events, current hazard vulnerability (including specific locations), critical assets, and possible mitigation projects. The following groups were invited via email to participate in the plan development:
Organizing Resources
Assessing Risks
Developing Mitigtation Strategies, Goals, & Priorities
Adopting the Plan
Implementing the Plan
Monitoring Progress
Revising the Plan as Necessary
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-3
Table 1.1 Stakeholders Invited to Participate in the Plan Update Local/Regional
Agencies Involved in
Hazard Mitigation
Activities
Agencies that have
Authority to
Regulate
Development
Representatives of
Businesses/
Academia/Other
Private
Organizations
Neighboring
Communities
Representatives of
Non-Profit
Organizations
• City Police
Department
• City Public
Works
• City Finance
• City Fire
Department
• City Housing
Department
• City
Planning
• Carmel
Village
• Boys & Girls
Club
• Orange
County
Social
Services
• City of
Huntington
Beach
• City of Costa
Mesa
• Orange
County
Water
District
• Memorial
Care Orange
Coast
Medical
Center
Public Meeting Documentation
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires an “Open and Public Process” for developing the Hazard Mitigation Plan. This process requires, at a minimum, that the public be allowed to comment on the plan during the draft phase and prior to adoption. To meet this requirement, the City published a public survey to allow for public comment during the drafting stage of the Hazard Mitigation Plan and posted a draft to the City website for public review prior to submittal of the Plan for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) review.
Risk Assessment
Identify Hazards
This task was designed to identify all the natural and man-made hazards that might affect the City and then narrow the list to the hazards that are most likely to occur. The hazards included natural, Earthquake Adversarial
Events Cyber Attack
Flood Dam/Reservoir
Failure
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-4
technical, and human-caused events, with an emphasis on the effect of natural disasters on the City’s critical facilities. In order to compile the list, the Project Team researched newspapers, historical records, and internet websites to determine the most prevalent hazards. In addition, the Steering Committee played an integral role in the development of a list of hazards that have affected the City in the past, with specific information regarding frequency, magnitude, and associated consequences. A Steering Committee meeting was held to identify and evaluate each selected natural hazard.
This list is not all-inclusive of the hazards discussed during the Hazard Identification exercise.
Hazards not thought to pose significant risk to the City were not included. In addition, some items were captured as sub-items of the hazards listed above. For example, climate change is discussed with hazards where the impact of changes in weather patterns could act as a catalyst for those scenarios.
Profile Hazard Events
The hazard profiles consist of either a map indicating the area impacted by each hazard or an important piece of data regarding the characteristics of hazard events within the planning area.
To develop the detailed hazard profiles, the Project Team researched and reviewed relevant opensource natural hazard studies and mapping projects. In addition, the City supplied any natural hazard studies that have been developed specifically for the City. This task determined the natural hazard magnitude, frequency, and location characteristics (soil conditions, predicted ground acceleration values, fault locations, flood plains, etc.) that were used as the design-basis for the hazard ranking and loss estimates.
Asset Inventory
The purpose of this task was to determine the quantity of buildings, people, and asset values that lie in the different hazard areas and what proportion of the City this represents. The asset inventory was completed by developing a list of City assets during a Steering Committee meeting.
This inventory was augmented with critical City assets, which enabled the team to estimate losses resulting from hazard events and to determine where resources should be allocated to address mitigation issues.
Loss Estimates
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-5
the Project Team developed loss assessment tables for each specific hazard that identifies potential damage within the City, critical infrastructure, and buildings. This task was critical in determining which assets are subject to the greatest potential damages and which hazard event is likely to produce the greatest potential losses. The conclusion of this task precipitated a comprehensive loss estimate (vulnerability assessment) for each identified hazard for each specific asset in terms of damages, economic loss, and the associated consequences.
Mitigation Strategy Development
Develop Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The Project Team, based upon information provided by the Steering Committee, discussed the mitigation features and resources the City currently has in place. These mitigation features provided a framework to determine where practical improvements could be made and where sufficient improvements would be prohibitive due to cost, schedule, or impracticality of implementation.
For each of the hazard events, mitigation goals and objectives were updated with the intention of reducing or eliminating the potential hazard impacts. The mitigation goals and objectives were updated at a Steering Committee Meeting to provide the basis for determining the associated mitigation projects.
Identify and Prioritize Mitigation Actions
Mitigation strategies are administrative and engineering project recommendations to reduce the vulnerability to the identified hazards. It was imperative to have City planners and community developers involved in this phase of the plan in order to develop strategies and projects that will mitigate the hazards cost-effectively, as well as ensure consistency with the City’s long-term mitigation goals and capital improvements. At a Steering Committee meeting, a team-based approach was utilized to brainstorm mitigation projects based on the identified hazards and associated loss estimates. The evaluation and prioritization of the mitigation actions produced a list of recommended mitigation actions to incorporate into the mitigation plan. A separate Steering Committee meeting was held to conduct a cost-benefit review for each proposed mitigation action to determine the relative priority level of the recommendation.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-6
Implementation & Monitoring
Prepare an Implementation Strategy
The Project Team developed an action plan to detail how the mitigation recommendations will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the City. During the Hazard Mitigation Plan creation process, the Project Team coordinated with the Steering Committee to determine the mitigation project implementation strategy (including identifying responsible departments, funding resources, and estimated implementation timeframe).
1.2 Steering Committee & Public Involvement
While the City Fire Department and Risk Management Professionals had lead responsibility for the development of the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, neighboring communities, agencies, and other interested parties were invited to participate on the Steering Committee to review the Hazard Mitigation Plan during each phase of the document development. The City and RMP assessed community support through active community leaders, built a Steering Committee, and engaged the public participants through the use of a public survey. Each member of the Steering Committee had the opportunity to participate in all aspects of the planning process.
Steering Committee Participant Solicitation
The City solicited participation in the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee by contacting both internal and external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders included members of the various City departments. External stakeholders were comprised of representatives from local agencies and neighboring communities although none were available to support the planning process.
Steering Committee Participants
The City brought together personnel from fire services, police services, and various city departments to ensure the Steering Committee was multi-faceted and provided a mechanism for receiving input from each participant. Additionally, the City compiled historical hazard data, provided relevant planning documents for incorporation into the plan, and coordinated participation with the public. Each draft chapter was reviewed by the Steering Committee and specific comments and input were incorporated into the plan. The multidisciplinary Steering
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-7
Committee enabled the City to work together and incorporate each individual’s expertise to provide a comprehensive Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed with assistance and advice from participants from the City. Although attempts were made to include outside agencies, no representatives were available for the planning process. Table 1.1 provides a list of the Steering Committee participants.
Individuals are listed in alphabetical order by last name.
Table 1.2 Steering Committee Participants
Name Affiliation Title
Ayes, Steven City of Fountain Valley
Planning Department
Principal Planner
Barr, Matt City of Fountain Valley Fire
Department
Battalion Chief
Bray, Ryan Risk Management
Professionals
Senior Technical Consultant
Harnish, Robin City of Fountain Valley Finance Manager
Kulkarni, Shireen Risk Management
Professionals
Technical Consultant
Le, Maggie City of Fountain Valley City Manager
McQuaid, Bill City of Fountain Valley Fire
Department
Fire Chief
Newman, Ashley City of Fountain Valley Housing Coordinator Nguyen, Thang City of Fountain Valley Fire
Department
Fire Prevention Analyst
Pugh, Kristen Memorial Care VP of Advocacy and
Government Relations
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-8
Rudaitis, Michelle City of Fountain Valley Fire
Department
Battalion Chief/
Fire Marshal
Schuck, Mark Memorial Health Ex. Dir. Of Facility Ops and Development
Worsham, Jenni City of Fountain Valley Community Services Manager
The Steering Committee met four times during the course of the project to discuss project progress and obtain valuable input and information for documenting the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The following meetings are detailed over the subsequent pages. Appendix D – Public Participation contains copies of the presentations used at each meeting, specific meeting handouts, and attendance records.
Steering Committee Meeting Descriptions
Steering Committee Meeting 1: Project Initiation, Hazard Identification, and Information Collection
During the Project Initiation, Hazard Identification, and Information Collection Meeting, Risk Management Professionals presented an overview presentation that detailed the objectives and scope of the project. After a review of the project schedule and key tasks, the Steering Committee participants’ areas of expertise, resultant member responsibilities, and the community meeting process was discussed.
The Steering Committee Meeting also served as a mechanism to determine the hazards to profile in detail. To effectively characterize the City’s risk and vulnerability, Risk Management Professionals facilitated a discussion of the historical hazards with the Steering Committee members during this meeting. This meeting also served as a forum to discuss information for background information and asset inventory.
During the Project Initiation, Hazard Identification, and Information Collection Meeting, Risk Management Professionals presented an overview presentation that detailed the objectives and scope of the project. After a review of the project schedule and key tasks, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee participants’ areas of expertise, resultant member responsibilities, and the
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-9
community meeting process was discussed. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting also served as a mechanism to determine the hazards to profile in detail. To effectively characterize the City’s risk and vulnerability, Risk Management Professionals facilitated a discussion of the historical hazards with the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee members during this meeting.
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee determined the initial hazard profile ranking through a facilitated exercise using an automated interactive spreadsheet that asked specific questions on potential hazards and then assigned a relative value to each potential hazard, accordingly, including numerical rankings (1-5) of the following criteria:
• Consequence/Severity – How widespread is the impact area? • Secondary Effects – Could the event trigger another event and separate response? • Probability/Frequency – Historical view of how often this type of event occurs locally and projected recurrence intervals.
• Warning/Onset – Advance warning of the event, or none. • Duration – Length of elapsed time where response resources are active. • Recovery – Length of time until lives and property return to normal Chapter 3: Risk Assessment of this Plan outlines the methodology used for hazard rankings.
Additionally, all Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee participants were requested to provide existing plans and technical studies, GIS data, and identify existing mitigation features as part of a detailed information request.
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting #2: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The hazard risk ranking from Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meetings #1 was reviewed, updated, and validated with the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee with a review of the hazard profiles. Additionally, the Plan’s mitigation goals and objectives were updated with the intention of reducing or eliminating the potential hazard impacts, which also provided the basis for determining the associated mitigation projects. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee reviewed the goals and objectives from the City’s 2018 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the 2021 Orange County Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the 2023 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan as a baseline for determining the City’s current mitigation goals and objectives.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-10
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting #3: Vulnerability Assessment
To enhance the City’s understanding of how hazards impact vulnerable populations and comply with FEMA’s new requirements, a Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee meeting was held to examine the effects of hazard scenarios on these populations. As detailed in Section 2.4 (Demographics), the City identified several groups likely to experience heightened impacts during hazard events, including the elderly, children, individuals with cognitive or physical disabilities, economically disadvantaged residents, and those with limited English proficiency (LEP).
During the meeting, a productive discussion took place regarding the City's capacity to provide resources and information to better support these populations. This resulted in a deeper analysis of the mitigation actions in Chapter 4 and the hazard understanding in Chapter 3 of the plan.
Moreover, as the City gained greater clarity on FEMA’s expectations for mitigation planning, Chapter 5 was updated to reflect the City’s commitment to addressing the needs of vulnerable populations in future mitigation efforts.
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting #4: Mitigation Action Identification and Benefit/Cost Review
The purpose of this meeting was to identify potential mitigation actions and projects that will reduce the impact of identified hazards. First, the mitigation goals and objectives from Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting #2 were reviewed and validated. Then, during the meeting, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee participants brainstormed possible projects and actions to mitigate the effects of the identified hazards.
As the mitigation projects were identified, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee discussed the mitigation action implementation plan according to the following characteristics:
• Mitigation Action Category – Prevention, Property Protection, Public Education and Awareness, Natural Resource Protection, Emergency Services, and Structural Projects • Corresponding Goals and Objectives
• Responsible Department – Building and Safety, Engineering, Administration, Community Development, Public Works, etc.
• Resources – General Fund, Grant Programs, Staff Time, Capital Improvements, etc. • Implementation Timeframe – Ongoing, Short-Term (within two years), Medium-term (between three and ten years), and Long-Term (greater than ten years)
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-11
• Whether or not the projects protect new or future buildings The identified mitigation actions were reviewed and validated with the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee then performed a high-level Benefit-Cost Review on each of the identified mitigation actions. The review consisted of identifying all benefits and costs associated with implementing each mitigation action. Typical benefits include:
• Avoided physical damages (e.g., to buildings, infrastructure, and equipment) • Avoided loss of function costs (e.g., loss of utilities and lifelines) • Avoided casualties
• Avoided emergency management costs (e.g., emergency operations center costs, evacuation/rescue costs, and other management costs)
Once the benefits and costs were estimated, a relative priority was assigned for each action based upon the evaluation. More detailed information can be found in Section 4.4 “Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations.
Public Meetings and Outreach
The City actively solicited public involvement at several points throughout the Planning process.
Representatives from the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee teamed up with The City of Fountain Valley at a Senior Event on June 19, 2024. This event was valuable in gaining public input regarding hazards that affect the community. Over 150 attendees had opportunities to provide their feedback on hazard scenarios in the City. Even more, the demographic was predominantly aged 65 and older, which was the main vulnerable demographic outlined by the planning committee for the current plan update. More information about identified vulnerable populations can be found in Chapter 4. Members of the public were also able to provide direct input for Hazard Mitigation Plan development and attend a City Council Meeting to review the Hazard Mitigation Plan during the drafting stage and provide comments. The Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan was provided on the City website in April 2025 to allow the public to review the document before providing comments. While no comments were received, the plan remains on the City website to allow continued opportunities for the public to comment. Additional documentation regarding public involvement can be found in Appendix D.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-12
1.3 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans
While developing the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Project Team reviewed existing plans (detailed below) and incorporated relevant information into the planning efforts.
City of Fountain Valley Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan (2018)
The 2018 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was crucial in
comparing the previous mitigation ideas and attitudes to the City’s current needs and concerns. The project team referred to this plan constantly throughout the updating process. The Hazard Mitigation Plan provides insight into hazard ranking, hazard history, previously proposed mitigation projects, etc.
City of Fountian Valley General Plan (2023).
The City of Fountain Valley General Plan 2023, including the updates to the Housing Element and Public Facilities and Safety Element, contains guidelines and policies that serve as the City’s vision for future planning and development. Mitigation projects defined in the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be required to align with the objectives outlined in the Safety Element of the General Plan. Proposed mitigation actions are found in Chapter 4 of this document.
City of Fountain Valley Urban Water Management Plan (2020) The City of Fountain Valley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan is updated every five years to monitor water supply issues and mitigate drought situations. As part of Urban Water Management Plan updates, the City will review the drought hazard profile in the HMP and incorporate the drought mitigation actions identified in the plan.
California State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2023)
The State Hazard Mitigation Plan was reviewed to ensure consistency between the State and City Plan, with respect to identified hazards and vulnerability, goals and objectives, and mitigation actions. The State goals served as the basis for developing the goals at the City level. City goals and objectives are outlined in Chapter 4.
County of Los Angeles Hazard Mitigation Plan (2021)
Los Angeles County’s All-Hazard Mitigation Plan was reviewed to ensure consistency between the County and City Plan. The County Plan, updated in 2021, outlines the County’s approach to §201.6(b): In order to develop
a more comprehensive
approach to reducing the
effects of natural disasters, the
planning process shall include:
(3) Review and
incorporation, if appropriate, of
existing plans, studies, reports,
and technical information.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-13
hazard mitigation, focusing on natural hazards, human-caused events, and technological emergencies.
California Adaptation Planning Guide (2020)
FEMA, CalOES, and the California Natural Resources Agency developed the California Adaptation Planning Guide to assist municipalities in recognizing local climate change and to provide guidance addressing potential vulnerabilities. The information was used to develop potential hazards and to provide background information that allowed the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee to make educated decisions regarding mitigation actions designed to alleviate the effects of climate change.
FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
The FIRM, or FEMA’s official map of the community delineating Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) and flood risk zones was reviewed to determine flood hazard areas within the City boundary. Portions of the map are included in the Flood Hazard Profile in Chapter 3 which was used to support the City’s understanding of flood-related risks within the City.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-1
CHAPTER 2
PLANNING AREA PROFILE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.1 Region Description.................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Development Trends............................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Population .............................................................................................................................11
2.3 Demographics.......................................................................................................................11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: City of Fountian Valley Potential Buildout Table ........................................................... 7 Table 2.2: Estimated Population Growth.....................................................................................11 Table 2.3: Demographic Estimates .............................................................................................12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: City of Fountain Valley Zoning Map ............................................................................ 9 Figure 2.2: City of Fountain Valley Land Use Map......................................................................10
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-2
2.1 Region Description
The City of Fountain Valley (City) is a municipality characterized by a combination of residential, industrial, and commercial developments. The City is located in the northern part of Orange County, California, about 35 miles southeast of the City of Los Angeles, and is positioned close to the border between Los Angeles County and Orange County. The City is bordered by the cities of Huntington Beach and Seal Beach to the west; Westminster, Garden Grove, and Anaheim to the north; Santa Ana to the east, and Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to the south. The eastern border of the City is the Santa Ana River. The Interstate 405, a major freeway, diagonally bisects the City, with the California State Routes 39 and 55 located nearby. Additionally, the City is near the Los Angeles International Airport, Long Beach Municipal Airport, John Wayne Airport, and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and is about 8 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean.
Fountain Valley has a total area of 9.08 square miles.
The City’s climate is consistent with Southern California’s “Mediterranean” climate: a semi-arid environment with mild winters, warm summers, and moderate rainfall. The City’s temperatures in the summer tend to be in the 70s, while the winter temperatures tend to be in the 50s. With an average high temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit, August is the warmest month of the year, while December has an average minimum temperature of 47 degrees Fahrenheit. During the summer, temperature differences
between day and night can reach 20 degrees
Fahrenheit, and during the winter, they often range
between 22- and 20-degrees Fahrenheit. In
Fountain Valley, the annual average precipitation is
11.7 inches. Throughout the year, rainfall typically
occurs during the winter months. With an average
rainfall of 3.0 inches, February tends to be the
wettest month of the year.
Residents of Fountain Valley and neighboring
communities used to refer to this area as the “Gospel
Swamps” between the 1880s and early 1900s. The numerous artesian wells and abundant water supply inspired the City’s name to be “Fountain Valley.” Early setters worked to drain the land so that it could be used by building up drainage canals through the 1890s. On areas of the land not growing crops, cattle were allowed to graze. Until the middle of the 1930s, when some significant landowners started to sell portions of land, Fountain Valley remained primarily a field crop area.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-3
Since then, the majority of the agricultural emphasis has been on truck crops. The City of Fountain Valley became the 21st city in Orange County when it was formed in 1957. Since its incorporation, the City has made a name for itself as a progressive town committed to raising the standard of living for its residents.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-4
2.2 Development Trends
As stated previously, the City is 9.08 square miles in area.
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan
provides a guide for land use, future growth, and
development within the City. Since the 2018 Hazard
Mitigation Plan, there have been no major changes in
development that have greatly affected the City’s
vulnerability to the identified hazards. However, the State of California is mandating the City to add 1908 housing units within the next 8-year period. At the time of this report, the City has not received any new applications for development, so future changes in vulnerability cannot be estimated. City staff will monitor the situation and incorporate a hazard review into future proposed developments.
The following describes land use designations, as amended, for the City. These descriptions were excerpted from the City’s 2045 Draft General Plan Update, which went out for Public Review in 2021, as an attempt to designate the proposed general distribution and intensity of uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, public facilities, and other categories of public and private uses. During the update to this plan, the housing element underwent an extensive update and was adopted by the City Council in early 2022. However, the changes to the element did not make a significant impact on hazard vulnerability for the community.
Residential Density
Each residential land use designation includes a range of allowable densities, calculated as the number of dwelling units allowed per acre (du/ac). The maximum density represents a potential maximum density (number of housing units per acre) that could be achieved if all other requirements are met, including zoning standards in the municipal code.
Nonresidential Intensity
Floor area ratio (FAR) is a measurement used to identify nonresidential land use intensity. The FAR is the ratio of the total gross floor area of all buildings on a lot compared to the total area of that lot. Higher FARs generally indicate larger buildings and/or more stories, but as shown in Figure LU-02, the size and height of the building can vary a great deal within the same FAR. Note, FAR is also a measure used in regulating the intensity of mixed-use areas and projects. 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The
plan should describe vulnerability
in terms of] providing a general
description of land uses and
development trends within the
community so that mitigation
options can be considered in future
land use decisions.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-5
Residential Land Uses
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Land uses within this designation are characterized by single-family residential. This land use is characterized as being in a suburban neighborhood structure, served by common infrastructure, public facilities, and services. The allowable density of this designation is Up to 5 du/ac.
Low Medium Density Residential (LDMR)
This land use designation consists of single family detached and attached housing types in a suburban neighborhood structure, with housing options ranging from small-lot to large-lot singlefamily detached homes to townhomes and duplexes. The allowable density of this designation is Up to 10.8 du/ac.
Medium Density Residential Development (MDR)
This land use designation is described as single family attached and small-scale multifamily housing types. The allowable density for this residential designation is Up to 15 du/ac. It includes townhomes, small apartment complexes, and small-lot singly family detached or attached homes.
High Density Residential Development (HDR)
This land designation consists of higher density single family attached and multi-family housing.
These areas are currently limited to 15 to 30 du/ac. These developments are typically in proximity to transit services, employment opportunities, retail and service businesses, and community services and facilities.
Very High-Density Residential Development (VHDR)
This land designation is characterized as compact and/or large multi-family residential housing.
The allowable density is classified as 30 to 60 du/ac. Typically, these buildings are found in proximity to transit service, employment opportunities, retail and service businesses, and community services and facilities.
Commercial Land Uses
Local Commercial (LC)
Land designated under this category is intended for small-scale stores and personal service uses.
This is usually near residential neighborhoods and is meant to serve local residents and workers with convenient access to local goods and services. The allowable intensity is listed as Up to .35 FAR.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-6
General Commercial (GC)
This land use designation applies to a wide range and intensity of land uses involved in retail and service commercial uses that are meant to serve those in Fountain Valley as well as those living in the larger surrounding market area. It also supports the development and continued operation of recreational, hospitality, cultural, entertainment, and employment opportunities. The allowable intensity is listed as Up to .50 FAR.
Office Commercial (OC)
This designation applies to administrative and professional offices, as well as complementary commercial uses. Developments under this designation are particularly appropriate in areas where such uses may serve as a buffer between two less compatible land uses. The density for this classification is listed as Up to .50 FAR.
Commercial Manufacturing (CM)
The industrial classification includes those land uses that are a mix of office and clean, light industrial, and complementary retail uses in an integrated development setting. Typical uses include office industrial flex spaces, multilevel corporate offices, and small-scale manufacturing that do not produce significant pollutants or nuisance. The typical allowed intensity for this land use classification is Up to .60 FAR.
Mixed Land Uses
Mixed-Use 1 (MU1)
This land designation is classified as large scale and/or intensity building(s) on parcels up to 5 acres that contain a mix of higher density residential uses and non-residential uses such as retail, dining, entertainment, and offices. Building and site design fosters lively and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes and connectivity to surrounding uses and neighborhoods. The allowable density and intensity for this classification is 30 to 65 du/ac and 2.25 FAR.
Mixed-Use 2 (MU2)
This land designation is described as a master planned project area on parcels larger than 5 acres containing a range of residential product types and densities mixed with non-residential uses, such as retail, dining, entertainment, offices, and public spaces. Building and site design for this classification fosters lively and pedestrian friendly streetscapes and connectivity to surrounding uses and neighborhoods, with public spaces to promote community gatherings. The allowable density and intensity for this land designation is 30 to 55 du/ac and 2.20 FAR.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-7
OtherLand Uses
Public Facilities (PF)
This designation includes public and quasi-public facilities to meet current and future needs. This includes schools, police and fire stations, infrastructure, and civic uses.
Parks and Open Space (OS)
The Parks and Open Space designation includes active and passive recreational uses, including parks and natural preservation areas.
Specific Plan (SP)
This is characterized as a master planned development intended to allow for a more flexible mix and intensity of uses in return for exceptional design and stronger promotion of the Guiding Vision and General Plan goals and policies. The density and intensity for this varies per adopted specific plan.
Table 2.1 reflects the long-term buildout capacity for residents, housing units, and jobs by 2045 taken from the 2023 City of Fountain Valley General Plan Update draft. This buildout figure was designed to assist in planning the City’s infrastructure and services and in coordinating with regional planning efforts. Growth above these estimates would require significant investments in new infrastructure systems and/or expansions of public services and facilities.
Table 2.1: City of Fountian Valley Potential Buildout Table
LAND USE
CATEGORY
EXISTING 2021 BUILDOUT 2045
Housing
Units Pop Jobs HousingUnits Pop Jobs
Low Density
Residen�al 12,553 37,653 380 13,352 38,850 388
Low Medium
Density
Residen�al
775 2,322 0 800 2,393 -
Medium Density
Residen�al 2,637 7,778 9 2,637 7,778 9
High Density
Residen�al 2,285 6,558 - 2,783 7,792 -
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-8
Very High Density
Residen�al - - 155 296 828 -
Local Commercial - - 1,102 - - 1,102
Office Commercial - - 388 - - 388
General
Commercial - - 11,715 - - 11,715
Commercial
Manufacturing - - 2,804 - - 2,804
Mixed-Use 1 - - 180 481 1,147 50
Mixed-Use 2 - - 630 1,078 3,010 425
Public Facili�es - - - - - -
Parks &
Recrea�on - - - - - -
Specifc Plan 1,144 3,284 15,122 4,206 11,870 19,661
CITYWIDE TOTAL 19,395 57,595 32,485 25,633 73,668 36,542 Source: 2023 City of Fountain Valley General Plan Update Public Hearing Draft Figures 2.1 and 2.2 on the following pages contain the zoning and land use maps taken from the City of Fountain Valley General Plan. These maps illustrate the City’s layout and organization.
These maps were used by the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) to examine how identified hazards may impact different areas and social groups within the City.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-9
Figure 2.1: City of Fountain Valley Zoning Map
Source: City of Fountain Valley website, January 30, 2019
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-10
Figure 2.2: City of Fountain Valley Land Use Map
Source: October 2023 General Plan Update Public Review Draft
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-11
2.3 Population
The City was incorporated in 1957, but it was not until the 1960s when residential uses overtook agriculture as the City’s dominant land use. The population continued to grow steadily until, due to global political changes, there was a sharp increase in new residents beginning in 1975 and lasting throughout the 1980’s. The current estimated population of the City is 56,754, according to the American Community Survey (2022). The following table provides the projected growth for the City as described in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
Table 2.2: Estimated Population Growth
Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population 57,530 58,442 58,969 59,110 58,873
Source: 2020 City of Fountain Valley Urban Water Management Plan It should be noted, the City’s population is expected to increase marginally as the City meets the State’s mandate to include 1908 housing units within the next eight years. As mentioned in Section
2.1, City personnel will consider the dynamics in vulnerability when proposals for development are submitted to the City for review. At the time of this report, the City has not received any formal application for new developmental proposals.
2.3 Demographics
As stated in the previous section, the City boasts a diverse community with a population of about 56,754 people. This is less than some estimates for the City which may indicate a slowing in population growth in the future. As mentioned above, the City is built out with limited space to accommodate population growth, so this trend for slower population growth is expected to continue.
Men and women split evenly in the community with each group representing almost exactly 50% each. The City is home to people of all ages with roughly 20% being under 18 and another 20% over the age of 65. Additionally, the community represents backgrounds from all over the world with over 30% being reported as born outside the United States.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-12
The community is made up of 18,906 households with roughly three individuals per house.
Housing stability is considered good with nearly 90% of the population remaining in their homes for over a year. Additionally, over 65% of housing units within the City are owner-occupied lending to a community that takes interest in City management and programs.
Poverty in the area is considered low. The 7% reported by the United States Census Bureau for the City is less than the 13.2% State Average for 2023 reported by the Public Policy Institute of California (www.ppic.org). The table below outlines the census date points provided by the United States Census Bureau for the City.
Table 2.3: Demographic Estimates
ESTIMATE CATEGORY CENSUS
ESTIMATES
Population (V2023) * 55,468
Persons under 5 years, percent 4.1%
Persons under 18 years, percent 19.3%
Persons 65 years and over, percent 19.9 %
Female persons, percent 49.8%
Persons with a disability under age 65, percent (2018-2022) 5.2% Households (2018-2022) 18,906
Persons per household (2018-2022) 2.97
Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2018-2022 65.9%
Limited English Speaking (LEP) Households (2022) 1,652
Limited English Speaking (LEP) Households, percent (2022) 8.7% Households with a computer, percent (2018-2022) 97.0%
Households with a broadband internet subscription, percent (2018- 2022)
93.6%
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-13
Living in same house 1 year ago, percent of persons age 1 year+, 2018-2022
89.7%
High School graduate or higher, percent of persons aged 25 years+ (2018-2022)
90.4%
Bachelor’s degree or higher percent of persons aged 25 years+ (2018- 2022)
43.8%
Median Household income (in 2022 dollars, 2018-2022) $108,860 Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2022 dollars, 2018-2022) $46,609 Persons in poverty, percent 7.0%
Foreign born persons, percent, 2018-2022 31.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Source : American Community Survey (LEP Information)
Socially Vulnerable Populations
FEMA Guidance requires agencies engaging in hazard mitigation planning to consider vulnerable populations as part of the planning process. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) defines social vulnerability as the “demographic and socioeconomic factors (such as poverty, lack of access to transportation, and crowded housing) that adversely affect communities-level stressors.” To address this planning requirement the City considered vulnerable groups as part of the plan update through identifying areas with the City more prone to hazard stresses due to multiple factors. The City utilized guidance from the CDC/ATSDR to identify elements contributing to vulnerability. Those elements are listed below.
SOCIOECONOMIC
STATUS
•Below Poverty
•Unemployed
•Housing Cost Burden
•No High School
Diploma
•No Health Insurance
HOUSEHOLD
CHARACTERISTICS
•Aged 65 & Older
•Aged 17 & Younger
•Civilian with a Disability
•Single-Parent
Household
•English Language
Proficiency
HOUSING TYPE &
TRANSPORTATION
•Multi-Unit Structures
•Moblie Homes
•Crowding
•No Vehicle
•Group Quartes
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-14
To further refine the vulnerable population within the City, the Steering Committee considered the community and established the following individual vulnerability factors that drove community vulnerability discussions throughout the plan development process. • Age
• Socioeconomic Status
• Mobility and Transportation
• Language/Communication Barriers
• Housing
The vulnerability factors that impact the community within Fountain Valley are included in the table below.
Social Vulnerabliltiy Determination
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) is cognizant of the complicated, intersection nature of social vulnerabilities. As such, the HMPC discussed that more research was needed to more fully understand the levels of vulnerabilties throughout the City. The effort to better serve the community is ongoing and the City intends to expand its understanding of vulnerable populations and expand its capabilties to provide equitable services. For the purposed of moving forward with hazard mitigation planning, the HMPC decideed to focus its efforts on persons 65 years and older. This was done because, according to personal exerpicences held by some HMPC participates, this group represents the most overlap of the aforementioned social vulnerabiltiy characteristics (i.e. economically disadvantaged, disabilitiy, age, housing difficulties) and make up nearly 20% of the population. As such, most of the outreach efforts and mitgiation strategies seek to assist this group. As more is understood about other socially vulnerable group, the City will expand its efforts in future planning efforts
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.1 Risk Assessment.................................................................................................................. 3-3
3.2 Hazard Identification ............................................................................................................ 3-5
3.3 Considerations for Climate Change ..................................................................................... 3-9
3.4 Asset Inventory .................................................................................................................. 3-10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Risk Factors for Hazard Identification ........................................................................... 6 Table 3.2 Risk Rank Matrix ........................................................................................................... 7 Table 3.3 Risk Rank Categorization.............................................................................................. 8 Table 3.4 Hazard Ranking Summary ............................................................................................ 8 Table 3.5: Asset Inventory Summary ..........................................................................................12 Table 3.6: Loss of Function .........................................................................................................15 Table 3.7: Loss Estimates/ Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................. 16 Table 3.8: Loss Estimates Summary...........................................................................................18 Chapter 3
Risk Assessment
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1................................................................................................................................. 3-19
LIST OF HAZARD PROFILE APPENDICES
Appendix A – Earthquake
Appendix B – Adversarial Events
Appendix C – Cyber Attack
Appendix D – Flood
Appendix E – Dam/Reseroir Failure
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-3
3.1 Risk Assessment
The Risk Assessment consists of four steps: Hazard Identification, Hazard Profiling, Asset Inventory, and Loss Estimates. This chapter includes the Hazard Identification and Hazard Profiling steps to evaluate the hazards of primary concern to local decision-makers in order to provide a basis for loss estimates. Additionally, the Risk Assessment provides a foundation for the evaluation of mitigation actions which can help reduce the impacts of potential hazard events.
Step 1 Identify Hazards
This step identified the natural and man-made hazards which might affect the City of Fountain Valley (City) and then narrowed the list to those hazards which are most likely to occur. These hazards included natural, technical, and human-caused events, with an emphasis on the effect of disaster events on critical facilities (e.g., government buildings as well as public services including police and fire) and vulnerable populations as outlined in Chapter 2. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) participated in a hazard identification exercise to identify and rank the potential hazards within the City.
Step 2 Profile Hazard Events
Hazard profiles consist of either a map indicating the area impacted by each hazard or key information regarding the characteristics of hazard events within the planning area. To develop detailed hazard profiles, relevant open-source natural hazard studies and mapping projects were reviewed and documented within this report. In addition, the City supplied natural hazard studies that included specific hazard and emergency information. This planning step determined the magnitude, frequency, and location characteristics or relevant natural hazards (predicted ground acceleration values, fault locations, flood plains, etc.) that were utilized as the design-basis for the loss estimates.These profiles are in the appendices attached to this chapter.
Step 1:
Hazard
Identification
Step 2:
Hazard
Profiling
Step 3:
Asset
Inventory
Step 4:
Loss Estimate
Use Risk
Assessment
to Prepare
HMP
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-4
Step 3 Inventory Assets
The purpose of this step was to determine the quantity of buildings, people (specifically vulnerable populations), and City assets which lie in the different hazard areas and what proportion of the City this represents. The asset inventory was completed utilizing a 2018 property insurance report which included asset locations and specifications for the following assets:
• Government Facilities
• Water system components: storage reservoirs, pumping
plants, wells, etc.
• Public Service Buildings: police and fire
The values were reviewed and increased to account for inflation between 2018 and 2024 to provide the HMPC with a more current reflection of replacement values. The development of the comprehensive inventory facilitated the development of loss estimates for all hazard scenarios.
Step 4 Loss Estimates
The loss estimate step relied on detailed information regarding the hazard probability and maps that were completed as part of the hazard profiles. This information was utilized to apply the hazard probabilities and recurrence intervals to the assets and vulnerable populations within the City. This step was critical in determining which assets and popuation grops were subject to the greatest potential impacts and which hazard event was likely to produce the greatest potential losses or injuries.
The conclusion of this step precipitated a comprehensive loss estimate which captured the projected impacts to City Assets and population groups throughout the City. This undersdtanding of the vulnerabiltiy for the community and City infrastructrure was used to develop mitigation actions which seek to promote resiliency for the affected community/assets.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-5
3.2 Hazard Identification
The hazard identification and ranking was obtained primarily from the Hazard Identification Exercise. Each hazard profile includes a summary of the Hazard Identification Exercise identified risk factors and overall rank for each hazard, in addition to the detailed hazard description, historical occurrences, and projected future probability, magnitude, and frequency.
The hazard identification exercise was conducted as a participatory HMPC workshop to identify the potential hazards within the City. The hazard identification exercise was facilitated utilizing an interactive spreadsheet program that asks specific questions on potential hazards and then rated them accordingly. These questions guide the team in the correct facilitation and application of the program. Table
3.1 summarizes the Hazard Identification Exercise risk
factors, lists the descriptions of each factor, provides the specific descriptor choices for each risk factor, and summarizes the risk ranking associated with each hazard.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-6
Table 3.1 Risk Factors for Hazard Identification
RISK FACTOR DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTORS VALUE
PROBABILITY/ FREQUENCY
Prediction of how often a
hazard will occur in the future.
Rare event - occurs less than once every 50 years 1
Infrequent event - occurs between once every 8
years and once every 50 years (inclusive)
2 Regular event - occurs between once a year and
once every 7 years
3 Frequent event - occurs more than once a year 4
CONSEQUENCE/SEVERITY
Physical Damage - structures
and lifelines
Economic Impact – loss of
function for power, water,
sanitation, roads, etc., as
applicable
No damage 1
Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no
loss of lifelines
2 Moderate building damage, minor loss of lifelines
(less than 12 hours)
3 Moderate building damage, lifeline loss (less than
24 hours)
4 Extensive building damage, widespread loss of
lifelines (water, gas, electricity, sanitation, roads), loss of life
5 VULNERABILITY
Impact Area - area impacted
by a hazard event,
Secondary Impacts -
Capability of triggering
additional hazards Onset -
Period of time between initial
recognition of an approaching
hazard and when the hazard
begins to impact the
community
No physical damage, no secondary impacts 1
Localized damage area 2
Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts,
delayed hazard onset 3
Moderate damage area, moderate secondary
impacts, moderate warning time 4
Widespread damage area, significant secondary
impacts, no warning time 5
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-7
Each profile also includes a ranking of the hazard (ranging from low hazard to high hazard). Table
3.2 illustrates the matrix for how each hazard was ranked according to all of the previously mentioned factors. Table 3.3 provides the value determinations for each ranking. The HMPC determined this initial profile ranking based on the hazard identification, profile research, group discussion, and evaluation of all of the data.
Table 3.2 Risk Rank Matrix
PROBABILITY/
FREQUENCY DESCRIPTION RISK RANKING MATRIX
Rare Event:
Occurs less than once every 50
years
Probability/Frequency Consequence/Severity
Value 1 1 2 3 4 5
Vulnerability
1 1 2 3 4 5
2 2 4 6 8 10
3 3 6 9 12 15
4 4 8 12 16 20
5 5 10 15 20 25
Infrequent Event:
Occurs between once every 8 years
and once every 50 years (inclusive)
Probability/Frequency Consequence/Severity
Value 2 1 2 3 4 5
Vulnerability
1 2 4 6 8 10
2 4 8 12 16 20
3 6 12 18 24 30
4 8 16 24 32 40
5 10 20 30 40 50
Regular Event:
Occurs between once a year and
once every 7 years
Probability/Frequency Consequence/Severity
Value 3 1 2 3 4 5
Vulnerability
1 3 6 9 12 15
2 6 12 18 24 30
3 9 18 27 36 45
4 12 24 36 48 60
5 15 30 45 60 75
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-8
Table 3.3 Risk Rank Categorization
High Hazard 50-100
Moderately High Hazard 25-49
Moderate Hazard 15-24
Moderately Low Hazard 5-14
Low Hazard 1-4
Table 3.4 provides the hazard ranking summary for the City.
Table 3.4 Hazard Ranking Summary
HAZARD RANK SCORE
EARTHQUAKE 50
ADVERSARIAL EVENTS 40
CYBER ATTACK 40
FLOOD 18
DAM / RESERVOIR FAILURE 16
Note: The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee did not identify any Low or Moderately Low ranked hazards.
Trends in Percieved Vulnerability
As illustrated above, the HMPC reviewed its perceived vulnerability to determine the potential impact of each hazard on the City. The HMPC began with the hazards identified in the 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan and used the list as a springboard in determining current perceived vulnerability. The current update saw a steep reduction in the list of identifyed hazards. This was done in an effort to streamline the planning process and focus HMPC efforts on target hazards the City would like to mitigation during the next 5-year planning period. Please note, removal of a hazard fom the plan is not intended to indicate these scenarios are not relevant to the City, but rather the balance between low probability and the 5-year forecast for improvement within the
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-9
City was determined to be sufficient to remove the hazard scenarios from the plan for the following 5-year planning period. Also, the HMPC discussed that, should a shift in percieved hazard vulnerability occur within the next 5-year planning period, the HMPC could reconvene and ammend this plan to inlcude the missing hazard. The hazards removed from the current plan update inlcuded windstorm, pipeline failure, subsidence, and drought.
During the Plan Update, The HMPC considered the hazards which impact the region. For this effort, the HMPC consulted FEMA’s National Risk Index wich indicated, for Orange County, the City should consider Wildfire, Riverine Flooding, landslide, Heat Wave, and Earthquake. Apart from Earthquake, the rest of the hazards were not inlcuded in the final list of identified hazards.
This was because, generally, these hazards do not apply to the City. With very few open areas, wildfire was not considered credible. There are no rivers or to allow for reverine flooding and the terrian is predominantly flat rendering landslide inapplicable as well. Heat Wave would have been considered, but the HMPC discussed that the City has existing mitigation measures sufficient that the City does not have regular impacts to public health. In conclusion, the final list of identified hazards was kept breif, focusing only on those hazards the HMPC considered significant and relevant over the next 5-year planning period.
3.3 Considerations for Climate Change
With the release of the California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) in March 2015 and revised in 2021, the City aimed to include the effects of climate change in the Hazard Mitigation Plan update.
As identified in the “Understanding Regional Characteristics” portion of the APG, the City is located in the South Coastal Region of California. As a result, the City considered the following climate change impacts as recommended by the APG:
• Increased Temperatures
• Reduced Precipitation
• Sea Level Rise
• Reduce tourism
• Reduced Water Supply
• Wildfire Risk
• Coastal Erosion
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-10
• Public Health (heat and air quality)
The HMPC engaged in a discussion to determine which impacts posed a viable threat to the City and what areas might be impacted. While some impacts clearly applied to the City, some required additional research. Studies were conducted to look at recorded trends for sea level rise, wildfire, and regional temperature increases. The result of the study was the following list of perceived, feasible impacts which were assumed could impact all portions of the City over the next five to ten years:
• Increased Temperatures
• Reduced Precipitation
• Reduced Water Supply
After reviewing the results of each of these impacts, the HMPC would typically consider how these impacts would
have been perceived by the City. For instance, increased temperatures and reduced water supply would be
perceived as drought conditions. Additionally, increased temperatures and reduced precipitation might indicate that fire conductions are more likely. However, in reviewing the final list of hazards identified by the HMPC, none of the natural hazards appear to be impacted by climate change. This fact is stated again within the hazard profile appendices. The City is cognizant of the impact of changing weather patterns. The HMPC discussed that, if new information is presented which demonstrates a significant impact to the City as the result of climate change, the HMPC will reconvene and amend the current plan.
3.4 Asset Inventory
A critical step in completing the Risk Assessment is developing a detailed asset inventory and documenting potential asset damages due to each identified hazard. The calculated loss estimates are based on values determined during the initial asset inventory, with adjustments made to account for inflation through 2024. The City developed a comprehensive inventory of all assets, including their locations, to ensure accurate loss estimates. Specific values were assigned
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-11
to critical City facilities, with the understanding that these values are estimates used for planning purposes.
The replacement values for facilities were derived from a variety of sources, including insurance surveys and data from previous plans, with adjustments for inflation to reflect current market conditions. For public facilities and critical infrastructure, the replacement value represents the cost of rebuilding the facility to the same size and functionality, using current construction prices and materials. This value provides a baseline for understanding the potential financial impact if these assets were damaged or destroyed by a hazard. For public services and lifelines, the City also assessed Loss of Function Values, which reflect the potential impact of service interruptions.
These values were assigned to essential services such as police, fire, water, and wastewater, based on their importance to the community and the associated economic and social costs if disrupted. Next, the HMPC reviewed each asset and assigned a percentage damage for each identified hazard, considering factors such as the type of hazard, location, and vulnerability of the asset. The percentage damage indicates the anticipated degree of damage that each asset could experience in the event of a hazard. These percentages were determined based on historical data and skilled judgment from City staff who had information specific to each type of hazard. Finally, the Loss Estimate was calculated by applying the assigned percent damage to the total replacement value of each asset. This provides an estimate of the financial loss expected for each facility or service in the event of a hazard, helping the City to understand potential impacts and prioritize mitigation actions.
Future Developments
Currently, there are no planned developments for future buildings within the City; however, the hazard maps and loss estimates are dynamic, and the calculations will be updated to account for future developments as the potential arises. The Asset Inventory Summary Tables and map depicting the asset locations for the City of are presented on the following pages The following tables present the asset categories, facility names, addresses, total replacement values, percent damage, and corresponding loss estimates for each identified hazard. These estimates were used to guide mitigation action strategy development.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-12
Table 3.5: Asset Inventory Summary
TYPE NAME ADDRESS STRUCTURE VALUE
Public Facility CITY HALL & COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10200 SLATER AVENUE $4,352,600
Public Facility BOYS & GIRLS CLUBHOUSE ACADEMY 10200 SLATER AVENUE $1,387,000
Public Facility CHILD CARE FACILITY 17565 LOS
ALAMOS $1,431,000
Public Facility LIBRARY
17635 LOS
ALAMOS
STREET
$1,816,000
Public Facility CITY YARD
17300 MT
HERRMANN
STREET
$4,673,000
Public Facility THE CENTER AT FOUNDERS VILLAGE SR. COMM.
CENTER
17967
BUSHARD ST. $3,530,000
Police POLICE FACILITY 10200 SLATER
AVENUE $11,815,000
Fire FIRE STATION #1
17737
BUSHARD
STREET
$1,535,000
Fire FIRE STATION #2
16767
NEWHOPE
STREET
$926,000
Parks RECREATION CENTER COMPLEX
16400
BROOKHURST
STREET
$3,606,000
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-13
TYPE NAME ADDRESS STRUCTURE VALUE
Parks RESTROOM STORAGE CONCESSION
16400
BROOKHURST
ST.
$172,000
Parks RESTROOM CONCESSION
16400
BROOKHURST
ST.
$172,000
Parks RESTROOM CONCESSION
16400
BROOKHURST
ST.
$172,000
Parks RESTROOM CONCESSION
16400
BROOKHURST
ST.
$172,000
Water Facility WATER RESERVOIR #1 PUMP STATION 18460 EUCLID STREET $1,500,000
Water Facility WATER STORAGE TANK 18460 EUCLID
STREET $5,000,000
Water Facility WATER RESERVOIR #2 PUMP STATION
9300
TANAGER
STREET
$1,500,000
Water Facility WATER STORAGE TANK
9300
TANAGER
STREET
$5,000,000
Water Facility WELL PUMP SITE #6 11775
WARNER AVE $3,000,000
Water Facility WELL PUMP SITE #8
11669
EDINGER
AVENUE
$3,000,000
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-14
TYPE NAME ADDRESS STRUCTURE VALUE
Water Facility WELL PUMP SITE #9
9293
POINSETTIA
AVENUE
$3,000,000
Water Facility WELL PUMP SITE #10
170239
NEWHOPE
STREET
$3,000,000
Water Facility WELL PUMP SITE #11
16640
BROOKHURST
STREET
$3,000,000
Water Facility WELL PUMP SITE #12 16201 EUCLID
STREET $3,000,000
Water Facility PUMP STATION
16489
SANDALWOOD
STREET
$2,500,000
Water Facility PUMP STATION
8917
COCKATOO
AVENUE
$2,500,000
Water Facility WARD SEWER LIFT PUMP STATION 17886 WARD
STREET $1,250,000
Water Facility METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. PRESSURE
REDUCING STATION
MAGNOLIA
STREET - 200
FT. NORTH OF
EDINGER
$1,500,000
Note: Values provided by 9/2018 Assessment by Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) Note: Inflation estimated using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (2018-2024, or $1 to $1.24)
$110,991,904
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-15
Table 3.6: Loss of Function
LOSS OF FUNCTION / CONTINUITY PREMIUM (1 DAY)
POPULATION: 55,930
CATEGORY Value Per Person Value Per Day Continuity Premium Total FIRE SERVICE - $35,500 10 $355,000
POLICE SERVICE - $36,589 10 $534,199
WATER SERVICE $136 $7,594,175 - $11,239,380
WASTEWATER $60 $3,347,970 - $4,954,995
Note: Population taken from 2022 census data provided on the City's website.
Note: Values Per Person were listed from FEMA's "BCA Reference Guide, June 2009" Note: Inflation estimated using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (2009-2004, or $1 to $1.48) $27,372,457
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-16
Table 3.7: Loss Estimates/ Vulnerability Assessment
City of Fountain Valley
Vulnerability Assessment Calculations Earthquake Adversarial Events Cyber Attack Flood Dam/Reservoir Failure Type Name Address TOTAL %
Damage
Loss
Estimate % Loss Estimate % Loss Estimate % Loss Estimate %
Damage
Loss
Estimate
Public Facility CITY HALL & COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
10200 SLATER
AVENUE $5,397,224 35% $1,889,028 7% $377,806 7% $377,806 3% $161,917 5% $269,861 Public Facility BOYS & GIRLS
CLUBHOUSE ACADEMY
10200 SLATER
AVENUE $1,719,880 25% $429,970 7% $120,392 7% $120,392 3% $51,596 5% $85,994 Public Facility CHILD CARE FACILITY 17565 LOS ALAMOS $1,774,440 25% $443,610 7% $124,211 7% $124,211 3% $53,233 5% $88,722 Public Facility LIBRARY 17635 LOS ALAMOS
STREET $2,251,840 25% $562,960 7% $157,629 7% $157,629 3% $67,555 5% $112,592 Public Facility CITY YARD 17300 MT
HERRMANN STREET $5,794,520 25% $1,448,630 7% $405,616 7% $405,616 3% $173,836 5% $289,726 Public Facility
THE CENTER AT
FOUNDERS VILLAGE
SR. COMM. CENTER
17967 BUSHARD ST. $4,377,200 10% $437,720 7% $306,404 7% $306,404 3% $131,316 5% $218,860 Police POLICE FACILITY 10200 SLATER
AVENUE $14,650,600 30% $4,395,180 7% $1,025,542 7% $1,025,542 3% $439,518 5% $732,530 Fire FIRE STATION #1 17737 BUSHARD
STREET $1,903,400 75% $1,427,550 7% $133,238 7% $133,238 3% $57,102 5% $95,170 Fire FIRE STATION #2 16767 NEWHOPE
STREET $1,148,240 75% $861,180 7% $80,377 7% $80,377 3% $34,447 5% $57,412 Parks RECREATION CENTER
COMPLEX
16400 BROOKHURST
STREET $4,471,440 25% $1,117,860 7% $313,001 0% $0 3% $134,143 5% $223,572 Parks RESTROOM STORAGE
CONCESSION
16400 BROOKHURST
ST. $213,280 10% $21,328 7% $14,930 0% $0 3% $6,398 5% $10,664 Parks RESTROOM
CONCESSION
16400 BROOKHURST
ST. $213,280 10% $21,328 7% $14,930 0% $0 3% $6,398 5% $10,664 Parks RESTROOM
CONCESSION
16400 BROOKHURST
ST. $213,280 10% $21,328 7% $14,930 0% $0 3% $6,398 5% $10,664 Parks RESTROOM
CONCESSION
16400 BROOKHURST
ST. $213,280 10% $21,328 7% $14,930 0% $0 3% $6,398 5% $10,664 Water Facility WATER RESERVOIR #1
PUMP STATION
18460 EUCLID
STREET $4,960,000 30% $1,488,000 7% $347,200 7% $347,200 3% $148,800 50% $2,480,000 Water Facility WATER STORAGE TANK 18460 EUCLID
STREET $6,200,000 20% $1,240,000 7% $434,000 0% $0 3% $186,000 50% $3,100,000
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-17
Water Facility WATER RESERVOIR #2
PUMP STATION
9300 TANAGER
STREET $4,960,000 30% $1,488,000 7% $347,200 7% $347,200 3% $148,800 50% $2,480,000 Water Facility WATER STORAGE TANK 9300 TANAGER
STREET $6,200,000 20% $1,240,000 7% $434,000 0% $0 3% $186,000 50% $3,100,000 Water Facility WELL PUMP SITE #6 11775 WARNER AVE $4,960,000 30% $1,488,000 7% $347,200 7% $347,200 3% $148,800 5% $248,000 Water Facility WELL PUMP SITE #8 11669 EDINGER
AVENUE $4,650,000 30% $1,395,000 7% $325,500 7% $325,500 3% $139,500 5% $232,500 Water Facility WELL PUMP SITE #9 9293 POINSETTIA
AVENUE $4,960,000 30% $1,488,000 7% $347,200 7% $347,200 3% $148,800 5% $248,000 Water Facility WELL PUMP SITE #10 170239 NEWHOPE
STREET $4,960,000 30% $1,488,000 7% $347,200 7% $347,200 3% $148,800 5% $248,000 Water Facility WELL PUMP SITE #11 16640 BROOKHURST
STREET $4,960,000 30% $1,488,000 7% $347,200 7% $347,200 3% $148,800 5% $248,000 Water Facility WELL PUMP SITE #12 16201 EUCLID
STREET $4,650,000 30% $1,395,000 7% $325,500 7% $325,500 3% $139,500 5% $232,500 Water Facility PUMP STATION
16489
SANDALWOOD
STREET
$4,960,000 20% $992,000 7% $347,200 7% $347,200 3% $148,800 5% $248,000 Water Facility PUMP STATION 8917 COCKATOO
AVENUE $4,960,000 20% $992,000 7% $347,200 7% $347,200 3% $148,800 5% $248,000 Water Facility WARD SEWER LIFT
PUMP STATION
17886 WARD
STREET $2,480,000 20% $496,000 7% $173,600 7% $173,600 3% $74,400 5% $124,000 Water Facility
METROPOLITAN WATER
DIST. PRESSURE
REDUCING STATION
MAGNOLIA STREET -
200 FT. NORTH OF
EDINGER
$2,790,000 20% $558,000 7% $195,300 7% $195,300 3% $83,700 5% $139,500 Fire Service $355,000 100% $355,000 80% $284,000 100% $355,000 80% $284,000 80% $284,000 Police Service $534,199 100% $534,199 80% $427,360 85% $454,069 80% $427,360 80% $427,360 Water Service $11,239,380 100% $11,239,380 5% $561,969 100% $11,239,380 3% $337,181 10% $1,123,938 Wastewater $4,954,995 100% $4,954,995 5% $247,750 100% $4,954,995 3% $148,650 5% $247,750 Earthquake $47,418,575 Adversarial
Events $9,290,512 Cyber Attack $23,532,158 Flood $4,526,948 Dam/Reservoir Failure $17,676,642
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-18
Table 3.8: Loss Estimates Summary
Note: Values are rounded to the nearest thousand
HAZARD NAME
EARTHQUAKE $47,419,000
CYBERATTACK $23,532,000
DAM/RESERVOIR FAILURE $17,677,000
ADVERSARIAL EVENTS $9,291,000
FLOOD $4,527,000
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-19
Figure 3.1 City of Fountain Valley Asset Inventory Map
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E.1 Earthquake Identification and Background........................................................ Earthquake -3 E.2 Earthquake Location.......................................................................................... Earthquake -4 E.3 Earthquake Extent............................................................................................Earthquake -11 E.4 Earthquake History .......................................................................................... Earthquake -14 E.5 Earthquake Probability .................................................................................... Earthquake -21 E.5 Earthquake vulnerability and Potential Vulnerability........................................ Earthquake -24
LIST OF TABLES
Table E.1 San Andreas Fault Information ................................................................ Earthquake -7 Table E.2 Newport-Inglewood Fault Information ...................................................... Earthquake -8 Table E.3 San Joaquin Fault Information ................................................................. Earthquake -9 Table E.4 Palos Verdes Fault Information.............................................................. Earthquake -10 Table e.5 San Clemente Fault Information..............................................................Earthquake -11 Table E.6 Modified Mercalli Intesity Scale.............................................................. Earthquake -12 Table E.7 Table of Select Historical Earthquakes................................................... Earthquake -14 Table E.8 Mercalli intesity and Corresponding peak Group Acceleration .............. Earthquake -23 Table E.9 Earthquake Loss Estimate Table............................................................ Earthquake -24 Appendix A
Earthquake
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure E.1. Southern California Historic Earthquake Map ....................................... Earthquake -5 Figure E.2 Southern California Earthquake Fault Map ............................................ Earthquake -6 Figure E.3 Peak Groun Acceleration Map.............................................................. Earthquake -22
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-3 E.1 Earthquake Identification and Background
Plate tectonics is a starting point for understanding the forces within the Earth that cause earthquakes. Plates are thick slabs of rock that make up the outermost 100 kilometers of the Earth. The term "tectonics" describes the deformation of the Earth's crust, the forces producing such
deformation, and the geologic and structural
features that result. The constant motion of the
plates causes stress in the brittle upper crust of the
earth. These tectonic stresses build as the rocks are
gradually deformed. The rock deformation, or strain,
is stored in the rocks as elastic strain energy. When the strength of the rock is exceeded, rupture occurs along a fault. The rocks on opposite sides of the fault slide past each other as they spring back into a relaxed position. The strain energy is released partly as heat and partly as elastic waves called seismic waves. The passage of these seismic waves produces the ground shaking in earthquakes.
Faults are more likely to produce future earthquakes if they have rapid rates of movement, have had recent earthquakes along them, experience greater total displacements, and are aligned so that movement can relieve the accumulating tectonic stresses. Geologists classify faults by their relative hazards. “Active” faults, which represent the highest hazard, are those that have ruptured to the ground surface during the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years). In contrast, “potentially active” faults are those that displaced layers of rock from the Quaternary period (the last 1,800,000 years). Determining if a fault is “active” or “potentially active” depends on geologic evidence, which may not be available for every fault.
Ground Failure
Fissuring, settlement, and permanent horizontal and vertical shifting of the ground often accompanies large earthquakes. Although not as pervasive or as costly as the shaking itself, these ground failures can significantly increase damage and, under certain circumstances, can be the dominant cause of damage. The following is a list of different ground failure scenarios.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-4 Fault Rupture
The sudden sliding of one part of the earth’s crust past another releases the vast store of elastic energy in the rocks as an earthquake. The resulting fracture is known as a fault, while the sliding movement of earth on either side of a fault is called fault rupture. Fault rupture begins below the ground surface at the earthquake hypocenter, typically between three and ten miles below the ground surface in California. If an earthquake is large enough, the fault rupture will actually travel all the way to the ground surface, severely damaging structures built across its path.
Liquifaction
In addition to the primary fault rupture that occurs right along a fault during an earthquake, the ground many miles away can also fail during the intense shaking. One common type of failure occurs when soft, water-saturated soil settles, causing the water to eject sediment particles as it works its way to the ground surface. This phenomenon, known as liquefaction, turns the soil into a fluid, causing it to lose the ability to support buildings and other structures. Areas susceptible to liquefaction include places where sandy sediments have been deposited by rivers along their course or by wave action along beaches.
E.2 Earthquake Location
Even if the epicenter of a major earthquake is not located directly within the City of Fountain Valley (City), the aftershocks associated with that earthquake can cause significant damage. The hazards associated with aftershock earthquakes are the same as mainshock earthquakes and may cause significant damage and disruption. The primary difference between mainshock and aftershock earthquakes is aftershock earthquakes are categorized by the following two guidelines.
First, it must occur within one rupture length of the mainshock rupture surface, or alternatively, within an "aftershock zone" based upon early aftershock activity and defined by seismologists.
Second, it must occur within that designated area before the seismicity rate in that area returns to its "background", meaning pre-mainshock, level. Figure 1 from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center details the locations and magnitudes for historic Southern California earthquakes.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-5 Figure E.1. Southern California Historic Earthquake Map The Steering Committee ranked earthquake as the greatest threat to the City. The City is located in a seismic fault zone near the Newport-Inglewood Fault and the Elysian Park Fault according to a Preliminary Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone map provided by the California Department of Conservation website and is located in a high seismic risk zone.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-6 Figure E.2 Southern California Earthquake Fault Map
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-7 Fault Zones
There are many faults and fault zones throughout southern California. After reviewing maps of the United States, California and specifically the southern California area, the research resulted in earthquakes that could impact the City. Faults that were reviewed include: San Andreas, Newport-Inglewood, Norwalk, Whittier, San Joaquin Hills, Rose Canyon, Coronado Bank fault, Elsinore Fault, San Diego Trough, Elysian Park, and San Clemente Faults. These faults, all considered active, are capable of producing earthquakes in the 4.5 – 8+ range. This report focused on the five faults that could most seriously impact the area.
1. San Andreas Fault
2. Newport-Inglewood Fault
3. San Joaquin Hills Thrust Fault
4. Palos Verdes Fault
5. San Clemente Fault
A major earthquake along any of these five faults could result in substantial casualties and damage resulting from collapsed buildings, damaged roads and bridges, fires, flooding, and other threats to life and property. There may still be unmapped earthquake faults throughout southern California that could also affect the City. Figures 1 and 2 provide the local earthquake faults in the City and southern California areas. In addition, Tables 1 through 5 give fault specific information from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center for local faults that could affect the City.
The San Andreas Fault
Table E.1 San Andreas Fault Information
Type of fault: Right-lateral strike-slip
Length: 1200 km
Nearby Communities: Parkfield, Frazier Park, Palmdale, Wrightwood, San Bernardino, Banning, Indio
Last Major Rupture: January 9, 1857 (Mojave segment); April 18, 1906 (Northern segment)
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-8 Slip rate: 20-35 mm/yr.
Interval Between
Major Ruptures:
Average of about 140 years on the Mojave segment; recurrence interval varies greatly from under 20 years (at Parkfield only) to over 300 years Probable Magnitudes: 6.8-8.0
This fault marks the boundary between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates and is capable of producing earthquakes in the magnitude 8+ range. It has been scientifically determined through a carbon dating process that a major earthquake on this fault has occurred approximately every 145 years plus or minus 20 years. The last major earthquake on the Mojave segment of the Fault occurred in 1857 (159 years ago as of 2016). The San Andreas Fault is considered one of the most active faults in the world today, and a major earthquake up to an 8.3 magnitude is expected to occur again within the next 20 years. The Fault traverses the southern California region and is located east of the City. The ground shaking of an 8.3 magnitude earthquake on the Southern San Andreas Fault would result in serious damage in Southern California, including the City.
The Newport-Inglewood Fault
Table E.2 Newport-Inglewood Fault Information
Type of fault: Right lateral; local reverse slip associated with fault steps Length: 75 km
Nearby Communities: Culver City, Inglewood, Gardena, Compton, Signal Hill, Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa
Last Major Rupture March 10, 1993, MW 6.4
Slip rate: 0.6 mm/yr.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-9 Interval Between
Major Ruptures:
Unknown
Probable Magnitudes: 6.0-7.4
The Newport-Inglewood Fault is considered the second most active fault in California. It runs from the City of Inglewood through Huntington Beach and out into the Pacific Ocean near the Newport Beach area. This fault is capable of producing earthquakes in the range of 6.3 to 7.5 magnitude.
The 6.5 magnitude, 1933 Long Beach earthquake occurred on the Newport-Inglewood fault causing 120 deaths and severe damage. Unreinforced masonry buildings collapsed leaving people trapped beneath the rubble.
When scientists refer to the San Andreas Fault, they often call it “The Big One.” In 1990, the Los Angeles Times newspaper did a series of articles on the Newport-Inglewood Fault and described it as “The Bigger One.” Both faults would cause considerable damage; however, a 7.5 magnitude Newport-Inglewood earthquake have a more severe impact on the City than an 8.3 on the San Andreas due to the fault’s proximity. The cost estimates of damage are much greater for the Newport-Inglewood worst-case scenario than the San Andreas worst-case scenario.
The San Joaquin Hills Fault
Table E.3 San Joaquin Fault Information
Type of fault: Blind thrust
Length: 39 km
Nearby Communities: Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point
Most recent surface
rupture:
Unknown
Slip rate: Unknown
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-10 According to a California Institute of Technology (Caltech) study, the San Joaquin Hills Fault is a blind thrust fault, which will not break the earth’s surface but can cause severe damage. It is 24 miles in length from Dana Point to Huntington Beach. This thrust fault may interact with the projected Compton Thrust Fault to the west. Caltech reported that the maximum magnitude the fault could produce was up to a 7.3 earthquake, which is a large and powerful seismic event.
Caltech utilized the research on the fault conducted by Lisa Grant at UCI to complete an earthquake-shaking model showing the intensity, velocity, and acceleration.
Palos Verdes Fault
Table E.4 Palos Verdes Fault Information
Type of fault: Right reverse
Length: Roughly 80 km
Nearby Communities: San Pedro, Palos Verdes Estates, Torrance, Redondo Beach Most recent surface
rupture:
Holocene offshore; Late Quaternary onshore;
Slip rate: Between 0.1 and 3.0 mm/yr.
Interval between major
ruptures:
Unknown
Probable magnitudes: 6.0 – 7.0 (or greater); fault geometries may allow only partial rupture at any one time.
The Palos Verdes Hills Fault is capable of a 6.0-7.0 magnitude earthquake. It has two main branches and continues southward as the Palos Verdes-Coronado Bank Fault Zone.
This fault is located off the coast of Huntington Beach. It starts north of Long Beach and extends south past Newport Beach where it is projected to join the Coronado Bank Fault Zone. The issue of concern is the fault causing shaking and liquefaction within the City
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-11 San Clemente Fault
Table e.5 San Clemente Fault Information
Type of fault: Right lateral and vertical offsets
Length: At least 210 km; essentially continuous with the San Isidoro Fault Zone, off the coast of Mexico
Nearby Communities: San Diego (70 km offshore) forms scarp on east side of San Clemente Island
Most recent surface
rupture:
Holocene
Slip rate: Roughly 1.5 mm/yr.
As with the Palos Verdes Fault, the San Clemente Fault is located offshore and could cause ground shaking and liquefaction within the City.
E.3 Earthquake Extent
The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed as a magnitude and is measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs. An earthquake’s magnitude is expressed in whole numbers and decimals (e.g., 6.8). Seismologists have developed several magnitude scales. One of the first was the Richter scale, developed in 1932 by Dr. Charles F. Richter of the California Institute of Technology. The most commonly used scale today is the Moment Magnitude (Mw) Scale. Moment magnitude is related to the total area of the fault that ruptured and the amount of offset (displacement) across the fault. It is a more uniform measure of the energy released during an earthquake.
The other commonly used measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking at any given location on the ground surface. In general, it decreases
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-12 with distance from the source of an earthquake, but it may be increased or decreased by a number of factors.
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale & Corresponding Richter Scale Magnitudes Shaking intensity is often described using the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale which rates an earthquake’s effects based on human observation. While an earthquake has only one magnitude, it may have many intensity values which will generally decrease with distance from the epicenter.
Table 6 lists the Mercalli Scale’s various intensity levels Table E.6 Modified Mercalli Intesity Scale
MERCALLI
INTENSITY DESCRIPTION RICHTER SCALE MAGNITUDE
I Instrumental Detected only by a seismograph
II Feeble Noticed by sensitive people 0.1 to 3.4
III Slight Like the vibrations due to a passing truck 3.5 to 4.2 IV Moderate Felt by people while walking, rocking of loose objects, including standing vehicles
4.3 to 4.8
V
Rather
Strong
Felt generally; most sleepers are awakened and
bells ring
4.3 to 4.8
VI Strong Trees sway and all suspended objects swing;
damage by over-turning and falling of loose objects
4.9 to 5.4
VII Very Strong General alarm; walls crack; plaster falls 4.9 to 5.4 VIII Destructive
Car drivers seriously disturbed; masonry fissured;
chimneys fall; poorly constructed buildings
damaged
5.5 to 6.1
IX Ruinous Some houses collapse where ground begins to
crack, and pipes break
6.2 to 6.9
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-13
MERCALLI
INTENSITY DESCRIPTION RICHTER SCALE MAGNITUDE
X Disastrous Ground cracks badly; many buildings destroyed, and railway lines bent; landslides on steep slopes
7.0 to 7.3
XI Very
Disastrous
Few buildings remain standing; bridges destroyed;
all services (railway, pipes, and cables) out of
action; great landslides and floods
7.4 to 8.1
XI Catastrophic Total Destruction; objects thrown into air; ground rises and falls in waves
8.1 +
As described in the Earthquake Probability, the City has roughl;y a .02% change of a 6.5M earthquake annualy. According to the table 1, this could resutl in sever shaking resulting in housing collapse, ground fissures, and possible damage to underground infrastructure.
Amplification of Seismic Shaking
Although seismic waves radiate from their source like ripples on a pond, the radiation is not uniform due to the complex nature of an earthquake rupture, the different paths the waves follow through the Earth, and the different rock and soil layers near the Earth’s surface. Large earthquakes begin to rupture at their hypocenter deep in the Earth and the fault ruptures outward from that point. Because the speed of an earthquake rupture on a fault is similar to the speed of seismic waves, waves closer to the epicenter can be compounded by waves from farther along the rupture, creating a pulse of very strong seismic waves that moves along the fault in the direction of the fault rupture. Seismic waves may also be modified as they travel through the Earth’s crust.
As seismic waves approach the ground surface, they commonly enter areas of loose soils where the waves travel more slowly. As the waves slow down, their amplitude increases, resulting in larger waves with frequencies that are more likely to damage structures. Waves can also be trapped within soft sediments between the ground surface and deep, hard basement rocks, their destructive energy multiplying as they bounce back and forth, producing much greater shaking at the ground surface.
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-14 E.4 Earthquake History
To indicate the potential for an earthquake event, Table 3.6 lists significant recorded earthquakes in Southern California and the associated magnitudes (excerpted from the SCEDC (2013):
Southern California Earthquake Data Center):
Table E.7 Table of Select Historical Earthquakes
MAGNITUDE YEAR EARTHQUAKE NAME
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1796 LA Basin Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1800 San Diego Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1812 Wrightwood (or San Juan Capistrano) Earthquake MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1812 Santa Barbara Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1852 Volcano Lake Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1855 Los Angeles Region Earthquake
MAGNITUDE > 7.5 1857 Fort Tejon Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1858 San Bernardino Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1862 San Diego Earthquake
MAGNITUDE > 7.5 1872 Owens Valley Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1881 Parkfield Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1883 Santa Barbara Channel Earthquake MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1890 San Jacinto or Elsinore Fault Region Earthquake MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1892 San Jacinto or Elsinore Fault Region Earthquake MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1892 Laguna Salada Earthquake
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-15
MAGNITUDE YEAR EARTHQUAKE NAME
MAGNITUDE > 7.5 1892 Imperial Valley Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1899 Cajon Pass Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1899 San Jacinto Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1901 Parkfield Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1906 Imperial Valley Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1908 Death Valley Region Earthquake MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1910 Elsinore Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1915 Imperial Valley Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1916 South of Death Valley Earthquake MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1918 San Jacinto Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1922 Parkfield Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1968 Borrego Mountain Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1970 Lytle Creek Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1971 San Fernando (Sylmar) Earthquake MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1973 Point Mugu Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1975 Galway Lake Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1978 Santa Barbara Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1979 Malibu Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1980 White Wash Earthquake
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-16
MAGNITUDE YEAR EARTHQUAKE NAME
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1982 "Anza Gap" Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1986 North Palm Springs Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1986 Oceanside Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1987 Elmore Ranch/Superstition Hills Earthquakes MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1988 Tejon Ranch Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1988 Upland Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1988 Pasadena Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1989 Malibu Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1989 Newport Beach Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1989 Montebello Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1990 Upland Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1991 Sierra Madre Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1992 Joshua Tree Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1992 Landers Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1992 Big Bear Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1992 Mojave (Garlock) Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1993 Wheeler Ridge Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1994 Northridge Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1995 Ridgecrest Earthquakes
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-17
MAGNITUDE YEAR EARTHQUAKE NAME
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1996 Coso Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1997 Calico Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1998 Coso Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1998 Crafton Hills (Redlands) Earthquake MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1998 San Bernardino Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1998 Whiskey Springs (Big Bear City) Earthquake MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1999 Hector Mine Earthquake
UNDER MAGNITUDE 4.5 2001 West Hollywood Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2001 Anza Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 2002 Laguna Salada Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 2003 San Simeon Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2005 Mettler Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2008 Chino Hills Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2009 Inglewood Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 2009 Baja California Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 2010 Sierra El Mayor Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2010 Ocotillo Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2010 Borrego Springs Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2011 Calexico Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2012 Brawley Earthquake
City of Fountain Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-18
MAGNITUDE YEAR EARTHQUAKE NAME
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2012 Westmoreland Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2013 Anza Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2013 Isla Vista Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2014 Brea Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2014 Running Springs Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2015 Stovepipe Wells Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2016 San Jacinto Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2016 Borrego Springs Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2018 Santa Cruz Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 2020 Lone Pine Earthquake
Southern California Historic Earthquakes
The City is in the high seismic risk zone. The City is located on an alluvial flood plain, which, for the most part, has a high potential for shaking intensity and ground failure (liquefaction) damage.
One of the best indicators of earthquake potential is learning the earthquake history of the area.
The following is a discussion on large earthquakes that affected the City, which were also included in table 3.6.
1857 Fort Tejon Earthquake
On January 9, 1857, one of the greatest recorded earthquakes in the U.S. occurred in Southern California. The Fort Tejon earthquake measured 7.9 on the Richter scale and left a surface rupture