to expand. She was happy to hear that appropriate actions were being done.
Scheduled and Related Items
CC-2022-02 - Presentation on the occasion of retirement for two City staff members: Barbara Nicholson, City Clerk; and Dave Lofton, Field Maintenance III By consensus, this item was continued to the February 8, 2022, meeting.
CC-2022-03 -Joint meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority regarding presentation of Audit Report for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 [Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott (RAMS)/Finance] Finance Director Fabela introduced Brianna Schultz, Engagement Auditor, and Brad Welebir, Partner, with Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott (RAMS).
Ms. Shultz stated that they met with the Audit Committee prior to the meeting to discuss the City’s audit report and to respond to questions. She began her presentation stating that the City responsibilities are to present the City’s financial position and results of its operations fairly and in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles; adopt sound accounting policies; provide reasonable accounting estimates; establish and maintain internal controls; and prevent and detect fraud.
She continued stating that the Audit Firm’s (RAMS) responsibilities are to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement; examine, on a test basis, evidence supporting amounts and disclosures; assess accounting principles used, estimates made, and evaluate the overall financial statement presentation; review the City’s internal control policies and procedures; and express an opinion on the City’s financial statements. The opinion on the City’s financial statement is unmodified, which is the highest level of assurance that an Audit Firm can provide. She went on to say that the financial statements are fairly presented in all materials respects; that the significant accounting policies have been consistently applied; that the estimates are reasonable; and that he disclosures are properly reflected in the financial statements. She concluded that they were no disagreements with management; no material errors or irregularities discovered; and no significant accounting issues discovered.
She thanked Ms. Fabela and her team for another smooth and successful year. She appreciated their patience and helpfulness.
Finance Director Fabela presented the City’s 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), noting the report is made up of three major sections:
1) Introductory, which included a transmittal letter, highlighting the City’s profile, significant events and accomplishments; Government Finance Officers Association award (GFOA) for 2019; a list of principal officers in place during Fiscal year 2020; and an organization chart. 2) Financial, which included the auditor’s report, management’s discussion and analysis, the financial statements, notes and required supplementary information and supplementary information that compares budget to actual for each governmental fund; and 3) Statistical, which included financial trends, revenue and debt capacity, demographic, economic information and operating information.
She noted the financial statements included the City, the Loma Linda Housing Authority and the Successor Agency, which is a private purpose trust fund.
She summarized the City Financial Results of:
• Government wide and Business-type Financial Statements • Fund Financial Statements for General Fund-Fund Balance • General Fund-Statement of Revenues, expenditures and change in fund balance • Fund Financial Statements, General Fund Budgetary Comparison • Statement of Net Position-Proprietary Funds; Summary Change in Net Position by Business-type Activities
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2022
• Successor Agency Financial Results of Statement of Fiduciary Net Position and Statement of changes in Fiduciary Net Position
She concluded that the documents are available on the website. She thanked everyone from every department for their assistance in the preparation of the City’s 2021 CAFR.
Mayor pro tempore Dailey stated that he, the Mayor and City staff met with the Auditors to review the report before the Council meeting. He was pleased with the Auditor’s overall positive assessment of the City’s financial status. He wanted to commend and thank City Manager and City Staff on maintaining a well-managed, lean budget. He was pleased and proud of the City for their efforts.
Brief discussion ensued regarding CalPERS unfunded liability debt. It was noted that the City has paid down a significant amount of the City’s unfunded liability compared to other cities.
On behalf of City Council, the Mayor accepted the filing.
Councilman Rigsby recused himself due to a conflict of interest.
CC-2022-04 - Public Hearing - Master Sign Program P21-225:
a. DETERMINE the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311(a) which applies to the placement of signage on existing facilities, and;
b. APPROVE Master Sign Program Application No. P21-225 for the design and installation of wall-mounted signs and monument signs at the surgical hospital located at 26780 Barton Road, based on the Findings contained in this Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval.
Senior Planner Matarrita began her presentation by providing a summary of the City’s Zoning Code requirements for a Sign Ordinance. She described the applicant’s proposal request for 5 new signs, their size, locations and design:
• Two (2) illuminated channel letter wall-mounted signs • Two (2) illuminated monument signs
• One (1) illuminated channel letter wall-mounted accessory sign She noted that the project is eligible for a Class 1 exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15311(a), which applies to the placement of minor structures accessory to existing institutional facilities such as on premise signs; that public hearing notices were mailed out with no comments received; that all elements of the Master Sign Program were consistent with the General Plan (2009) and in compliance with the Loma Linda Municipal Code; and that the findings were made to support the approval of the project. In conclusion staff was recommending approval of the Master Sign Program P21-225 as recommended in the staff report.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mayor Dupper asked how this will this fit in the wayfinding signage.
Kurtis Sharp, LLUH, stated that they have a master plan that allows them to add further signs on Barton Rd. and Mt. View Ave., as needed. He noted that they have everything established around the campus, as far as wayfinding; that they will have more message boards along the new bridge; that they will continue to move forward with more branding to help motorist identify campus locations; and that they will continue to work with City staff for expansion of signs. He noted that they have a new budget approved each year for their sign program. He stated that the Master Sign Program supports their program as they continue to grow and provide more services to the City.
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2022
Mayor pro tempore Dailey commented that the signs are attractive and helpful.
The public hearing was closed.
Motion by Dailey, seconded by Jindal to Determine the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311(a) which applies to the placement of signage on existing facilities; and to Approve Master Sign Program Application No. P21-225 for the design and installation of three (3) wall-mounted signs and one (1) monument sign at the surgical hospital located at 26780 Barton Road, based on the Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval; the City Clerk called the roll and motion was approved. Rigsby abstain and Lenart absent.
CC-2022-05– Consent Calendar
Motion by Rigsby and seconded by Dailey to approve the Consent Calendar; the City Clerk called the role and the Consent Calendar was approved. Lenart absent.
The demands register dated:
• December 14, 2021, with commercial demands totaling $2,043,376.48 and payroll demands dated November 24, 2021 totaling $344,308.29 and December 9, 2021, totaling $350,859.20;
• December 28, 2021, with commercial demands totaling $718,472.72 and payroll demands dated December 23, 2021, totaling $389,259.60.
• January 11, 2022, with commercial demands totaling $1,613,249.62 and payroll demands dated January 6, 2022, totaling $428,106.20.
The minutes of December 14, 2021, as presented.
The December 2021 Treasurer’s Reports for filing.
Approved Agreement with Romo Plannng Group in the amount of $48,000 for interim contract planning services.
Awarded contract for the purchase of three (3) Ford F150 vehicles in the amount of $96,874.02, Fairview Ford, Vendor.
Awarded contract for the inspection and cleaning services of six (6) water reservoirs in the amount of $17,770.00, Inland Potable Services, Inc., Contractor.
Accepted as complete and authorized recordation of Notice of Completion for Walking Track Construction at Leonard Bailey Park in the amount of $159,710, Kormex Construction, Contractor.
Approved the appropriation of $12,000 from General Fund – Fund Balance for the purchase and replacement of the meeting projector located in the Council Chambers used for public meetings in the amount of 11,502.31, Tierney, Vendor.
Approved the appropriation of $70,000 from the Assigned Fire Equipment Replacement fund balance, awarded contract to purchase two (2) Ford F150 vehicles in the amount of $70,300 and authorized the purchase of Code 3 Response packages for the two vehicles in an amount not-to-exceed of $78,700, Fairview Ford, Vendor.
Awarded contract for the purchase and installation of the Plymovent System in the amount of $27,900, Air Exchange, Inc., Vendor.
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2022
Old Business
No items for discussion.
New Business
CC-2022-06 City Council June 7, 2022 General Municipal Election a. Council Bill #R-2022-01 - Calling and Giving Notice of the Election b. Council Bill#R-2022-02 - Adopting regulations pertaining to Candidates Statements City Clerk Arreola gave a presentation on the General Municipal Elections, indicating that the 2022 General Municipal Election is scheduled for Tuesday, June 7, 2022, to elect two (2) members to the City Council for four-year terms. The seats available are those now held by Council Members Dupper and Dailey. She went on to say that the filing period for nomination papers begins Monday, February 14, 2022, to March 11, 2022. The City Clerk’s Office will be open on Friday, March 11, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Should an incumbent not file between February 14 and March 11, the filing period is extended to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 16; however, an incumbent may not file during the extension period.
Motion by Rigsby, seconded by Jindal, to adopt Council Bill #R-2022-01, and Council Bill #R-2022-02; the City Clerk called the roll and motion was approved. Lenart absent.
RESOLUTION NO. 3124
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA,
CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2022, FOR THE ELECTION
OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES RESOLUTION NO. 3125
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR
ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS
SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2022
Reports of Councilmen
Councilman Jindal expressed concern to the challenges the Historic Commission faces obtaining quorums at their meetings. Because they have not convened, the Commission is unable to accomplish any business. He thought possibly combining the Commission with another Committee or Commission as a possible solution.
He asked City staff for recommendations to address this matter.
Senior Planner Matarrita stated that they have a few dedicated Commissioners who attend regularly, but have had an issue obtaining a quorum since the Commission grew to 11 members.
City Attorney Robbins stated that the Commission was formed by the City Council; therefore, she noted the City Council can put this item on the agenda and take an action to make changes to membership.
City Council Minutes
January 11, 2022
Mayor Dupper noted that this is the only Commission that allows members to live outside Loma Linda. He wanted to see the roster to ensure there is a balance of members living in and out of Loma Linda.
City Manager Thaipejr stated that they would place the item on the next agenda.
Councilman Jindal asked for a status update on the City’s request for school district boundary changes from Colton to Redlands School District. City Manager spoke with an Attorney for Colton School District. They are reviewing the City’s request.
Councilman Jindal asked for a status update on the Tree City grant application. City Manager Thaipejr stated that the City submitted the application.
Mayor Dupper wanted to publicly thank Dr. Dailey and his wife for their help, care and assistance when his family became ill from Covid a couple of weeks ago. He noted Dr. Dailey’s wife is his kid’s Pediatrician.
He didn’t think his 5 week year old daughter caught it. He was extremely thankful and appreciative for the care they gave to his family.
Reports Of Officers - No reports were made.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Approved at the meeting of February 8, 2022.
City Clerk
CC AGENDA ITEM 8
CC AGENDA ITEM 9
CC AGENDA ITEM 10
Attachment A
CC AGENDA ITEM 11
CC AGENDA ITEM 12
CC AGENDA ITEM 13
CC AGENDA ITEM 14
CC AGENDA ITEM 15a
CC AGENDA ITEM 15b
CC AGENDA ITEM 15c
CC AGENDA ITEM 15d
CC AGENDA ITEM 15e
CC AGENDA ITEM 15f
CC AGENDA ITEM 16a
CC AGENDA ITEM 16b
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact. .
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Agreement will not result in any financial impacts to the City. The associated costs will be borne by the applicant, as indicated by the request to use funds deposited by the applicant as a pass through fee in Account 0110000-22007 (DEVDEP).
ATTACHMENT
A. Consultant Agreement with Lilburn Corporation (includes proposal as exhibit)
CITY OF LOMA LINDA
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of February 8, 2022 between the City of Loma Linda, a municipal corporation ("City") and Lilburn Corporation, a California corporation ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on February 8, 2022 and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than February 28, 2023, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES
Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A.
3. PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. CITY MANAGEMENT
The City’s City Manager shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement, review and approval of all products submitted by Consultant, but not including the authority to enlarge the Tasks to be performed or change the compensation due to Consultant. City’s City Manager shall be authorized to act on City’s behalf and to execute all necessary documents which enlarge the Tasks to be Performed or change Consultant’s compensation, subject to Section 6 hereof.
5. PAYMENT
(a) The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed $9,500 for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. (b) Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City’s written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall total compensation exceed $10,450. Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council.
(c) Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Said invoices shall detail all costs, rates and hours for individual tasks. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter as practical, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of the Consultant’s fees, it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.
ATTACHMENT A
(d) Consultant agrees that, in no event shall City be required to pay to Consultant any sum in excess of ninety-five percent (95%) of the maximum payable hereunder prior to receipt by City of all final documents, together with all supplemental technical documents, as described herein acceptable in form and content to City.
Final payments shall be made no later than sixty (60) days after presentation of final documents and acceptance thereof by City.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE (a) The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement, such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. (b) In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant on a pro-rata basis the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 6(c).
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
(a) The Consultant’s failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default.
In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant’s control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. (b) If the City Manager or his/her delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she shall cause to be served upon the Consultant a written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
(a) Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to billed time, sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
(b) Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, claims, applications, computer files, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City upon payment of fees and expenses due and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City, at the Consultant’s office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files.
9. INDEMNIFICATION
(a) Indemnification for Professional Liability. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for Consultant’s services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or subconsultants (or any entity or individual that consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this Agreement, except to the extent liabilities caused by the city’s negligence or willful conduct.
(b) Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liability. Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees, officials, and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including attorney’s fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or subconsultants of Consultant. Said indemnification shall include any claim that Consultant, or Consultant’s employees or agents, are considered to be employees of the City or are entitled to any employee benefits from City, including but not limited to those available under Public Employees Retirement Law. Said obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties shall apply to all liability as defined above even if the Indemnified Parties are actively negligent, except that it shall not apply to claims arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. The Consultant’s obligation to defend the Indemnified Parties is not contingent upon there being an acknowledgement or determination of the merit of any claims, liability, demands, causes of action, suits, losses, expenses, errors, omissions and/or costs. (c) General Indemnification Provisions. Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section from each and every subconsultant or other person or entity involved by, for, with, or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required here, Consultant agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth here is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of Consultant and shall survive the termination of this Agreement or this section. These indemnification provisions are independent of and shall not in any way be limited by the insurance requirements of this Agreement. City approval of the insurance required by this Agreement does not in any way relieve the Consultant from liability under this section.
10. INSURANCE
The City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances. (a) Types of Required Coverages
Without limiting the indemnity provisions of the Contract, the Contractor shall procure and maintain in full force and effect during the term of the Contract, the following policies of insurance.
If the existing policies do not meet the insurance requirements set forth herein, Contractor agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the policies to do so.
(1) Commercial General Liability: Commercial General Liability Insurance which affords coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office “occurrence” form CG 00 01, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, and personal and advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately
to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
(2) Automobile Liability Insurance: Automobile Liability Insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CA 0001 covering “Any Auto” (Symbol 1), including owned, non-owned and hired autos, or the exact equivalent, with minimum limits of $1,000,000 for bodily injury and property damage, each accident. If Contractor owns no vehicles, auto liability coverage may be provided by means of a non-owned and hired auto endorsement to the general liability policy. Automobile liability insurance and endorsements shall be kept in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement.
(3) Workers’ Compensation: Workers’ Compensation Insurance, as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 each accident for bodily injury and $1,000,000 each employee for bodily injury by disease.
(4) Professional Liability: Professional Liability insurance with limit of not less than $1,000,000 each claim. Covered professional services shall specifically include all work to be performed under the Agreement and delete any exclusion that may potentially affect the work to be performed.
(b) Endorsements
Insurance policies shall not be in compliance if they include any limiting provision or endorsement. The insurance policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1) Commercial General Liability
Additional Insured: The City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, boards, agents and representatives shall be additional insureds with regard to liability and defense of suits or claims arising out of the work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. Coverage for the additional insureds shall apply to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Additional Insured Endorsements shall not:
1. Be limited to “Ongoing Operations”
2. Exclude “Contractual Liability”
3. Restrict coverage to the “Sole” liability of contractor
4. Exclude “Third-Party-Over Actions”
5. Contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement Additional Insured Endorsements shall be at least as broad as ISO Forms CG 20 10 11 85; or CG 20 and 10 and CG 2037.
Primary Insurance: This insurance shall be primary and any other insurance whether primary, excess, umbrella or contingent insurance, including deductible, or self-insurance available to the insureds added by endorsement shall be in excess of and shall not contribute with this insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04
13. (2) Auto Liability
Additional Insured: The City, its elected official, officers, employees, volunteers, boards, agents and representatives shall be additional insureds with regard to liability and
defense of suits or claims arising out of the work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor.
Primary Insurance: This insurance shall be primary and any other insurance whether primary, excess, umbrella or contingent insurance, including deductible, or self-insurance available to the insureds added by endorsement shall be in excess of and shall not contribute with this insurance.
(c) Notice of Cancellation
Required insurance policies shall not be cancelled or the coverage reduced until a thirty (30) day written notice of cancellation has been served upon the City except ten (10) days shall be allowed for nonpayment of premium. (d) Waiver of Subrogation
Required insurance coverages shall not prohibit Contractor from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Contractor shall waive all rights of subrogation against the indemnified parties and policies shall contain or be endorsed to contain such a provision. This provision applies regardless of whether the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. (e) Evidence of Insurance
All policies, endorsements, certificates, and/or binders shall be subject to approval by the City as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver only if so approved in writing by the City. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of any such policy, evidence of insurance showing that such insurance coverage has been renewed or extended shall be filed with the City. If such coverage is cancelled or reduced, Contractor shall, within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice of such cancellation or reduction of coverage, file with the City evidence of insurance showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or has been provided through another insurance company or companies.
(f) Deductible or Self-Insured Retention
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be approved in writing by the City and shall protect the indemnified parties in the same manner and to the same extent as they would have been protected had the policy or policies not contained a deductible or self-insured retention. The City may require the Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the Contractor or the City.
(g) Contractual Liability/Insurance Obligations
The coverage provided shall apply to the obligations assumed by the Contractor under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement. The insurance obligations under this Agreement shall be: (1) all the insurance coverage and/or limits carried by or available to the Contractor; or (2) the minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shown in this Agreement; whichever is greater. Any insurance proceeds in excess of or broader than the minimum required coverage and/or minimum required limits, which are applicable to a given loss, shall be available to the City. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of the Contractor under this Agreement.
(h) Failure to Maintain Coverage
Contractor agrees to suspend and cease all operations hereunder during such period of time as the required insurance coverage is not in effect and evidence of insurance has not been furnished to the City.
The City shall have the right to withhold any payment due Contractor until Contractor has fully complied with the insurance provisions of this Contract. In addition, the City may either immediately terminate this Agreement or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may take out the necessary insurance and pay, at Contractor’s expense, the premium thereon.
In the event that the Contractor’s operations are suspended for failure to maintain required insurance coverage, the Contractor shall not be entitled to an extension of time for completion of the Work because of production lost during suspension.
(i) Acceptability of Insurers
Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law. Any other rating must be approved in writing in accordance with the City. (j) Claims Made Policies
If coverage is written on a claims-made basis, the retroactive date on such insurance and all subsequent insurance shall coincide or precede the effective date of the initial Contractor’s Agreement with the City and continuous coverage shall be maintained or an extended reporting period shall be exercised for a period of at least one (1) year from termination or expiration of this Agreement. (k) Insurance for Subcontractors
Contractor shall be responsible for causing Subcontractors to purchase the same types and limits of insurance in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, including adding the City as an Additional Insured, providing Primary and Non-Contributory coverage and Waiver of Subrogation to the Subcontractors’ policies. The Commercial General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement shall be on a form at least as board as CG 20 38 04 13.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control and shall not be construed to be employees of City for any purpose, including eligibility under Public Employees Retirement Law. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
(b) No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and
employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this Section.
13. UNDUE INFLUENCE
Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure is used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City of Loma Linda in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of the City of Loma Linda will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.
14. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the Project during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the project performed under this Agreement.
15. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(a) All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City’s prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, responses to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. (b) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subconsultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, requests for admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City’s right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. (c) Consultant covenants that neither he/she nor any office or principal of their firm have any interest in, or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of their services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such interest shall be employed by them as an officer, employee, agent or subconsultant.
Consultant further covenants that Consultant has not contracted with nor is performing any services, directly or indirectly, with any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City or the study area and further covenants and agrees that Consultant and/or its subconsultants shall provide no service or enter into any agreement or agreements with a/any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City or the study area prior to the completion of the work under this Agreement.
16. NOTICES
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice:
To City: Attn: Lorena Matarrita, Senior Planner
City of Loma Linda
25541 Barton Road
Loma Linda, CA 92354
To Consultant: Attn: Cheryl A. Tubbs, Vice President
Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408
17. ASSIGNMENT
The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Cheryl A. Tubbs/Vice President and/or designated Lilburn Corporation Staff Members (responsible employees) shall perform the services described in this Agreement.
Consultant’s responsible employee may use assistants, under his direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days’ notice prior to the departure of the responsible employee from Consultant’s employ. Should he leave Consultant’s employ, the City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant’s sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant.
18. LICENSES
At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement, including a City of Loma Linda business license.
19. GOVERNING LAW
The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with jurisdiction over the City of Loma Linda.
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party’s own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
21. CONTENTS OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND QUALIFICATIONS Consultant is bound by the contents of City’s Request for Qualifications, Exhibit "B" hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and the contents of the proposal submitted by the Consultant, Exhibit "A" hereto. In the event of conflict, the requirements of City’s Request and this Agreement shall take precedence over those contained in the Consultant’s proposals.
22. CONFIDENTIALITY
Information and materials obtained by the Consultant from City during the performance of this Agreement shall be treated as strictly confidential and shall not be used by the Consultant for any purpose other than the performance of this Agreement.
23. DISCRIMINATION
The Consultant agrees that no person shall be excluded from employment in the performance of this Agreement on grounds of race, creed, color, sex, age, marital status, or place of national origin. In this connection, the Consultant agrees to comply with all County, State and Federal laws relating to equal employment opportunity rights.
24. EFFECT OF PARTIAL INVALIDITY
If any term or provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and any application of the terms shall remain valid and enforceable under this Agreement or California law.
25. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF LOMA LINDA CONSULTANT(S)
By: By:
City Manager or Designee (Name and Title)
Attest:
By: By:
City Clerk (Name and Title)
EXHIBIT A
Proposal for CEQA Consistency Review
CC AGENDA ITEM 18
City Council Staff Report Page 2 of 2
February 8, 2022
One of the many requirements to receive State and Federal approval includes incorporating community feedback, as well as, developing a robust planning team of key community stakeholders with expertise on local hazards. With the leverage of Loma Linda’s community outreach efforts, input was received from community members through on-line surveys, flyer inserts in the monthly water bills, the City’s video bulletin board, and the City’s Local TV Channel. The planning team consisted of 37 key stakeholders from City departments, school districts, utility providers, Loma Linda University Hospital, neighboring cities, and County and State agencies. The first planning meeting took place on July 29, 2020. Subsequent meetings and plan development, continued during the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring many adjustments to planning activities and outreach efforts for both the LHMP and Safety Element.
The 2021 LHMP received approval (pending adoption) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency on November 9, 2021. Once adopted, the final resolution (attached) will be submitted to FEMA to meet the continual update requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and maintain the City's eligibility for mitigation grant funding.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 2022 City of Loma Linda LHMP assesses the significant natural and human-caused hazards that may affect the City and its inhabitants. The plan evaluates these relevant hazards, assesses the population and potentially vulnerable structures and recommends mitigation strategies and actions to be implemented in the future to reduce these vulnerabilities in aid in creating a more resilient community. These future mitigation actions include policies, programs, projects, and tools to implement over the long term to help reduce and eliminate any loss of life, and to prevent future economic, infrastructure or personal property losses community wide.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed update to the LHMP is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as the LHMP is an activity covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Therefore, no further CEQA analysis is required.
CONCLUSION
Adoption of this LHMP affords the City of Loma Linda the ability to pursue FEMA grant funding to support mitigation activities within the City. In addition, adoption ensures the City is in compliance with Assembly Bill 2140 from 2006, allowing the City to integrate the LHMP into the General Plan Safety Element. Compliance with this bill allows the City to receive additional disaster assistance through the California Disaster Assistance Act.
Report prepared by: Aaron Pfannenstiel with Atlas Planning Solutions.
Reviewed/Approved by: Lorena Matarrita, Senior Planner, City of Loma Linda
ATTACHMENTS
A. Council Bill R-2022-06, a Resolution to adopt the 2021 Loma Linda Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Exhibit A: Loma Linda Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Attachment A
COUNCIL BILL #R-2022-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LOMA LINDA APPROVING THE 2021 LOMA LINDA
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update in compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Exhibit A); and This Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, (LHMP), has been prepared in compliance with California Government Code Sections 8685.9 and 65302.6, which integrates this plan with the Loma Linda General Plan Safety Element; and
The City has received a letter from FEMA identifying the City's LHMP as eligible for approval pending final adoption; and
City Council adoption of a current LHMP will make the City eligible to receive earmarked mitigation grant funding, as well as eligible to apply for additional federal mitigation grants; and
City staff has collaborated with numerous partner agencies and hazard experts to develop the LHMP; and
On July 13, 2021, the community, surrounding Cities, and all City commissions and boards were invited to provide feedback on the Public Review Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
On August 13, 2021, the public review period was completed, and minor comments were received during this period, requiring minimal revisions to the plan; and On September 22, 2021, the City transmitted the LHMP document to the California Office of Emergency Services, initiating the formal review process; and On October 5, 2021, City staff was notified that Cal OES had submitted the LHMP to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review; and On November 4, 2021, FEMA determined the plan to be eligible for final approval pending its adoption by the Loma Linda City Council,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Loma Linda does hereby resolve as follows:
The Loma Linda Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is hereby approved. Passed and Adopted by the City Council of the City of Loma Linda at a regular meeting held on the day of February 8, 2022 by the following vote:
Attachment A
Ayes: ____________________________________
Noes: ____________________________________
Abstain: ____________________________________
Absent: ____________________________________
______________________________
Phill Dupper, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Lynette Arreola, City Clerk
Approved to Form:
___________________________________
Diane E. Robbins, City Attorney
Attachment A
Exhibit A
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
EXHIBIT A
View of FEMA Flood
Zones looking west.
EXHIBIT A
A-ii
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-iii
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table of Contents
Section 1. Introduction......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 The City of Loma Linda ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Purpose of the Plan........................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Authority ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.4 What’s New ....................................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4.1 New Hazard Profiles ................................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.4.2 Integrating the HMP into Other Planning Mechanisms............................................................................. 1-2
1.4.3 Mitigation Successes ................................................................................................................................ 1-3
1.5 Community Profile............................................................................................................................................. 1-5
1.5.1 Physical Setting......................................................................................................................................... 1-5
1.5.2 History ....................................................................................................................................................... 1-5
1.5.3 Climate ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-7
1.5.4 Demographics and Vulnerable Populations.............................................................................................. 1-7
1.5.5 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 1-12
1.5.6 Development Trends and Hazard Vulnerabilities ................................................................................... 1-13 Section 2. Plan Adoption ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Adoption by Local Governing Body................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Promulgation Authority...................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Section 3. Planning Process................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Preparing for the Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 The Planning Process ....................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Organize Resources.......................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3.1 Building the Planning Team ...................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Public Involvement/Outreach ............................................................................................................................ 3-5
3.5 Assess the Hazard ............................................................................................................................................ 3-6
3.5.1 Identify/Profile Hazards............................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.5.2 Assess Vulnerabilities ............................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.6 Develop Mitigation Plan..................................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.6.1 Identify Goals ............................................................................................................................................ 3-7
3.6.2 Develop Capabilities Assessment............................................................................................................. 3-7
3.6.3 Identify Mitigation Actions ......................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.6.4 Draft HMP Update..................................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.6.5 Plan Review and Revision ........................................................................................................................ 3-7 A-iv
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.6.6 Plan Adoption and Submittal .................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.6.7 Plan Maintenance ..................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Section 4. Risk Assessment ................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Hazard Identification and Screening................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Hazard Prioritization.......................................................................................................................................... 4-2 Hazard Profiles........................................................................................................................................................ 4-4
4.2.1 Wildfire Hazard Profile .............................................................................................................................. 4-6
4.2.2 Earthquake Hazard Profile...................................................................................................................... 4-15
4.2.3 Drought Hazard Profile ........................................................................................................................... 4-28
4.2.4 Climate Change Hazard Profile .............................................................................................................. 4-33
4.2.5 Hazardous Waste & Materials ................................................................................................................ 4-40
4.2.6 Human-Caused Hazards ........................................................................................................................ 4-45
4.2.7 Flood Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................... 4-55
4.2.8 Slope Failure Hazard Profile................................................................................................................... 4-61
4.3 Vulnerability Assessment Methods ................................................................................................................. 4-65 Vulnerability Assessment...................................................................................................................................... 4-70
4.3.2 Wildfire .................................................................................................................................................... 4-71
4.3.3 Earthquake.............................................................................................................................................. 4-77
4.3.4 Drought ................................................................................................................................................... 4-90
4.3.5 Climate Change ...................................................................................................................................... 4-92
4.3.6 Hazardous Waste & Materials ................................................................................................................ 4-94
4.3.7 Human-Caused Hazards ........................................................................................................................ 4-96
4.3.8 Flood ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-98
4.3.9 Slope Failure......................................................................................................................................... 4-108 Section 5. Mitigation Strategy.............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Planning Process for Setting Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives ............................................................ 5-1
5.2 Identifying the Problem ..................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Capabilities Assessment................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.4 Mitigation Development..................................................................................................................................... 5-9
5.4.1 Goals......................................................................................................................................................... 5-9
5.4.2 Considering Mitigation Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 5-9
5.4.3 Mitigation Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 5-9
5.4.4 Prioritization of Mitigation Actions........................................................................................................... 5-10
5.5 Mitigation Action Strategy ............................................................................................................................... 5-11 Section 6. Plan Implementation and Maintenance ............................................................. 6-1 A-v
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
6.1 Plan Adoption .................................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Implementation.................................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.3 Future Participation ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.4 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the HMP................................................................................................ 6-2
6.4.1 Schedule ................................................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.4.2 Process ..................................................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.5 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms ............................................................................................ 6-3
6.6 Continued Public Involvement........................................................................................................................... 6-3 Section 7. Works Cited......................................................................................................... 7-1 Appendix A. Analysis Methodology....................................................................................... 1 A.1. Natural Hazard Exposure............................................................................................................................... 2 Damage Estimation with Hazus ............................................................................................................. 2 Distinguishing Results – Natural Hazard Exposure Analysis vs Hazus Results.................................... 3 A.2. Analysis Data.................................................................................................................................................. 4 Assets, Value, and Population ............................................................................................................... 4 Natural Hazard Data............................................................................................................................... 5 Methodology Overview........................................................................................................................... 8 Data Dictionary....................................................................................................................................... 9 Insured Assets Roll ..............................................................................................................................11 Appendix B. Process Documentation.................................................................................... 1 A-vi
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Emergency Water Tanks for Med. Center............................................................................................ 1-4 Figure 1-2: Flexible pipes in new Loma Linda University Medical Center.............................................................. 1-4 Figure 1-3: Location of the City of Loma Linda, CA................................................................................................ 1-6 Figure 1-4: Median Household Income Distribution in Loma Linda........................................................................ 1-9 Figure 1-5: Population Under 18 Years Old in Loma Linda.................................................................................. 1-10 Figure 1-6: Population Over 65 Years Old in Loma Linda.................................................................................... 1-11 Figure 3-1: City of Loma Linda Planning Process................................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3-2. City HMP Planning Team ..................................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 4-1: Loma Linda Hazard Prioritization ......................................................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-2: Urban Wildland Interface ...................................................................................................................... 4-8 Figure 4-3: City of Loma Linda Wildfire Risk Exposure ........................................................................................ 4-12 Figure 4-4: Historic Wildfires in and Near Loma Linda ........................................................................................ 4-13 Figure 4-5: Mean Wildfire Return Intervals ........................................................................................................... 4-14 Figure 4-6: Earthquake Faulting............................................................................................................................ 4-15 Figure 4-7: USGS Quaternary Faults.................................................................................................................... 4-20 Figure 4-8: San Bernardino County Region Earthquake Probability .................................................................... 4-22 Figure 4-9: Loma Linda EQ Shake Potential ........................................................................................................ 4-24 Figure 4-10: Loma Linda Shakeout2 (M7.8) ......................................................................................................... 4-25 Figure 4-11: Loma Linda – Santa Ana Drought Monitor....................................................................................... 4-32 Figure 4-12: Annual Average Max Temperature Future Scenario Comparison. .................................................. 4-37 Figure 4-13: Maximum Temperatures in the City of Loma Linda Climate Region (RCP 4.5)............................... 4-38 Figure 4-14: Maximum Temperatures in the City of Loma Linda Climate Region (RCP 8.5)............................... 4-38 Figure 4-15: Hazardous Materials Locations ........................................................................................................ 4-44 Figure 4-16: Methods of Terrorist Attacks............................................................................................................. 4-49 Figure 4-17: Intended Targets of Terrorist Attacks ............................................................................................... 4-50 Figure 4-18: Total and Fatal Terrorist Attacks in the United States by Year ........................................................ 4-51 Figure 4-19: International Terrorist Attacks on the United States......................................................................... 4-52 Figure 4-20: 100 and 500- Year Flood Zones in Loma Linda............................................................................... 4-60 Figure 4-21: Landslide Susceptibility in the City of Loma Linda ........................................................................... 4-64 Figure 4-22: Data Source and Method.................................................................................................................. 4-65 Figure 4-23: Loma Linda Critical Facilities............................................................................................................ 4-67 Figure 4-24: Hazard Exposure Explanation Graphic ............................................................................................ 4-69 Figure 4-25: Hazus Damage Estimation Example................................................................................................ 4-69 Figure 4-26: Population at risk from wildfire hazards............................................................................................ 4-72 Figure 4-27: City of Loma Linda Exposure Wildfire Vulnerability and Snapshot Map .......................................... 4-73 Figure 4-28: Loma Linda Shakeout2 (M7.8) Exposure and Snapshot Map ........................................................ 4-78 Figure 4-29: Population Exposure to M7.8 Shakeout2 ........................................................................................ 4-79 Figure 4-30: Population Exposure to Flood .......................................................................................................... 4-99 Figure 4-31: Loma Linda - FEMA Flood Risk Exposure ..................................................................................... 4-100 Figure 4-32: 100-Year Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type.... 4-104 Figure 4-33: 500-Year Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type.... 4-105 Figure 4-34: Population Exposure to Landslide.................................................................................................. 4-109 Figure 4-35: Loma Linda -Snapshot Layout-Landslide Risk Exposure .............................................................. 4-110 A-vii
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Completed Mitigation Actions ................................................................................................................ 1-3 Table 1-2: Top 10 Jobs by Occupation in Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region1 in May 2019 .................. 1-12 Table 3-1: 2021 HMP Project Management Team ................................................................................................. 3-2 Table 3-2: 2021 LHMP Stakeholder List ................................................................................................................. 3-3 Table 3-3: HMP Consultant Team........................................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-4: Meeting Summary.................................................................................................................................. 3-5 Table 4-1: Document Review Crosswalk ................................................................................................................ 4-2 Table 4-2: Loma Linda Wildfires ........................................................................................................................... 4-10 Table 4-3: Moment Magnitude Scale .................................................................................................................... 4-16 Table 4-4: Modified Mercalli Intensity Level Descriptions ..................................................................................... 4-16 Table 4-5: Modified Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration...................................................................... 4-17 Table 4-6: Earthquakes M5.0 in or near San Bernardino County 1990-2020....................................................... 4-19 Table 4-7: Drought Classifications and Impacts.................................................................................................... 4-32 Table 4-8: Loma Linda Hazardous Materials Spills Cal OES Reporting............................................................... 4-43 Table 4-9: Loma Linda Terrorist Attacks ............................................................................................................... 4-47 Table 4-10: Aircraft Accidents/Incidents in/near Loma Linda (Loma Linda, Colton, and Redlands) 1960-2007 .. 4-48 Table 4-11 San Bernardino County Flood Events Since 2000 ............................................................................. 4-57 Table 4-12: Slope Failure Events Near the City of Loma Linda Since 2005......................................................... 4-62 Table 4-13: Loma Linda Parcel Counts and Value ............................................................................................... 4-66 Table 4-14: Population at risk from wildfire hazards ............................................................................................. 4-72 Table 4-15: Residential Buildings and Content within Cal Fire Wildfire Severity Zones....................................... 4-74 Table 4-16: Critical Facility Exposure to Wildfire Severity Zones ......................................................................... 4-74 Table 4-17: Lifelines in Wildfire Severity Zones.................................................................................................... 4-75 Table 4-18: Population Exposure to M7.8 Shakeout2 .......................................................................................... 4-79 Table 4-19: Seismic Benchmark Years................................................................................................................. 4-80 Table 4-20: Definitions of FEMA Building Types................................................................................................... 4-81 Table 4-21: Residential Parcel Value Exposure from Shakeout2 Scenario.......................................................... 4-81 Table 4-22: Shakeout2 Critical Infrastructure with EQ Risk.................................................................................. 4-83 Table 4-23: Lifeline Exposure Shakedown2 Scenario .......................................................................................... 4-85 Table 4-24: Shakeout2 Earthquake Building and Content Loss Estimation ......................................................... 4-87 Table 4-25: Detailed Insurance Roll of Real Property Asset Exposure to M7.8 Shakeout2................................. 4-87 Table 4-26: Summary Population Exposure to Flood ........................................................................................... 4-99 Table 4-27: Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones............................................................................................ 4-101 Table 4-28: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain ........................................................................................... 4-102 Table 4-29: Lifelines in the Floodplain ................................................................................................................ 4-103 Table 4-30: 100-Year Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type ..... 4-104 Table 4-31. 500-Year Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type ..... 4-105 Table 4-32: Summary Population Exposure to Landslide................................................................................... 4-109 Table 4-33: Property Value Exposed to Landslides............................................................................................ 4-111 Table 4-34: Critical Facility Points with Slope Failure Hazard Risk .................................................................... 4-111 Table 4-35: Critical Facilities (Linear) with Slope Failure Hazard Risk ............................................................... 4-112 Table 5-1. Loma Linda Capabilities Assessment.................................................................................................... 5-2 Table 5-2: Mitigation Action Tracker ..................................................................................................................... 5-13 A-viii
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
A-1-1
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Section 1. Introduction
Natural disasters cause death and injuries, as well as significant damage to our communities, businesses, public infrastructure, and environment. These damages result in people's displacement and tremendous costs due to response and recovery dollars, economic loss, and burden. The 2021 City of Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Update is an effort undertaken by the City to mitigate the effects of natural hazards and return to “the norm” sooner with fewer impacts on people and infrastructure.
Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards are identified, likely impacts determined, mitigation goals set, and appropriate mitigation strategies determined, prioritized, and implemented. While natural disasters cannot be prevented from occurring, the effects of natural disasters can be reduced or eliminated through a well‐organized public education and awareness effort, preparedness activities, and mitigation actions.
After disasters, repairs and reconstruction are often completed in such a way as to restore to pre‐disaster conditions. Such efforts expedite a return to normalcy; however, the replication of pre‐disaster conditions results in a cycle of damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Hazard mitigation ensures that such cycles are broken and that post‐disaster repairs and reconstruction result in increased resiliency for the City of Loma Linda residents, business owners, and city officials.
The HMP update is a “living document” that should be reviewed, monitored, and updated to reflect changing conditions and new information. As required, the HMP must be updated every five (5) years to comply with regulations and Federal mitigation grant conditions. In that spirit, this HMP is an update of the 2011 City of Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan. This HMP presents updated information regarding hazards affecting the City of Loma Linda.
1.1 The City of Loma Linda
The City of Loma Linda was incorporated on September 29, 1970. Loma Linda is located in San Bernardino County between the Cities of Grand Terrace and Redlands. This eight-square-mile community has an average elevation of 1,053 feet. (City of Loma Linda Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011) The City of Loma Linda is located in the Santa Ana River watershed, which includes much of Orange County, the northwestern corner of Riverside County, the southwestern corner of San Bernardino County, and a small portion of Los Angeles County. The Santa Ana River bisects the City of Colton, just to the northwest of the City limits.
San Timoteo Creek, a tributary of the Santa Ana River, bisects the City of Loma Linda. (City of Loma Linda General Plan, 2009)
1.2 Purpose of the Plan
Hazard mitigation intends to reduce and/or eliminate loss of life and property. FEMA defines hazard mitigation as “any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural hazards.” FEMA defines a “hazard” as “any event or condition with the potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property damage, infrastructure damage, agricultural loss, environmental damage, business interruption, or other loss.” A-1-2
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
The HMP demonstrates plans and actions for reducing or eliminating risk in the City of Loma Linda. The HMP process encourages communities to develop goals and projects to reduce risk and build a more disaster-resilient community by analyzing potential hazards.
Mitigation is one of the primary phases of emergency management specifically dedicated to breaking the cycle of damage. Hazard mitigation is distinguished from other disaster management functions by identifying measures that make the City of Loma Linda safer and more disaster resilient before a disaster occurs. Mitigation generally involves altering natural and human-made physical environments, significantly reducing vulnerability to hazards by altering the built environment so that life and property losses can be avoided or reduced.
Mitigation also makes it easier and less expensive to respond to and recover from disasters. With an approved and adopted HMP, the City of Loma Linda will be eligible for federal disaster mitigation funds/grants under the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program, discussed in Section 6, aimed to reduce or eliminate risk.
1.3 Authority
In 2000, FEMA adopted revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations. This revision is known as the “Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA).” DMA 2000, Section 322 (a-d) requires that local governments, as a condition of receiving federal disaster mitigation funds, have a Hazard Mitigation Plan that describes the process for assessing hazards, risks and vulnerabilities, identifying and prioritizing mitigation actions, and engaging/soliciting input from the community (public), key stakeholders, and adjacent jurisdictions and agencies.
Senate Bill No. 379 will, upon the next revision of a local hazard mitigation plan on or after January 1, 2017, or, if the local jurisdiction has not adopted a local hazard mitigation plan, beginning on or before January 1, 2022, require the safety element to be reviewed and updated as necessary to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to that city or county.
1.4 What’s New
This section includes background information on the 2011 HMP and this HMP Update. The 2011 mitigation actions were reviewed and have been changed, updated, and revised to reflect new priorities in this HMP. Only the information and data still valid from the 2011 Plan were carried forward as applicable to this HMP update.
The sections below describe the planning process for this update. This update profiles the following nine hazards:
wildfire, earthquake, drought, climate change, hazardous materials, terrorism, flood, slope failure, airplane hazards.
1.4.1 New Hazard Profiles
In addition to the hazards profiled in the 2011 HMP (earthquake, flooding, and wildfire), this update recognizes drought, climate change, hazardous waste & materials, human-caused hazards including terrorism and airplane hazards, and slope failure. This decision was based on changes in priorities and development that were acknowledged during the hazard prioritization process performed by the Planning Committee during Meeting #1 and is explained in detail in Section 4.
1.4.2 Integrating the HMP into Other Planning Mechanisms Over the past decade, the 2011 HMP was incorporated into other planning mechanisms, demonstrating progress in local hazard mitigation efforts.
A-1-3
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
The City’s General Plan was adopted in 2009 and incorporated the hazard mitigation plan by reference. The City improved its water conservation standard during the 2015-2017 droughts, utilizing data from the HMP to aid in its decision making.
The City has continued to address flooding through resiliency projects for the San Timoteo Creek Channel.
The City regularly updates building codes consistent with the most up-to-date California building codes and uses the opportunity to revisit the hazard mitigation plan in that context. This includes the adoption of the wildland-urban interface code, first adopted in 2008. The last revisions were in 2019.
Section 5.3 is a Capabilities Assessment of the City’s current capabilities, and Section 6.5 identifies future opportunities to expand or improve integration of the HMP with others planning mechanisms.
1.4.3 Mitigation Successes
The City has been guiding and implementing policies and mitigation actions in the 2011 Loma Linda HMP through various ongoing projects, plans, and programs. The City has made improvements toward reducing natural hazard risks to life and property. The City completed three of the four identified mitigation actions from the 2011 Plan, and the fourth mitigation action is ongoing. Section 5.4.4 summarizes those completed mitigation actions with additional detail highlighted below.
New mitigation actions were developed to reflect changes in priorities and development and further explained in Section 5.5.
Table 1-1. Completed Mitigation Actions
Hazard Type Status Year Primary Agency Title/Description Earthquake Completed/
Under
Construction
2005 Loma Linda
University
Medical Center
Loma Linda University Medical Center: Seismic Retrofit Project Earthquake Completed 2011 Public Works Anderson Bridge Seismic Retrofit to bring bridge up to current earthquake standards.
Flood Partially
Completed
2011 City of Loma
Linda
Zanja Channel Improvement to improve channel flow in conjunction with the realignment of Redlands Blvd. and California Street project.
1.4.3.1 Success Story: Loma Linda University Medical Center The new Loma Linda University Medical Center is scheduled to open in the summer of 2021. The new tower will be the tallest hospital in California and the highest building in San Bernardino County at 268 feet. The current hospital did not meet seismic standards for medical facilities. The new Center includes many seismic safety features. As the Center describes, “[a]t its foundation, the building sits on 126 building isolators. Each weighing nearly 10 tons, the isolators are designed to absorb horizontal ground motion during an earthquake while allowing the building to only move in a minimal way. Surrounding the building is a four-foot ‘moat,’ which will allow for additional protection to the building in an earthquake.” (Loma Linda University Health, 2019) The facility includes A-1-4
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
four 25,000-gallon water tanks as an emergency
water supply to keep operations running in case of an
emergency that interrupts regular water supplies, as
seen in Figure 1-1. The Center also includes flexible
pipes shown in Figure 1-2. The Medical Center has
plans for a vertical seismic retrofit which has been
purchased and now needs to be installed onto the
building.
Figure 1-1. Emergency Water Tanks for Med. Center
Figure 1-2: Flexible pipes in new Loma Linda University Medical Center Source: Loma Linda University Health Vision 2020
A-1-5
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
1.5 Community Profile
1.5.1 Physical Setting
The City of Loma Linda follows a roughly square pattern of approximately eight square miles. It lies in the southern portion of the San Bernardino Valley. Loma Linda is bordered on the east by the City of Redlands, on the north by the City of San Bernardino (and I-10 freeway), on the west by the City of Colton, and on the south by the Badland Hills and the Riverside County line. Loma Linda is a part of the Santa Ana River watershed. It gradually rises in elevation from 1053 feet to 1850 feet, progressing south toward Badland Hills and the Riverside County line.
1.5.2 History
Loma Linda was initially settled during the Spanish/Rancho period, beginning in 1769 and continuing through 1848. It began when an Asistencia, also known as an outpost of the San Gabriel Mission, was erected in the region. When the mission era began to recede, the region became a part of a land grant known as Rancho San Bernardino. The area then transitioned into an agricultural area known for producing citrus crops.
Towards the end of the 1800s, railroad companies began to encourage the development of tourist hotels along their routes. Loma Linda became one of these developments, and it was known as Mound City. While the original community was initially established in 1876, by the early 1880s, the property had been acquired by the Mound City Land and Water Company. The company developed a water pipeline that ran northwest from the Scott Canyon Drainage to the platted community cottages, shops, and the $30,000 Mound City Hotel. However, the planned residential development project ultimately failed.
A second plan was then initiated, this time in the last decade of the 1800s. A group of Los Angeles businessmen and physicians purchased the hotel and reopened it as a health resort and convalescent hospital resort called Loma Linda, which means “pretty hill” in Spanish. They promoted it as “The Switzerland of America where health and pleasure are twins.” This plan also failed, and the Loma Linda Hotel closed again in 1904. After that, it was referred to as Lonely Linda for a time.
In 1905, the Seventh-day Adventist Church purchased the former resort property, re-opened the sanitarium, and established a nursing school. The “College of Medical Evangelists” was opened in 1909, becoming Loma Linda University in 1961.
The College developed into a renowned regional medical center, and the town expanded as a college community.
Orchards continued as an important portion of the economic base into the 1920s and remain part of the character of Loma Linda. By the 1940s, the community had matured into a developed suburb of San Bernardino. Loma Linda was incorporated as a city in 1970. (City of Loma Linda Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011) A-1-6
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 1-3: Location of the City of Loma Linda, CA
A-1-7
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
1.5.3 Climate
The City of Loma Linda is located in an area within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin includes Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The terrain and geographical location determine the Basin’s climate. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwestern boundary of the Basin, and high mountains surround the other outer edges. The region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The resulting climate is mild and tempered by cool ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. However, periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana wind conditions do occur.
Winds in the vicinity of the Planning Area blow predominantly from the east-southeast, with relatively low velocities. Wind speeds in the Planning Area average about four mph. Summer wind speeds average slightly higher than winter wind speeds. Low average wind speeds and a persistent temperature inversion limit the vertical dispersion of air pollutants throughout the Basin. Strong, dry, north or northeasterly winds known as Santa Ana winds occur during the fall and winter months, dispersing air contaminants. The Santa Ana conditions tend to last for several days at a time. (City of Loma Linda General Plan, 2009)
1.5.4 Demographics and Vulnerable Populations
The population, economic, and housing factors of the City of Loma Linda are described in this section.
Understanding these socioeconomic factors is imperative to determining the potential impacts a natural hazard event can have on the City’s population and economy.
1.5.4.1 Population
According to the 2019 US Census, the population of Loma Linda was 24,482. The City of Loma Linda has 3,094 people per square mile. According to the US Census population estimates, the City’s population has grown by 5% from 2010 to July 1st, 2019. (United States Census Bureau, 2019) The racial makeup of Loma Linda is primarily White (54.3%). Asians account for 25.8 % of the population, followed by Hispanics or Latinos at 24.7% percent, and Black or African American at 12.2%. Mixed race persons make up
4.2% of the City. Native Americans constitute only 0.2% of the population, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders make up 1.3%. (United States Census Bureau, n.d.)(Id.)
1.5.4.2 Introduction to Vulnerable Populations
Importantly, demographics help identify which populations may be particularly vulnerable to hazard events. Some populations are at greater risk because of age, resources, physical abilities, or other factors. Vulnerability in the face of a hazard event is not a fixed characteristic; the same person may be at risk for some hazards but not at risk for others. For example, a low-income family without a car may be at risk for a wildfire or flood if a quick evacuation is necessary but prepared in the event of an earthquake. Some individuals are highly and permanently vulnerable to many hazards, such as the frail elderly, people living with chronic sensory, mobility, or cognitive impairments, and individuals dependent upon assistive devices or complex medical regimens to survive. (National Center for Disaster Preparedness, 2020) Vulnerable populations also may be living in hazard-prone areas, compounding their risk.
In the context of all-hazards preparedness and response planning, at-risk individuals (often used interchangeably with “vulnerable populations”) are defined federally as “children, pregnant women, senior citizens, and other individuals who have access or functional needs in the event of a public health emergency.” A-1-8
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
(42 U.S.C. § 2802(b)(4)(B)(2019)) Examples of these populations may include but are not limited to, individuals with disabilities, individuals who live in institutional settings, individuals from diverse cultures, individuals who have limited English proficiency or are non-English speaking, individuals who are transportation-disadvantaged, individuals experiencing homelessness, individuals who have chronic medical disorders, and individuals who have a pharmacological dependency.
Natural resource managers may reduce the vulnerability of certain populations by increasing the adaptive capacity of affected communities. Examples include cost-sharing to reduce fuels, stabilize structures, or implement flood-reducing measures or educational programs offered in English and Spanish and targeted to specific populations. Specifically, planning for vulnerable populations in hazard mitigation can help prioritize resources where they will be the most effective.
This section explores the various demographic and economic circumstances surrounding common vulnerable populations.
1.5.4.2.1 Income and Housing Condition
Income or wealth is one of the most critical factors in natural hazard vulnerability. This economic factor affects the vulnerability of low-income populations in several ways. Lower-income populations are less able to afford housing and other infrastructure that can withstand extreme events. Low-income populations are less able to purchase resources needed for disaster response and are less likely to have insurance policies that can contribute to recovery efforts. Lower-income elderly populations are less likely to have access to medical care due to financial hardship. Because of these and other factors, low-income residences are far more likely to be injured or left without food and shelter during and after natural disasters.
Figure 1-4 shows the median household income distribution for the City of Loma Linda from 2013-2017. The “median” is the value that divides the distribution of household income into two equal parts (e.g., the middle). The average median household income in the City of Loma Linda between 2014 and 2018 was $53,371; in the United States, during the same period, the median house household income was $60,293. (United States Census Bureau, 2019)
The most vulnerable residents (in terms of income and housing condition) to natural hazards are located northwest of Barton Road.
1.5.4.2.2 Age
Children and the elderly tend to be more vulnerable during an extreme natural disaster. They have less physical strength to survive disasters and are often more susceptible to certain diseases. Elderly populations often also have declining vision and hearing and often miss reports of upcoming natural hazard events. Children, especially young children, cannot provide for themselves. In many cases, both children and the elderly depend on others to care for them daily.
Finally, both children and the elderly have fewer financial resources and frequently depend on others for survival.
For these populations to remain resilient before and after a natural hazard event, it may be necessary to augment city residents with resources provided by city, state, and federal emergency management agencies and organizations.
As seen in Figure 1-5, the block groups with the highest concentration of people under 18 years old are located in the northern portion of the City (North of Barton Road). Figure 1-6 shows that the highest concentration of people over the age of 65 is in the southwest portion of the City.
A-1-9
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 1-4: Median Household Income Distribution in Loma Linda A-1-10
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 1-5: Population Under 18 Years Old in Loma Linda A-1-11
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 1-6: Population Over 65 Years Old in Loma Linda
A-1-12
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
1.5.4.3 Employment
The US Census Bureau reports that 55.1% of the population makes up the civilian labor force (percent of population 16 years or older, between 2014-2018). From 2014-2018, the median household income (in 2018 dollars) was $53,371. Table 1-2 lists the top jobs by occupation in San Bernardino County ranked from greatest to least. The largest number of employees within the City are employed in the transportation and material moving industry. Conversely, building and grounds cleaning and maintenance has the fewest within the top ten employers.
Table 1-2: Top 10 Jobs by Occupation in Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region1 in May 2019 Occupation
Percent of total
employment (in
%)
Mean hourly
wage (in $)
Transportation and Material Moving 13.5 17.96
Office and Administrative Support 11.9 20.35
Food Preparation and Serving Related 10.2 13.73
Sales and Related 10.1 19.26
Educational Instruction and Library 6.8 32.35
Healthcare Support 5.7 14.85
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 5.3 47.27
Construction and Extraction 5.3 26.92
Management 4.3 54.62
Business and Financial Operations 3.6 33.45
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 3.0 16.52 1 This region includes Loma Linda.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2018, https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/ca_riverside_msa.htm.
1.5.5 Existing Land Use
The existing land uses within the City and its sphere of influence are residential, commercial, and industrial.
Residential land uses form the largest percentage of developed uses. Of the residential uses, single-family residential development occurs within a significant portion of the jurisdiction. Other types of residential uses within the City include rural residential (typically adjacent to orange groves or within the hillside areas of the City), multifamily residential, and mobile homes.
Commercial uses make up a small percentage of the land use within Loma Linda. Commercial uses are made up of both general commercial and office commercial uses. Large commercial or office uses within the city include the auto dealerships south of the Interstate 10 freeway, the offices within the Corporate Business Center, and the Stater Bros. Market. Institutional land uses within the City include medical, university, schools, churches, public facilities, utilities, and utilities combined with agricultural uses. Of these sub-categories, utilities, university uses, and medical uses are the most well-represented institutional uses within the City. Loma Linda University (LLU) and the Loma Linda University Medical Center and Children’s Hospital (LLUMC/CH) are significant institutional uses.
A-1-13
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
1.5.6 Development Trends and Hazard Vulnerabilities
Loma Linda is a vibrant community with a sturdy religious, educational, and healing arts foundation. The Loma Linda University Medical Center (LLUMC) and the Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Medical Center (VA Medical Center) are both internationally known. The City is seeking to expand upon this economic base with medical support services, research facilities, professional offices, and lodging accommodations.
In addition to increasing the range of commercial and industrial opportunities, Loma Linda has been engaged with managing residential growth to provide an appropriate distribution of housing opportunities, including executive housing, traditional single-family neighborhoods, and affordable housing for very low and low-income households and senior housing. From 2014-2024 the Employment Development Department forecasts that the top 50 growing occupations of the Inland Empire, which includes Loma Linda and nearby areas, will add approximately 79,530 jobs. It is predicted that this added growth will mean increased pressure for the City to expand its housing capacity. (SCAG Economic Conference Preparation Report, 2017) The City has seen limited growth in hazard-prone areas over the past 20 years, including:
San Timoteo Creek Project reduces populations in flood zones. The Army Corps of Engineers and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District completed channelization and various other improvements to San Timoteo Creek. The project included 3.6 miles of concrete (trapezoidal or rectangular) channel, 2.2 miles of flow-through, 18 sediment control basins, and 1.4 miles of earthen lowflow channels on the upstream end of the creek. As a result of the project, thousands of residences were removed from the floodplain. In 2007, FEMA issued a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) showing the significantly reduced flood hazard area. (FEMA, 2019)
Slow Growth Initiative includes wildfire and slope failure protections. A 2006 voter-approved slowgrowth initiative, Measure V, included extensive limitations on hillside development within Loma Linda.
The density requirements make development on the hillsides effectively impossible. Moreover, the City owns considerable acreage on the hillsides that further limit development.
The City does have considerable older development, especially residential development in the northwestern part of town near the university. These homes are vulnerable to the considerable earthquake potential facing the City.
However, new construction standards mean that development trends are only reducing earthquake vulnerability.
A-1-14
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-2-1
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Section 2. Plan Adoption
2.1 Adoption by Local Governing Body
To comply with DMA 2000, the City Council officially adopted this Hazard Mitigation Plan upon plan approval from Cal OES and FEMA. The adoption recognizes the City’s commitment to reducing the impacts of natural hazards. See the Record of Adoptions below.
2.2 Promulgation Authority
This Hazard Mitigation Plan was reviewed and approved by the Loma Linda City Council:
Phill Dupper – Mayor
Ron Dailey – Mayor Pro-Tempore
Rhodes Rigsby – Councilmember
John Lenart – Councilmember
Bhavin Jindal – Councilmember
A-2-2
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-3-1
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Section 3. Planning Process
3.1 Preparing for the Plan
This section describes each stage of the planning process used to develop the 2021 HMP. The 2021 HMP planning process provides a framework for document development and follows the FEMA recommended steps.
The 2021 HMP follows a prescribed series of planning steps, including organizing resources, assessing risk, developing the mitigation plan, drafting the plan, reviewing and revising the plan, and adopting and submitting the plan for approval. Each step is described in this section.
3.2 The Planning Process
Figure 3-1: City of Loma Linda Planning Process
A-3-2
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.3 Organize Resources
This section describes the first step of the 2021 HMP
planning process- Organizing Resources. Organizing
resources consists of planning team development and
document review tasks.
3.3.1 Building the Planning Team
The Planning Team, key to the backbone of the planning
process, was critical for developing the 2021 HMP. The
Planning Team consisted of a City Planning Committee,
engaged City Residents and Regional Stakeholders, and an HMP consultant for plan development and facilitation.
The Planning Team participated in planning team meetings and review of the draft HMP. Not all members of the Planning Team attended stakeholder group meetings. Some participated by reviewing draft documents, gathering information and data, assisting with public outreach, or at other stages of the process.
3.3.1.1 Project Management Team
At the core of the 2021 HMP planning process is the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee was integral in ensuring the success of the planning process and plays a vital role in future implementation and maintenance.
The Planning Committee is a subset of the overall Planning Team and primarily includes City staff and leaders who engaged in a more detailed vulnerability assessment for the City, including interviews and group discussions helping define the areas of concern for each hazard.
Table 3-1: 2021 HMP Project Management Team
Planning Committee Members Title / Role
City Administration
Shannon Kendall, Project Lead Joint Emergency Services Coordinator (with City of Colton) Jarb Thaipejr City Manager/Director of Public Works
Konrad Bolowich Assistant CM/Director of IT & Community Development Sonia Fabela Director of Finance
Barbara Nicholson City Clerk and HR
City Public Works
Eleazar Rubalcava Public Works Superintendent
John Trujillo Public Works Lead Tech
City Planning
Lorena Matarrita Associate Planner
Jeff Peterson Associate Engineer
City Residents
& Regional
Stakeholders
Planning
Committee
City Project
Management
Team
Figure 3-2. City HMP Planning Team
A-3-3
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Planning Committee Members Title / Role
City Fire
Dan Harker Fire Chief
Tom Ingalls Fire Marshal
City Utilities
Russ Handy Supervisor Water/Wastewater
Kyle MacGavin Information Systems Analyst
Shawn MacGavin Information Systems Analyst
3.3.1.2 Planning Committee
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee consisted of multiple key decision-makers from city departments. The committee members served as liaisons to other city staff and the greater community.
The Planning Committee was involved in the following planning processes:
Structured coordination and meetings
Collection of valuable local information and other requested data Decision making on plan process and content
Development of mitigation actions
Review and comment on plan drafts
Coordination of the public input process
The HMPC includes the Project Management Team in Table 3-1 and other stakeholders listed in Table 3-2.
Stakeholders were invited to participate in the plan process. The cities Joint Emergency Services Coordinator and project lead directly invited stakeholders to participate either via email and/or phone call.
Table 3-2: 2021 LHMP Stakeholder List
Planning Committee / Stakeholder Members Name/Title / Role County
San Bernardino County OES Carrie Cruz: Emergency Services Officer Partner Agencies
Loma Linda CERT Frank Sirna: Lead Volunteer, Instructor American Red Cross Robert Anderson: Disaster Program Manager Omni Trans Barbara Erwin: Safety, Security, and Regulatory Compliance Manager
Redlands Unified School District Ken Morse: Operations Coordinator and Facility Planning Loma Linda Academy (K-12) Mark Brettnacher: Director of Plant Services Loma Linda University Health (LLUH) Eric Schilt: Vice President of Planning, Design and Construction Loma Linda University Health (LLUH) Brett McPherson: Director of Environmental Health & Safety Loma Linda University Health (LLUH) Ehren Ngo: Emergency Operations Manager Loma Linda Veterans Hospital - Pettis
Memorial Robert McCray: Chief of Safety
A-3-4
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Planning Committee / Stakeholder Members Name/Title / Role Loma Linda Veterans Hospital - Pettis
Memorial Elfega (Ellie) Bergthold: Emergency Manager
Caltrans (District 8) Nicholas Novelich: Emergency Operations BNSF Rail James Farner: Manager, HazMat Field Ops and ER Union Pacific Rail Robert Bavier: Manager, HazMat
CalFire Ray Martinez: (Battalion Chief) Southern Region, Land Use Planning
CalFire John Toon: (Battalion Chief) Training Chief, San Bernardino Unit CalFire Melissa Curtis: Southern Region, Land Use Planning City of Redlands Esther Martinez: Emergency Operations Specialist City of Grand Terrace Haide Aguirre: Assistant Planner
City of San Bernardino Nick Oldendorf: Emergency Manager, Police Sergeant Regional Utilities
Southern California Edison Mark Cloud: Government Affairs Representative Southern California Gas Co. Kristine Scott: Public Affairs Manager Southern California Gas Co. Geoffrey Danker: Policy & Environmental Strategy Cal OES (Hazard Mitigation
Pre-Disaster ＆ Flood Mitigation)
Cal OES Sonia Brown: Senior Emergency Services Officer
3.3.1.3 HMP Consultant Team
To assist the HMP Planning Committee, the City enlisted Atlas Planning Solutions and Dynamic Planning + Science due to its expertise in assisting public sector entities with developing hazard mitigation plans and strategies for particular hazard-prone areas. This team supported the City by facilitating the planning process, data collection, and meeting material and document development. The HMP Consultant Team, as shown in Table 3-3, consists of a variety of hazard mitigation and certified urban planning professionals.
Table 3-3: HMP Consultant Team
HMP Update Project Team Consulting Firm HMP Update Project Team Role Aaron Pfannenstiel, AICP Atlas Planning Solutions (APS) Project Manager Suzanne Murray APS QA/QC Reviewer
Crystal Stueve APS Associate Planner
Robert Jackson APS Assistant Planner
Ethan Mobley, AICP Dynamic Planning + Science (DP+S) Assistant Project Manager Brian Greer DP+S GIS Specialist/Spatial Analyst
Torie Jarvis, JD DP+S Planning Manager
Alex Krebs DP+S Associate GIS Specialist
Daniel Spivak DP+S Associate Planner
Ty Johnson, AICP DP+S Associate Planner
3.3.1.4 Planning Committee Meetings
The HMP Planning Committee met throughout the development of the updated HMP document. Table 3-4 summarizes the meetings conducted throughout the planning process, including meeting date, type, and topics A-3-5
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
discussed. Meeting documentation, including agendas, hazard maps, PowerPoint presentations, minutes, signin sheets, and other relevant handouts, are provided in Appendix B.
Table 3-4: Meeting Summary
Date Meeting Type Topics
July 29, 2020 Planning
Committee Meeting
#1
Review Project Goals & Expectations
Review 2011 LHMP Hazards of Concern
Review 2011 Critical Facilities
Review 2011 Mitigation Strategy
Data Needs
Community Engagement and Outreach
November 17,
2020
Planning
Committee Meeting
#2
Meeting #1 Recap
Risk Assessment Data Review
Risk Assessment Mapping Platform Tool Review
Discussion of hazard-specific areas of concern
Community Engagement and Outreach Update
July 2, 2021 Planning
Committee Meeting
#3
Review of the Administrative Draft LHMP Document
3.4 Public Involvement/Outreach
Public involvement is a major and required component of any HMP update. The Loma Linda 2021 HMP Update Public Outreach Strategy was developed to maximize public involvement throughout the planning process. The HMP Public Outreach Strategy details the utilization of websites, local media, and community-based services and establishments to engage the public throughout the HMP planning process.
An online community survey was distributed via the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan website, flyer inserts within monthly water bills, the City’s video bulletin board, and City’s Local TV Channel. A total of 57 survey responses were collected. The responses were used to determine the incentives needed for homeowners to protect their homes from natural disasters, which were integrated into the mitigation actions. The survey results can be found in Appendix B.
The results of the survey indicated the following:
• 18 respondents have been affected by a disaster
• Approximately 65% of respondents are somewhat concerned or very concerned about climate change • A majority of respondents identified trainings, education, and effective emergency communications/notifications as the best way to assist residents and businesses • The top three hazards of concern based on responses include Sesimic Hazards, Wildfire, and Flooding (see word cloud. Below)
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
The public also reviewed and provided comments on a draft of the HMP, when it was released for review on July 13, 2021 ending on August 13, 2021.
3.5 Assess the Hazard
In accordance with FEMA requirements, the 2021 LHMP Planning Committee identified and prioritized the natural hazards affecting Loma Linda and assessed their vulnerability. Results from this phase of the HMP planning process aided subsequent identification of appropriate mitigation actions to reduce risk in specific locations from hazards. This phase of the HMP planning process is detailed in Section 4.2.
3.5.1 Identify/Profile Hazards
Based on a review of past hazards and a review of the existing plans, reports, and other technical studies/data/information, the 2021 HMP Planning Committee determined if the existing hazards were still valid and identified new hazards that could affect the City. Updated content for each hazard profile is provided in Section 0.
3.5.2 Assess Vulnerabilities
Hazard profiling exposes the unique characteristics of individual hazards and begins the process of determining which areas within Loma Linda are vulnerable to specific hazard events. The vulnerability assessment included field visits and a GIS overlaying method for hazard risk assessments. Vulnerable populations, infrastructure, and potential loss estimates impacted by natural hazards were determined using these methodologies. Detailed information on the vulnerability assessment for each hazard is provided in Section 4.2.
3.6 Develop Mitigation Plan
The 2021 LHMP was prepared in accordance with DMA 2000, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and FEMA’s HMP guidance documents. This document provides an explicit strategy and blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources, and Loma Linda’s ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. Developing the mitigation A-3-6
A-3-7
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
plan involved identifying goals, assessing existing capabilities, reviewing the 2011 HMP goals, and identifying new mitigation actions. This step of the HMP planning process is detailed in Section 5 and summarized below.
3.6.1 Identify Goals
To meet FEMA requirements, the Planning Committee reviewed the 2011 HMP policies and determined current validity. The policies have been updated to meet the current hazard environments. See Section 5.5.
3.6.2 Develop Capabilities Assessment
A capabilities assessment is a comprehensive review of all the mitigation capabilities and tools currently available to the City to implement the mitigation actions prescribed in the 2021 HMP. The HMP Planning Committee identified the technical, financial, and administrative capabilities to implement mitigation actions, as detailed in Section 5.3.
3.6.3 Identify Mitigation Actions
As part of the 2021 LHMP planning process, the HMP Planning Committee reviewed and analyzed the mitigation actions identified in the 2011 HMP and provided data and information on the status of the existing mitigation actions. Once the review and analysis of the 2011 HMP mitigation actions were complete, the HMP Planning Team identified and developed new mitigation actions with implementation elements during Planning Meeting #3 and various interviews and discussions with the Planning Committee. Mitigation actions were prioritized, and detailed implementation strategies were developed during Planning Team Meeting #3. A detailed approach to reviewing the existing mitigation actions, identifying and prioritizing new mitigation actions, and creating the implementation strategy is provided in Section 5.4.4.
3.6.4 Draft HMP Update
Once the risk assessment and mitigation strategy were completed, information, data, and associated narratives were compiled into the 2021 HMP. Section 1.4 provides detailed information on updates as part of the 2021 HMP.
3.6.5 Plan Review and Revision
Once the Draft 2021 HMP was completed, a public and government review period was established for official review and revision. Public comments were accepted, reviewed, and incorporated into this update. Applicable comments from the public have been received and addressed prior to the “authorization to submit” to FEMA and Cal OES review parties.
3.6.6 Plan Adoption and Submittal
This plan has been submitted and approved by FEMA and adopted by the City. A copy of the resolution is provided in Section 2.
3.6.7 Plan Maintenance
Updated plan maintenance procedures, found in Section 6, include the measures Loma Linda and partnering agencies and stakeholders will take to ensure the HMP’s continuous, long‐term implementation. The procedures also include how the HMP will be regularly monitored, reported upon, evaluated, and updated to remain a current and meaningful planning document.
A-3-8
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
A-4-1
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Section 4. Risk Assessment
The risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential impact on life, property, and economic impacts resulting from natural hazards. The Risk Assessment identifies the qualitative and quantitative vulnerabilities of a community based on currently available data. The results of the risk assessment allow for a better understanding of the impacts of natural hazards on the community and provide a foundation in which to develop and prioritize mitigation actions to reduce damage from natural disasters through increased preparedness and response times and the better allocation of resources to areas of greatest vulnerability.
This Risk Assessment Section evaluates the potential loss from a hazard event by assessing the vulnerability of buildings, infrastructure, and people. It identifies the characteristics and potential consequences of hazards, how much of the City could be affected by a hazard, and the impact on City assets. The Risk Assessment approach consists of three (3) components:
Hazard Identification – Identification and screening of hazards (Section 4.1) Hazard Profiles – Review of historical occurrences and assessment of the potential for future events (Section 0)
Vulnerability Assessment – Determination of potential losses or impacts to buildings, infrastructure, and population (Section 4.3)
4.1 Hazard Identification and Screening
Per FEMA Guidance, the first step in developing the Risk Assessment is identifying the hazards. The City’s HMP Planning Team reviewed several previously prepared hazard mitigation plans and other relevant documents to determine the universe of natural hazards that have the potential to affect the City and the nearby region. Table 4-1 provides a crosswalk of hazards identified in the 2011 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Draft, 2009 Loma Linda General Plan, 2016 San Bernardino County Hazard Mitigation Plan, and 2018 CA State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Nine different hazards were identified based on a thorough document review. The crosswalk was used to develop a preliminary hazards list providing a framework for City HMP Planning Team members to evaluate which hazards were truly relevant to the City and which ones are not. For example, volcanic activity was considered to have no relevance to the City, while earthquake/geologic hazards and wildfire were indicated in every hazard documentation.
A-4-2
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-1: Document Review CrosswalkHaz Mat
Hazards
2011 Loma Linda
HMP
2009 Loma Linda
General Plan
2016 San
Bernardino County
MJHMP
2018 California
State
HMP
Climate Change ■ ■ ■
Dam Failure ■
Drought ■ ■ ■
Earthquake ■ ■ ■ ■
Flood ■ ■ ■ ■
Landslide ■ ■ ■
Levee Failure ■ ■
Human-Caused ■ ■ ■ ■
Pandemic Disease ■
Severe Weather ■ ■
Soil Hazards ■ ■ ■
Terrorism & Tech
Hazards
■ ■ ■
Volcano ■
Wildfire ■ ■ ■ ■
4.2 Hazard Prioritization
The Planning Committee’s hazard prioritization process combines historical data, local knowledge, and consensus opinions to produce a matrix that illustrates whether each profiled hazard is an extreme, high, or medium priority. The criteria below were used to evaluate hazards and identify the highest-risk hazard in Loma Linda. The results of the prioritization process for the City of Loma Linda are shown in Figure 4-1.
The City of Loma Linda completed the hazard prioritization process, and this important initial stage informed the rest of the planning process.
The following questions and guidance shaped the ranking on the matrices:
Probability What is the likelihood of a hazard event occurring in a given year? Unlikely- less than 1% annual probability or rarely occurs in the region or community Possible- 1%-10% annual probability or could occur. Uncommon in the region or community Likely- 10%- 100% annual probability or recurrent. Not frequent in the region or community Highly likely- 100% annual probability or frequently occurs in the region or community Impact In terms of injuries, damage, or death, would you anticipate impacts to be minor, limited, critical, or catastrophic when a significant hazard event occurs?
Minor - Very few injuries, if any; only minor property damage and minimal disruption on quality of life; temporary shutdown of critical facilities.
Limited - Minor injuries only; 10%-25% of property in the affected area is damaged or destroyed; complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one day.
Critical - Multiple deaths or injuries possible; 25%-50% of property in the affected area is damaged or destroyed; complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one week.
A-4-3
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Catastrophic - High number of deaths or injuries possible; more than 50% of property in the affected area damaged or destroyed; complete shutdown of critical facilities for 30 days or more.
Figure 4-1: Loma Linda Hazard Prioritization
High Medium Low
High
Wildfire
Seismic
Drought
Medium
Climate
Change
Flood
Haz Mat Terrorism
Slope
Failure
Airplane
Crash
Low
Impact
A-4-4
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-4-5
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Hazard Profiles
The natural hazard profiles in this section provide a baseline definition and description in relation to the City. The hazards symbolized below are profiled individually in this section and are in order by priority. For reference, each hazard symbol is placed at the beginning of each profile. The hazard profiles in this section provide a baseline for the Vulnerability Assessment, where the vulnerability to each profiled hazard is quantified in terms of population and assets affected. Hazard profiles in this Section are as follows:
Wildfire
SECTION 0
Earthquake
SECTION 4.2.2
Drought
SECTION 4.2.3
Climate Change
SECTION 4.2.4
HazardoA-4-us Waste &
Materials
SECTION 4.2.5
Human-Caused Hazards
SECTION 4.2.6
Flood
SECTION 4.2.7
Slope Failure
SECTION 4.2.8
A-4-6
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-4-7
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.2.1 Wildfire Hazard Profile
A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire occurring on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning or human activity such as smoking, campfires, equipment use, and arson. The 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan defines wildfires as:
any free-burning vegetative fire that initiates from an unplanned ignition, whether natural (e.g., lightning) or human-caused (e.g., powerlines, mechanical equipment, escaped prescribed fires), where the management objective is full suppression. (California Office of Emergency Services, 2018, p. 507)
Wildfires are costly, putting lives and property at risk and compromising rivers and watersheds, open space, timber, range, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitats, endangered species, historic and cultural assets, scenic assets, and local economies. Wildfires may increase vulnerability to flooding due to the destruction of forest and ground cover within watersheds. The potential for significant damage to life and property increases in areas where development is adjacent to densely vegetated areas, known as wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas. (FEMA, 2020) See Figure 4-2 for a depiction of a WUI.
While some fires are allowed to burn naturally in order to maintain or restore the health of forest lands, out of control wildfires need to be prevented through cooperative, community, and land management planning. (United States Forest Service, n.d.)
Wildfire hazard is a significant and recurrent threat in the City and has the potential to destroy buildings, cause damage to vital infrastructure, injure people, and can result in loss of life, agricultural land, and animals. High summer temperatures, low humidity, and high winds result in dry brush and atmospheric conditions that can accelerate fires through steep terrain. In San Bernardino County, wildfire season generally commences in summer when temperatures are high, humidity is low, and conditions remain dry. The season continues into fall when the County experiences high velocity, dry winds coming out of the desert. (San Bernardino County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2017) Climate change is projected to exacerbate or, at best, continue fire events across California. (Cal OES, 2018, p. 511)
Where there is easy public access to dry vegetation, fire hazards increase due to a greater chance of human carelessness. The intrusion of residential development into the lower foothills to the south and southwest of the City creates problems in controlling wildland fires due to limited firefighting facilities and the lack of direct access to the areas, which increases response times. These developments have also moved closer to higherrisk wildfire hazard areas, increasing the number of people and buildings at risk, as illustrated in Figure 4-2. (City of Loma Linda Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011)
A-4-8
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-2: Urban Wildland Interface
Source: Redwood City California, LHMP (https://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/fire-department/fireprevention/defensible-space/california-wildland-urban-interface-code-information)
4.2.1.1 Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Environment
Wildfire Protection Responsibility in California
Local, state, tribal, and federal organizations all have legal and financial responsibility for wildfire protection. In many instances, two fire organizations have dual primary responsibility on the same parcel of land—one for wildfire protection and the other for structural fire protection. In 1981, The California State Legislature outlined various wildfire responsibility areas to address wildfire jurisdictions. These responsibility areas can be found in Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 4291.5 and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 13108.5, and are described below:
Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs)—FRAs are fire-prone wildland areas owned or managed by a federal agency such as the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or U.S. Department of Defense. Primary financial and rule-making jurisdiction authority rests with the federal land agency. In many instances, FRAs are interspersed with private land ownership or leases. Fire protection for developed private property is usually the responsibility of the relevant local government agency, not the federal land management agency. State Responsibility Areas (SRAs)—SRAs land in California, where the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has legal and financial responsibility for wildfire protection. CAL FIRE administers fire hazard classifications and building standard regulations in these areas. SRAs are defined as lands that:
A-4-9
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
o are not federally-owned,
o have wildland vegetation cover rather than agricultural or ornamental plants, o have row crops or seasonal crops, or
o have watershed, range, or forage values.
CAL FIRE adopts SRA boundaries and updates them every five years. Where SRAs contain structures or development, the relevant local government agencies have fire protection responsibility for those improvements.
Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs)—LRAs include land in cities, cultivated agricultural lands, unincorporated non-flammable areas, and lands that do not meet the criteria for SRA or FRA. LRA fire protection is typically provided by city or county fire departments, fire protection districts, or CAL FIRE under contract to local governments. LRAs may still include areas of flammable vegetation and WUI. The wildfire-prone areas within the City of Loma Linda are entirely within the Local Responsibility Area.
Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003)
The federal Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) appropriates funding to address five main sub-categories of the National Fire Plan (NFP): preparedness, suppression, reduction of hazardous fuels, burned-area rehabilitation, and state and local assistance to firefighters. San Bernardino Community Wildfire Protection Plans have integrated these sub-categories through the following four best practices:
1. identifying and prioritizing fuels reduction opportunities across the landscape
2. addressing structural ignitability
3. assessing community fire suppression capabilities
4. collaborating with stakeholders
Loma Linda Building and Fire Code (2019)
The City adopted the 2019 California Building Code and 2019 Fire Code. (Cal. Code of Regs. § 24 (2019)), These codes include provisions that regulate the exterior materials and construction methods for wildfire protection (Building Code, Chapter 7a (2019). The Fire Code safeguards the public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises and provides safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. (Loma Linda Municipal Code (“LLMC”), § 15.28) Loma Linda has also adopted the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code. (LLMC § 15.30)
California Code, Public Resources Code § 4291
These regulations require property owners in mountainous areas, forest-covered lands, or any covered land with flammable material to create at minimum a 100-foot defensible space (or to the property line) around their homes and other structures.
Weed Abatement
To reduce the threat of wildfires, the City of Loma Linda participates in weed abatement inspections conducted by Loma Linda Fire Prevention personnel bi-annually. The inspections occur in the spring, from March through April, and fall, from September through November.
A-4-10
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
City of Loma Linda General Plan
The 2009 City of Loma Linda General Plan includes several policies in the Public Health and Safety Element to mitigate the effects of wildfire. The Plan’s Guiding Policy directs the City to minimize any threats to people, property, and the environment resulting from wildfires. The Plan also includes several Implementing Policies.
These policies direct the City to require the review of all development applications in high-risk wildfire areas. They also direct the City to use fire-resistant building materials, prevention and control measures, and adequate access for fire emergency response personnel. The General Plan Safety Element is currently undergoing review and update to ensure compliance with the latest government code requirements.
4.2.1.2 Past Occurrences
Four major factors contribute to historic wildfire events:
1. Extreme vegetation diversity
2. Diverse fire weather and fire behavior
3. Dynamic fire history
4. Complex land use patterns
See Table 4-2 for a list of wildfire events in Loma Linda. These are also displayed in Figure 4-4.
Table 4-2: Loma Linda Wildfires
Date Name Size in Acres
2001 Reche Fire 1,798
2010 Scott Fire 95
Source: California Fire, Incident Database
4.2.1.3 Location/ Geographic Extent
Fire Hazard Severity Zones have been identified along the southern portion of the City. Residential uses have been constructed within these areas that back up to natural vegetation areas susceptible to fires. Figure 4-3 illustrates the limits of the Fire Hazard Severity Zones for the City. Wildland-urban interface fires may occur in areas where urban land uses abut native areas. Under these conditions, wildfires may threaten urban uses.
4.2.1.4 Severity and Extent
The severity of the wildfire hazard is determined by the relationship between three factors: fuel classification, topographic slope, and critical fire weather frequency. The City of Loma Linda has a significant amount of wildfire fuels at the city's southern end. Critical fire weather conditions occur in periods of low relative humidity, high heat, and high winds. Future incidents may be more severe as climate variance trends towards increased heatwaves and drier microclimates.
Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a health hazard, especially for sensitive populations, including children, the elderly, and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Wildfire may also threaten the health and safety of those fighting fires. First responders are exposed to the dangers from the initial incident and aftereffects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke. In addition, wildfire can lead to ancillary impacts such as landslides in steep ravine areas and flooding due to the impacts of silt in local watersheds.
A-4-11
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
A visual of the size of areas burned during a wildfire in or near the City is shown in Figure 4-4.
4.2.1.5 Frequency/ Probability of Future Occurrences
Generally, the City of Loma Linda faces a wildland fire threat annually. Fire conditions arise from a combination of hot weather, an accumulation of vegetation, and low moisture content in the air. When combined with high winds and years of drought, these conditions increase the potential for a wildfire to occur. Urban wildfires often occur in areas where development has expanded into rural areas. A fire along this urban/rural interface can result in major losses of property and structures. Generally, three major factors sustain wildfires and allow for predictions of a given area’s potential to burn; fuel, topography, and weather.
Fuel is the material that feeds the fire and is a key factor in wildfire behavior. Fuel is generally classified by type and by volume. Fuel sources are diverse and include everything from dead tree needles and leaves, twigs, and branches to dead standing trees, live trees, brush, and cured grasses. Also, to be considered as a fuel source are human-made structures and other associated combustibles. The type of prevalent fuel directly influences the behavior of wildfire. Light fuels such as grasses burn quickly and serve as a catalyst for fire spread.
The volume of available fuel is described in terms of fuel loading. Certain areas in and surrounding the City of Loma Linda are extremely vulnerable to fires due to the presence of dense grassy vegetation combined with a growing number of structures being built near and within rural lands. The majority of past wildfire events near the City of Loma Linda occurred in the summer months (typically June through August). The frequency of wildfire events may increase because of increasingly drier conditions caused by climate change. Fire risk will also continue to grow as more people build in WUI areas, which increases fuel loads and the risk of human-caused fires.
Figure 4-3 depicts the fire return interval for the City of Loma Linda. The areas with the highest likelihood of burning within the next 30 years are located along the City's southern border in the Badland hills region.
A-4-12
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-3: City of Loma Linda Wildfire Risk Exposure
A-4-13
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-4: Historic Wildfires in and Near Loma Linda
A-4-14
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-5: Mean Wildfire Return Intervals
A-4-15
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.2.2 Earthquake Hazard Profile
An earthquake is the sudden shaking of the ground caused by seismic waves passing through the Earth. Seismic waves are produced when energy stored in the Earth’s crust is suddenly released, usually when masses of rock straining against one another suddenly fracture and “slip.” Earthquakes associated with this type of energy release are called tectonic earthquakes. The energy also can be released by elastic strain, gravity, chemical reactions, or even the motion of massive bodies. Earthquakes most often occur along geologic faults, narrow zones where rock masses move in relation to one another. (USGS, n.d.)
Earthquakes have different properties depending on the type of fault that causes them. See Figure 4-6. The usual fault model has a “strike” (that is, the direction from north taken by a horizontal line in the fault plane) and a “dip” (the angle from the horizontal shown by the steepest slope in the fault). The lower wall of an inclined fault is called the footwall. Lying over the footwall is the hanging wall. When rock masses slip past each other parallel to the strike, the movement is known as strike-slip faulting. Movement parallel to the dip is called dip-slip faulting.
In dip-slip faults, if the hanging-wall block moves downward relative to the footwall block, it is called “normal” faulting; the opposite motion, with the hanging wall moving upward relative to the footwall, produces reverse or thrust faulting. (Id.)
As a fault rupture progresses along or up
the fault, rock masses are flung in
opposite directions and thus spring back
to a position with less strain. (Id.)
Soil Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in
which the strength and stiffness of soil
are reduced by earthquake shaking or
other rapid loading. Soil liquefaction and
related phenomena have been
responsible for tremendous amounts of
damage in historical earthquakes
worldwide. Soil liquefaction occurs when
seismic waves pass through saturated
granular soil, distorting its granular
structure and causing some of the pore
spaces between granules to collapse. Pore-water pressure may also increase sufficiently to cause the soil to behave like a fluid for a brief period and cause deformations. Saturated or partially saturated soil substantially loses strength and stiffness in response to applied stress, such as shaking during an earthquake or other sudden changes in stress conditions. The phenomenon is most often observed in saturated, loose, low-density, or uncompacted sandy soils. Loose sand tends to compress when a load is applied. Dense sands, by contrast, tend to expand in volume or “dilate.” If the soil is saturated by water, which often occurs when soil is below the water table or sea level, then water fills the pore spaces between soil grains. (USGS, n.d.) Earthquake Classifications
Earthquakes are typically classified either 1) by the amount of energy released, measured as magnitude, or 2) by the impact on people and structures, measured as intensity. (USGS, n.d.) Figure 4-6: Earthquake Faulting
A-4-16
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Magnitude
The most common method for measuring earthquakes is magnitude, which measures the strength of earthquakes. While the majority of scientists generally use the Moment Magnitude (Mw) Scale to measure earthquake magnitude, the Richter (M) Scale is the most universally known measurement. The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the total area of the fault that ruptured and the amount of offset (displacement) across the fault. As shown in Table 4-3, there are seven earthquake magnitude classes on the Mw scale, ranging from great to micro. A magnitude class of great can cause tremendous damage to infrastructure, compared to a micro class, which results in minor damage to infrastructure. (Id.) Table 4-3: Moment Magnitude Scale
Intensity
The effects of an earthquake in a particular location are measured by intensity. Earthquake intensity decreases with increasing distance from the epicenter of the earthquake. The Modified Mercalli Intensity value assigned to a specific site after an earthquake has a more meaningful measure of severity to the nonscientist than the magnitude because intensity refers to the effects experienced at that place. (United States Geological Survey) The lower numbers of the intensity scale generally deal with how people feel the earthquake.
The higher numbers of the scale are based on observed structural damage. Structural engineers usually contribute information for assigning intensity values of VIII-X. Table 4-4 is an abbreviated description of the levels of Modified Mercalli Intensity. (Id.)
Table 4-4: Modified Mercalli Intensity Level Descriptions Intensity Shaking Description/Damage
I Not felt Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions.
II Weak Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings.
III Weak
Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly.
Vibrations are similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.
IV Light
Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened.
Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Similar to a heavy truck striking a building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.
Earthquake Magnitude Classes (Mw)
Magnitude Class Magnitude Range (Mw =
Moment Magnitude)
Description
Great Mw > 8 Tremendous damage
Major 7 <= Mw < 7.9 Widespread heavy damage
Strong 6 <= Mw < 6.9 Severe damage
Moderate 5 <= Mw < 5.9 Considerable damage
Light 4 <= Mw < 4.9 Moderate damage
Minor 3 <= Mw < 3.9 Rarely causes damage.
Micro Mw < 3 Minor damage
A-4-17
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Intensity Shaking Description/Damage
V Moderate Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes and/or windows broken.
Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.
VI Strong Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster—slight damage.
VII Very
strong
Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.
VIII Severe
Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.
IX Violent
Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse.
Buildings shifted off foundations.
X + Extreme
Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.
Source: USGS, Abridged from The Severity of an Earthquake, USGS General Interest Publication 1989-288-913 Ground Motion
Earthquake hazard assessment is also based on expected ground motion. This involves determining the annual probability that certain ground motion accelerations will be exceeded, then summing the annual probabilities over the time period of interest. The most commonly mapped ground motion parameters are the horizontal and vertical peak ground accelerations (PGA) for a given soil or rock type. Instruments called accelerographs record levels of ground motion due to earthquakes at stations throughout a region. These readings are recorded by state and federal agencies that monitor and predict seismic activity. (Pacific Northwest Seismic Network) Maps of PGA values form the basis of seismic zone maps that are included in building codes such as the International Building Code. Building codes that include seismic provisions specify the horizontal force due to lateral acceleration that a building should be able to withstand during an earthquake. PGA values are directly related to these lateral forces that could damage “short period structures” such as single-family dwellings. Longerperiod response components determine the lateral forces that damage larger structures with longer natural periods such as apartment buildings, factories, high-rises, bridges. Table 4-5 lists the damage potential and perceived shaking by PGA factors, compared to the Mercalli scale. (USGS) Table 4-5: Modified Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Potential Structure Damage Estimated PGA
Modified Mercalli Scale Perceived Shaking Resistant Buildings Vulnerable Buildings (%g) I Not Felt None None <0.17%
II Weak None None 0.17% - 1.4%
III Light None None 1.4% - 3.9%
IV Moderate Very Light Light 3.9% - 9.2%
V Strong Light Moderate 9.2% - 18%
VI Very Strong Moderate Moderate/Heavy 18% - 34%
VII Severe Moderate/Heavy Heavy 34% - 65%
A-4-18
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Potential Structure Damage Estimated PGA
Modified Mercalli Scale Perceived Shaking Resistant Buildings Vulnerable Buildings (%g) VIII Violent Heavy Very Heavy 65% - 124%
IX + Extreme Very Heavy Very Heavy >124%
Note: PGA measured in percent of g, where g is the acceleration of gravity Sources: USGS, 2008; USGS, 2010
4.2.2.1 Plans Policies, and Regulatory Environment
Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1972) The 1971 San Fernando Earthquake resulted in the destruction of numerous structures built across its path. This led to the passage of the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972. This Act prohibits the construction of buildings for human occupancy across active faults in the State of California. Similarly, extensive damage caused by ground failures during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake focused attention on decreasing the impacts of landslides and liquefaction. This led to the creation of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which increases construction standards at locations where ground failure is probable during earthquakes. This mapping identifies zones of required investigation for possible earthquake faulting, landslides, and liquefaction. These zones are delineated and distributed to cities, counties, and state construction agencies to help identify where higher building standards may be necessary for safe development. (Cal. Dep't of Conservation, 2019) Figure 4-7 illustrates the zones of required investigation in Loma Linda. 2019 California Building Standards Code
The Loma Linda Municipal Code adopts the 2019 California Building Code, which includes materials requirements, construction methods, and maintenance standards for earthquake protection and resiliency.
City of Loma Linda General Plan
The 2009 City of Loma Linda General Plan includes several policies in the Public Health and Safety Element to mitigate the effects of earthquakes. The Guiding Policy directs the City to minimize the risks of property damage and personal injury caused by seismic and geologic hazards. The Plan’s implementing policies direct the City to limit development, enforce the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, rehabilitate existing buildings, prepare soils and geologic reports, and safe slope engineering.
4.2.2.2 Past Occurrences
The last significant earthquake along the Southern California stretch of the San Andreas Fault occurred in 1857.
Since 1690 the southern end of the fault from San Bernardino to the Salton Sea has not experienced fault rupture.
Stress along this portion of the fault has continued to store energy that will be released in a future earthquake.
Southern California has thousands of smaller earthquakes every year. Table 4-6 shows the earthquakes greater than magnitude 5 in or near the San Bernardino County area from 1990 through 2020.
A-4-19
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-6: Earthquakes M5.0 in or near San Bernardino County 1990-2020 Date Location Magnitude (M)
2019-07-05 10 km Northwest of Ridgecrest 7.1
2008-07-29 5 km South of Chino Hills 5.4
1999-10-16 7 km Northeast of Running Springs 5.6
1992-12-04 10 km Southeast of Lucerne Valley 5.3
1992-11-27 10 km Northwest of Big Bear City 5.3
1992-08-17 7 km Southeast of Big Bear Lake 5.2
1992-07-01 24 km North of Yucca Valley 5.3
1992-06-28 1 km North of Big Bear Lake 5.3
1992-06-28 7 km Southeast of Big Bear City 6.3
1992-06-28 11 km Southeast of Big Bear Lake 5.5
1992-06-28 26 km Northeast of Yucca Valley 5.4
1992-06-28 7 km Southwest of Yucca Valley 5.0
1990-02-28 6 km Northeast Claremont 5.5
Source: USGS Earthquake database
4.2.2.3 Location/ Geographic Extent
Earthquakes may occur anywhere in the region, at any time, and Loma Linda is exposed to earthquake impacts throughout the City. Earthquakes in California are caused by the movement of huge blocks of the earth's crust known as the Pacific and North American plates. The Pacific plate is moving northwest, scraping horizontally past North America at a rate of about 50 millimeters (2 inches) per year. About two-thirds of this movement occurs on the San Andreas Fault and three major parallel faults: the San Jacinto, Elsinore, and Imperial. Over time, these faults produce about half of the region's significant earthquakes and many minor earthquakes.
There are also more than 300 additional major faults and countless smaller ones throughout the region. This is primarily due to the "big bend" of the San Andreas fault, from the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley to the eastern end of the San Bernardino mountains. Where the fault bends, the Pacific and North American plates push into each other, compressing the earth's crust into the mountains of Southern California and creating hundreds of additional faults. These faults produce thousands of small earthquakes each year and the other half of our significant earthquakes. Examples include the 1994 Northridge and 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquakes.
Several faults run through the boundaries of Loma Linda, as Figure 4-7 illustrates. The most active of those is the San Jacinto Fault, which has been the most historically active fault zone in Southern California. This fault is located within a zone of required investigation as designated by the California Geological Survey. Southwest of the San Jacinto Fault is the Reche Canyon Fault, which is potentially active. Other faults in the City are classified as inactive, including the Loma Linda, Banning, and Live Oak Canyon Faults. (City of Loma Linda General Plan, 2009, p. 10.2)
The San Andreas Fault does not directly run through Loma Linda but poses a higher probability of both occurrence and severe shaking in the City, as discussed in the Frequency and Probability Section of this HMP (4.2.2.4). Figure 4-8 illustrates the sheer number of faults surrounding Loma Linda. While this HMP focuses on a single scenario to illustrate the City’s earthquake vulnerability, the reality is that any of the illustrated faults pose a risk to the City.
A-4-20
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-7: USGS Quaternary Faults
A-4-21
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.2.2.4 Frequency/ Probability of Future Events
In general, many faults around Loma Linda have more than a 1% chance of creating a 6.7M earthquake in the next 30 years, with the possibility of violent to severe shaking occurring in the City. See Figure 4-8. In California, earthquakes large enough to cause moderate damage to structures—those of 5.5 M or larger—occur three to four times a year statewide. Strong earthquakes of 6 to 6.9 M strike on average once every two to three years.
Major earthquakes of 7 to 7.9 M occur in California about once every 10 years. (Cal OES, 2018) This plan utilizes two mapping tools to estimate the frequency and probability of an earthquake occurrence that impacts the City of Loma Linda: 1) the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)(see Figure 4-8) and 2) the Earthquake Shaking Potential based on the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model (see Figure 4-9). Both mapping tools are described in more detail below.
Importantly, these probabilistic maps were used to determine the earthquake scenario used for the vulnerability analysis. This plan focuses on the Shakeout2 Scenario along the San Andreas Fault (Figure 4-10) because it is the scenario with the highest likelihood of severe shaking and producing an M 7.8 earthquake within the next 30 years.
4.2.2.4.1 30-Year Earthquake Probability (UCERF3)
One method for evaluating earthquake probability is to examine the probability of a fault producing an earthquake of a certain magnitude within a time frame. Figure 4-8 presents the probabilities that various depicted faults will produce a 6.7M earthquake within the next 30 years.
The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3), 1 is a comprehensive model of earthquake occurrence for California. It represents the best available science for authoritative estimates of California's magnitude, location, and likelihood of potentially damaging earthquakes. According to UCERF3 and as shown in Figure 4-8, the Shakeout2 Scenario, resulting from a San Andreas fault rupture, has a 10% to 100% probability of occurrence within 30 years, the highest probability affecting the City. 1 Quaternary faults are those active faults that have been recognized at the surface and which have evidence of movement in the past 1.6 million years - the duration of the Quaternary Period.
A-4-22
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-8: San Bernardino County Region Earthquake Probability
4.2.2.4.2 Earthquake Shaking Potential
Another method for understanding the probability and frequency of a future earthquake is to examine the “shaking potential” of an area. The Earthquake Shaking Potential Map, Figure 4-9, shows this potential seismic shaking from anticipated future earthquakes. It is probabilistic in the sense that the analysis considers the uncertainties in the size and location of earthquakes and the resulting ground motions that can affect a particular site. (CGS, 2020) It is also useful in understanding the severity of shaking in different locations throughout the City, as discussed in Section 4.2.2.5.
The map is expressed in terms of shaking potential or the probability of exceeding a certain ground motion. The map shows a 2% probability of exceeding one second of ground motion in 50 years. Earthquake shaking potential in California is calculated based on the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model and in partnership with California Geological Survey (CGS). Earthquake shaking potential also considers historical earthquakes, slip rates on major faults, deformation throughout the region, and the potential for amplifying seismic waves by near-surface geologic materials. (CGS, 2020)
The map depicts a range of lower hazard to higher hazard probability. Higher hazard areas are those near major, active faults that will, on average, experience stronger earthquake shaking more frequently. This intense shaking A-4-23
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
can damage even strong, modern buildings. Lower hazard areas are those regions that are distant from known, active faults that will experience lower levels of shaking less frequently. In most earthquakes, only weaker masonry buildings would be damaged. However, very infrequent earthquakes could still cause strong shaking in those locations. (D. Branum, 2016)
Ground shaking potential estimates the severity of shaking that has a 2% chance of occurrence (or exceedance) in 50 years. In other words, the ground shaking probability illustrates the severity of shaking that has a 2,500- year average repeat time. Relatively long-period (1.0 second) earthquake shaking is shown. Long-period shaking affects tall, relatively flexible buildings but also correlates well with overall earthquake damage. Although the greatest hazard is in areas of highest intensity, as shown in Figure 4-9, no region is immune from potential earthquake damage. (Id.)
The potential for earthquake ground shaking, as defined by the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model, is used by engineers to design buildings for larger ground motions than what we think will occur during a 50-year interval.
This will make buildings safer than if they were only designed for the ground motions that we expect to occur in the next 50 years. (USGS, 2020)
4.2.2.4.1 Shakeout2 Scenario
This HMP uses the “Shakeout2 Scenario,” named by the USGS, to evaluate earthquake vulnerability because it’s both the highest probability of occurrence from the UCERF mapping and the highest shake potential from a range of regional, scenario-based shake maps available from USGS for the vulnerability analysis.
Figure 4-10 illustrates the violent to extreme intensity predicted for Loma Linda under the Shakeout2 Scenario.
Section 4.3.2.4 details the City’s vulnerability to the impacts from the Shakehout2 scenario.
A-4-24
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-9: Loma Linda EQ Shake Potential
A-4-25
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-10: Loma Linda Shakeout2 (M7.8)
A-4-26
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.2.2.5 Severity and Extent
As we know from past events, even a moderate earthquake occurring in or near Loma Linda could result in deaths, casualties, property and environmental damage, and disruption of everyday services and activities. The event's severity could be aggravated by collateral emergencies such as fires, hazardous material spills, utility disruptions, landslides, and transportation emergencies.
The severity and extent of earthquakes depend on the origin and severity of the specific earthquake, therefore ranging significantly. The tools for understanding probability, discussed in the Frequency and Probability Section of this hazard profile (4.2.2.4), also serve as the basis for understanding the severity and extent of potential earthquakes in Loma Linda.
The Fault Probability Map, Figure 4-8, illustrates the probability of a relatively severe M 6.7 earthquake occurrence; many faults around Loma Linda have a more than 1% chance of creating that M 6.7 in the next 30 years. The Earthquake Shake Potential Map, Figure 4-9, demonstrates Loma Linda’s susceptibility to more frequent and more severe earthquake shaking potential.
These two maps, taken together, show that Loma Linda is susceptible to severe earthquakes in the future.
Moreover, the earthquake scenario with the highest probability of occurrence and producing severe shaking, the M 7.8 Shakeout2 Scenario earthquake, produces extreme and violent intensity in Loma Linda.
4.2.2.6 Warning Time
There is currently no reliable way to predict the day or month that an earthquake will occur at any given location.
Research is being conducted with warning systems that use the low energy waves that precede major earthquakes. Seconds and minutes of advanced warning can allow people and systems to take actions to protect life and property from destructive shaking. Even a few seconds of warning can enable protective actions specific to various sectors of the population, such as:
Public: Citizens, including school children, drop, cover, and hold on, turn off stoves, or safely stop vehicles.
Businesses: Personnel move to safe locations, automated systems ensure elevator doors open, production lines are shut down, and sensitive equipment is placed in a safe mode. Medical services: Surgeons, dentists, and others stop delicate procedures. Emergency responders: Responders can open firehouse doors; personnel prepare and prioritize response decisions.
Power infrastructure: Personnel can protect power stations and grid facilities from strong shaking.
A-4-27
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-4-28
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.2.3 Drought Hazard Profile
Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of climate. It occurs almost everywhere, although its features vary from region to region. Drought severity depends on numerous factors, including duration, intensity, geographic extent, and regional water supply demands by humans and vegetation. Other climatic factors can aggravate the severity of drought, such as prolonged high winds and low relative humidity.
California's water resources have been stressed by periodic drought cycles and, in some places, overuse, creating the need for unprecedented state and local restrictions in water use. Climate change is expected to increase drought and extreme weather. While the duration and severity of drought are always in question, it is certain that California and the City of Loma Linda will continue to be impacted by drought. (California Drought Contingency Plan, 2010)
Drought originates from a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period, usually one or more seasons.
Drought can result in a water shortage for some activity, group, or environmental sector. Drought is a complex natural hazard, which is reflected in the following four types of drought:
Agricultural drought is defined principally in terms of naturally occurring soil moisture deficiencies relative to water demands of plant life, usually arid crops.
Hydrological drought is related to the effects of precipitation shortfalls on stream flows and reservoir, lake, and groundwater levels.
Meteorological drought is defined solely on the degree of dryness, expressed as a departure of actual precipitation from an expected average or normal amount based on monthly, seasonal, or annual time scales.
Socioeconomic drought associates the supply and demand of economic goods or services with meteorological, hydrologic, and agricultural drought elements. Socioeconomic drought occurs when the water demand exceeds the supply due to a weather-related supply shortfall. It may also be called a water management drought.
Although climate is a primary contributor to hydrological drought, other factors such as changes in land use (e.g., deforestation), land degradation, and the construction of dams all affect the hydrological characteristics of the watershed. Since regions are interconnected by hydrologic systems, the impact of meteorological drought may extend well beyond the borders of the precipitation-deficient area. Similarly, changes in land use upstream may alter hydrologic characteristics such as infiltration and runoff rates, resulting in more variable streamflow and a higher incidence of hydrologic drought downstream. Land use change is one way human actions alter the frequency of water shortage even when no change in the frequency of meteorological drought has been observed.
4.2.3.1 Plans Policies, and Regulatory Environment
California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
On September 16, 2014, Governor Brown signed a package of bills (SB1168, AB1739, and SB1319) collectively called the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. For critically over-drafted basins, that date will be 2040. For the remaining high and medium priority basins, 2042 is the deadline.
A-4-29
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Statewide Emergency Water Conservation Regulations
In 2016, the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) adjusted emergency water conservation regulations to recognize the differing water supply conditions and ongoing drought across the state to comply with an Executive Order from the California Governor declaring a drought emergency. Executive Order B-37-16 Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life updates temporary emergency water restrictions and transitions to permanent, long-term improvements in water use by:
providing for wiser water use
eliminating water waste
strengthening local drought resilience
improving agricultural water use efficiency and drought planning In April of 2017, a new Executive Order lifted the drought emergency but retained many conservation requirements. Most regulations are still in effect with the exception of water supply “stress test” requirements and conservation standards for urban water suppliers. The temporary restrictions established a baseline of the types of benefits that are possible from water conservation requirements. The Executive Orders are available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/executive_orders.html California Water Plan
The California Water Plan presents strategic plan elements, including a vision, mission, goals, guiding principles, and recommendations for current water conditions, challenges, and activities. The plan includes future uncertainties and climate change impacts, scenarios for 2050, and a roadmap for improving data and analytical tools needed for integrated water management and sustainability. The California Water Plan was updated most recently in 2018. See: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/California-Water-Plan. 2015 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan This Urban Water Management Plan summarizes anticipated supplies and demands for the years 2015-2040 for the agencies participating in the plan, including Riverside Highland Water Company who services the City of Loma Linda. The Urban Water Management Plan Act requires evaluation of the following:
• Whether supplies will be sufficient to meet demands during the following hydrologic year types normal/average year, single dry year, multiple dry year sequence;
• Existing baseline water use in terms of gallons per capita per day (GPCD) (applies only to retail water suppliers);
• Targets for future water use consistent with the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7), which seeks a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2020;
• Demand Management Measures (DMMs) implemented or planned for implementation as well as the methods proposed for achieving future water use targets;
• Water shortage contingency planning; and
• Notification and coordination with other water agencies, land use entities, and the community.
One Water One Watershed Plan for Santa Ana River Integrated Watershed (2018 Update) This integrated water management plan addresses the Santa Ana River Watershed resources, including hydrogeology, land use, biological resources, water supply, water quality, flood control, and demographics. The plan also presents regional watershed management practices, including water storage, water quality A-4-30
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
improvements, water recycling, flood control, wetlands and sensitive habitat protection, recreational opportunities, and water conservation. (One Water One Watershed Plan, 2018)
4.2.3.2 Past Occurrences
California experienced massive changes over the course of the twentieth century, as evidenced by dramatic population increases and land use conversion. (Cal. Dep't of Water Resources, 2015) The single driest year in California’s measured hydrologic history is 1977. This drought period began in November 1975. It first drained the State’s reservoirs, which then lead to widespread water shortages in 1977. Additionally, 1976 is on record as the fourth driest year for California. During this period, 47 of the 58 California counties declared emergencies. (USGS)
San Bernardino County has experienced the following drought events since 1896. These past occurrences are described as follows:
1975 to 1977: California experienced the two driest years (1976 and 1977) in the State’s history. The drought was declared an Emergency (FEMA-EM-3023) on January 20, 1977. Total crop damages statewide totaled $2.67 billion for both years ($888.5 million in 1976 and $1.8 billion in 1977). (Cal OES, 2018, pp. 597-600)
2007 to 2009: A California State-declared three-year drought of below-average rainfall, low snowmelt runoff, and the largest court-ordered water restricting in the state’s history. The dry conditions damaged crops, deteriorated water quality, and caused extreme wildfire danger. The water year of 2007, in particular, was the single driest year of that drought and was also in the top 20 percent of dry years based on computed statewide runoff. (Id.)
2012 to 2017: This drought impacted all counties throughout California. It notably affected the agricultural sector in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California during the 2012-2013 timespan. San Bernardino County first declared a local drought emergency in 2014. As of May 23rd, 2016, San Bernardino County had submitted a local Emergency Proclamation. This was the most severe drought in over 100 years. (Id.)
The winter of 2016-2017 formally ended California’s most recent significant drought; however, the State is still recovering from five dry years. The 2017-2018 winter also experienced less precipitation than normal across the state. Drought conditions have returned because of this, although less intense than in recent years. As of March 11th, 2021, approximately 99.3 percent of California was at minimum abnormally dry, and approximately 90.9 percent of the state was characterized by at least moderate drought. Approximately 58.6 percent of California experienced at least severe drought conditions, and a smaller part of the state (approximately 29.5 percent, in far southeastern California) experienced extreme drought conditions. In San Bernardino County, these conditions are worse. As of March 11th, 2021, the entire County has experienced a moderate drought, and more than 90 percent of the County has experienced severe drought. (NOAA & NIDIS, 2021) Figure 4-11 depicts a drought severity timeline from 2000 through 2021 in the Santa Ana region.
4.2.3.3 Location/Geographic Extent
Drought is one of the few hazards with the potential to impact the entire population of the City of Loma Linda directly or indirectly through water restrictions, higher water and food prices, reduced air or water quality, or restricted access to recreational areas. No portion of the City is immune from drought conditions.
A-4-31
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Lack of winter snowfall in the mountains can eventually lead to agricultural impacts due to decreased stream flows. Reduced base flows may introduce additional challenges for communities that depend on direct drinking water supplies from rivers and tributaries. Droughts of just a few weeks during critical periods of plant development can have disastrous effects on agriculture production. Reduced reservoir storage from decreased runoff in the mountains can lead to water shortages. Droughts that occur in populated areas may not directly affect the residents but may increase the threat of wildfire in the wildland-urban interface areas.
4.2.3.4 Severity and Extent
The severity and extent of a drought depend on the degree of moisture deficiency, the duration, and the size and location of the affected area. The longer the duration of the drought and the larger the area impacted, the more severe the potential impacts. Droughts are not usually associated with direct impacts on people or property, but they can have significant impacts on agriculture, which can impact people indirectly.
Unlike most disasters, droughts normally occur slowly but last a long time. On average, the nationwide annual impacts of drought are greater than the impacts of any other natural hazard. They are estimated to be between $6 billion and $8 billion annually in the United States and occur primarily in the agriculture, transportation, recreation and tourism, forestry, and energy sectors. Social and environmental impacts are also significant, although it is difficult to put a precise cost on these impacts.
Drought eventually affects groundwater sources but generally not as quickly as surface water supplies. In contrast, groundwater supplies generally take longer to recover from a drought event. Reduced precipitation during a drought means that groundwater supplies are not replenished at a normal rate. This can reduce groundwater levels and problems such as reduced pumping capacity or wells going dry. Shallow wells are more susceptible than deep wells. Reduced replenishment of groundwater affects streams. Much of the flow in streams comes from groundwater, especially during the summer when there is less precipitation and after snowmelt ends.
Reduced groundwater levels mean that even less water will enter streams when stream flows are lowest.
A drought directly or indirectly impacts all people in the affected areas. Drought can result in farmers not being able to plant crops or the failure of planted crops. This results in loss of work for farm workers and those in food processing and winemaking jobs. Other water-dependent industries are commonly forced to shut down all or a portion of their facilities, resulting in further layoffs. A drought can harm recreational companies that use water (e.g., swimming pools, water parks, and river rafting companies) and landscape and nursery businesses because people will not invest in new plants if water is not available to sustain them.
4.2.3.5 Frequency/Probability of Future Occurrences
Predicting the precise probability of future drought depends on comprehensive and reliable data. Cal-Adapt, an authority on climate variance in California, projects an extended period of drought over a 20-year period statewide. (Cal-Adapt, 2020) Empirical studies conducted over the past century have shown that meteorological drought is never the result of a single cause. It is the result of many causes, often synergistic in nature; these include global weather patterns that produce persistent, upper-level high-pressure systems along the West Coast with warm, dry air, resulting in less precipitation.
According to the results of the risk factor exercises for the City, the probability of drought occurring in Loma Linda is highly likely (100% annual probability). Figure 4-11 provides a time series from the National Drought Monitor that shows that the City of Loma Linda has been in some form of drought for much of the period from 2000 to 2020. Table 4-7 describes the possible impacts of each level of drought classification in California from the US Drought Monitor.
A-4-32
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-7: Drought Classifications and Impacts
Category Description Possible Impacts
D0 Abnormally Dry
Active fire season begins
Going into drought, short-term dryness, slowing planting, growth of crops or pastures. Coming out of drought, some lingering water deficits, and pasture or crops not fully recovered,
D1 Moderate
Drought
Some damage to crops, pastures
Streams, reservoirs, or wells low, some water shortages developing or imminent Voluntary water-use restrictions requested
D2 Severe Drought
Crop or pasture losses likely
Water shortages common
Water restrictions imposed
D3 Extreme Drought
Major crop/ pasture losses
Widespread water shortages or restrictions
D4 Exceptional
Drought
Exceptional and widespread crop/ pasture losses
Shortages of water in reservoirs, streams, and wells creating water Adapted from U.S. Drought Monitor Drought Classifications and Impacts Figure 4-11: Loma Linda – Santa Ana Drought Monitor
A-4-33
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.2.4 Climate Change Hazard Profile
Climate change refers to any distinct change in measures of climate lasting for a long period of time, more specifically, major changes in temperature, rainfall, snow, or wind patterns. Climate change may be limited to a specific region or may occur across the planet. Climate change may result from:
Natural factors (e.g., changes in the Sun’s energy or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun);
Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation); and
Human activities that change the atmosphere’s make-up (e.g., burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., cutting down forests, planting trees, building developments in cities and suburbs, etc.).
Changes in extreme weather and climate events, such as heatwaves and drought, are the primary way that most people experience climate change. Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, much of the U.S. has seen increases in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, heavy downpours, and severe floods and droughts in some regions. (Wuebbles Et al., 2017)
The effects of climate change are varied and include extremes in precipitation and temperature. Increases in long-term average temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise can result in compounding impacts such as ocean acidification, increasing insect outbreaks, and shifts in biological phenomena, to name a few. (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2014).
California is already experiencing the impacts of climate change, including prolonged drought, increased coastal flooding and erosion, and tree mortality. The state has also seen increased average temperatures, more extreme heat days, fewer cold nights, a lengthening of the growing season, shifts in the water cycle with less winter precipitation falling as snow, a decreased summertime fog of 33%, and both snowmelt and rainwater running off sooner in the year. (Cal OES, 2018) The intensity of extreme weather events is also increasing. The state has also seen increased extreme weather events and related hazards, such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and floods. (USGS, n.d.)
4.2.4.1 Policies, Plans, and Regulatory Environment
California Assembly Bill (AB) 2516: Database for Sea-level Rise Planning AB 2516 directed the Natural Resources Agency in collaboration with the Ocean Protection Council to conduct biannual surveys of sea-level rise planning information to catalog California’s efforts to prepare for rising sea levels. Numerous studies, vulnerability assessments, and local coastal programs have been developed under this directive. AB 2516 resources are stored in the Adaption Clearinghouse, resilientca.org. 2019 California Green Building Standards
A-4-34
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
The City has adopted the 2019 California Green Building Standards, also known as CALGreen Code. CALGreen Code establishes regulations for green building, non-residential and residential buildings. The regulations cover planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The code also includes voluntary measures for residential, nonresidential, and health facilities.
California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Sustainable Communities Act, SB 375, Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) looks to reduce GHG emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. Regional targets are established for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use by the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) established by each metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The SCS is an integral part of regional transportation plans (RTP) and contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies to meet GHG reduction targets. 2018 California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment
California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment promotes actionable science that serves the growing needs of state and local-level decision-makers from a diverse number of sectors. The Fourth Assessment provides information in a number of ways. Regional reports summarize climate impacts and adaptation needs around the state, at a resolution useful for local decision-makers. Statewide impacts are summarized in the Statewide Summary Report, as well as reports on Tribal and Indigenous Communities, Climate Justice, and California’s Ocean and Coast. The Technical Reports are the foundation of the Fourth Assessment and include climate projections and analyses of expected impacts in various sectors across the state. 2020 California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG)
California has been addressing climate change for over 20 years, focusing on both greenhouse gas emissions reduction and adaptation. Cal OES’s Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) provides guidance and support for communities addressing the unavoidable consequences of climate change. The 2020 APG presents an updated, step-by-step process that communities can use to plan for climate change.
California Senate Bill 379: General Plan Safety Element and Climate Adaption California SB 379 requires cities and counties to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the Safety Elements of their General Plans upon the next revision beginning January 1, 2017. The bill requires the climate adaptation update to include goals, policies, objectives, and implementation measures for their communities based on a climate vulnerability assessment, including a discussion of conserving and protecting the natural infrastructure that serves an adaptation function.
California Senate Bill 1000: General Plan Safety and Environmental Justice Elements Senate Bill 1000 requires local governments to include climate adaptation and resilience strategies when updating the safety element of their general plan. It also includes provision for an Environmental Justice element in General Plans. SB 1000 has four basic requirements, whether those requirements are combined into a single environmental justice element or distributed throughout other existing elements, including:
identifying disadvantaged communities,
A-4-35
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
incorporating policies to reduce the environmental health impacts that adversely affect residents in disadvantaged communities,
incorporating policies to include residents of disadvantaged communities in decision-making processes, and
incorporating policies that prioritize improvements and projects in disadvantaged communities.
4.2.4.2 Past Occurrences
Climate change has never been directly responsible for any declared disasters. Past flooding, wildfire, levee failure, and drought disasters may have been exacerbated by climate change, but it is impossible to make direct connections to individual disasters. In addition, unlike earthquakes and floods that occur over a finite time period, climate change is an ongoing hazard, the effects of which some are already experiencing. Other effects may not be seriously experienced for decades or may be avoided altogether by mitigation actions taken today.
4.2.4.3 Location/Geographic Extent
Geographical borders do not limit the effects of climate change. Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, the State of California, the United States, and the rest of the world are all at risk of climate change. As such, the entire City is at risk of the effects of climate change.
The City of Loma Linda lies in a region defined largely by the San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, San Jacinto Mountains, and smaller inland mountains reaching through the desert to the Colorado River, which borders the region on the east.
4.2.4.4 Severity and Extent
Climate Change can potentially affect the City of Loma Linda in a variety of ways. Heatwaves: Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heatwaves in the City of Loma Linda and the rest of California, which are likely to increase the risk of mortality and morbidity due to heat-related illness and exacerbation of existing chronic health conditions. Those most at risk and vulnerable to climate-related illness are the elderly, individuals with chronic conditions such as heart and lung disease, diabetes, and mental illnesses, infants, the socially or economically disadvantaged, and those who work outdoors. Heat can stress infrastructure, altering maintenance needs, particularly for roadways.
Precipitation, intense rainstorms, and landslide: Increased frequency of landslides could be seen throughout the City, especially in areas already identified as high risk. Intense rainfall events, periodically ones with larger than historical runoff, will continue to affect California with more frequent and/or more extensive flooding.
Wildfire: Warmer weather, reduced snowpack, and earlier snowmelt can be expected to increase wildfire through fuel hazards and ignition risks. These changes can also increase plant moisture stress and insect populations, affecting forest health and reducing forest resilience to wildfires. Increased wildfire intensity and extent will increase public safety risks, property damage, fire suppression, and emergency response costs to government, watershed and water quality impacts, vegetation conversions, and habitat fragmentation.
Droughts: Droughts are likely to become more frequent and persistent in the 21st century. (Bedsworth, 2018)
A-4-36
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Average Maximum Temperature Increases
Temperatures are predicted to rise due to climate change in the region that includes Loma Linda and the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County more broadly. While the historical annual average maximum temperature in the region was 72.5°F, that average is projected to increase to 74.8°F by the early-21st century,
76.7°F by the mid-21st century, and 77.8°F by the late-21st century under a more moderate climate emissions scenario. Under an extreme scenario, interior regions in Southern California are projected to experience up to a 10°F increase in temperature in the late-21st century. (Hall, 2018). See also Figure 4-12, which compares historically observed temperatures with annual average maximum temperature projections for the State of California. Temperatures are predicted to continue increasing under various emission scenarios. See Figure 4-13 and Figure 4-14.
There are six representative scenarios for projecting temperature increases and other climate change impacts, influenced by Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). These six scenarios range from a low of .3-meter global mean sea level rise to the highest 2.5-meter global mean sea level rise. NOAA utilizes three RCPs, each representing potential underlying socioeconomic conditions and technological considerations influencing the six scenarios. These include a low-end range (RCP 2.6), which projects strong measures, a moderate (RCP 4.5) range, which requires stabilizing mitigation measures through 2050, and a high-end (RCP 8.5), which maintains a fossil fuel-intensive, business as usual emission scenario. This LHMP focuses on RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 to understand the range of possible impacts by the end of the century.
Figure 4-12 depicts historic temperatures and projected annual average maximum temperatures throughout the State of California through 2100 for the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios.
Figure 4-13 and Figure 4-14 show annual averages of observed and projected Maximum Temperature values for the City of Loma Linda Climate Region under the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 emissions scenarios. These projections differ depending on the time of year and the type of measurement (highs vs. lows), all of which have different potential effects on the City’s ecosystem health, agricultural production, water use and availability, and energy demand.
4.2.4.5 Frequency/Probability of Future Occurrences
Climate change is one of the few natural hazards where the probability of occurrence is influenced by human action. The Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5 take into consideration various emissions scenarios moving forward (both business-as-usual, RCP 8.5, and moderately reduced emissions, RCP
4.5).
In addition, unlike other hazards like earthquakes and floods that occur over a finite period of time, climate change is an ongoing hazard. Climate change is predicted to increase the frequency of other hazard events. Warmer weather, reduced snowpack, and earlier snowmelt can be expected to increase wildfire through fuel hazards and ignition risks. Climate change is expected to increase extreme heat events and heat waves' frequency, intensity, and duration.
A-4-37
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-12: Annual Average Max Temperature Future Scenario Comparison.
A-4-38
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-13: Maximum Temperatures in the City of Loma Linda Climate Region (RCP 4.5) Figure 4-14: Maximum Temperatures in the City of Loma Linda Climate Region (RCP 8.5) Source: cal-adapt.org
A-4-39
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-4-40
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.2.5 Hazardous Waste & Materials
Hazardous materials release is a hazard event whereby harmful concentrations of hazardous or toxic substances are released into the environment. A release occurs when storage containers of hazardous materials leak or fail. This can happen due to industrial accidents, vehicle crashes, as a direct result of other disasters (e.g., a flood or earthquake), or as a deliberate act.
As part of this analysis, the City also identified the potential environmental justice issues associated with hazardous materials. The mapping prepared uses the CalEnviroScreen data set from the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). This dataset helps identify California communities most affected by various sources of pollution and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. The dataset uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores for every census tract in the state that is mapped using a scale based on the pollution burden of the location. The higher the percentage, the greater the burden, and the higher likelihood of environmental justice concerns.
4.2.5.1 Policies, Plans, and Regulatory Environment
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the primary federal agency that regulates hazardous materials and waste. In general, the USEPA works to develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. The agency is responsible for researching and setting national standards for various environmental programs, delegating the responsibility for issuing permits, and monitoring and enforcing compliance to states and Native American tribes. USEPA programs promote handling hazardous wastes safely, cleaning up contaminated land, and reducing waste volumes through such strategies as recycling.
California falls under the jurisdiction of USEPA Region 9.
United States Department of Transportation
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) has the regulatory responsibility for the safe transportation of hazardous materials between states and internationally. The USDOT regulations govern all means of transportation, except for those packages shipped by mail, which are covered by United States Postal Service regulations.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The USDOT regulates hazardous materials transportation under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
State agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The California State Fire Marshal’s Office has oversight authority for hazardous materials liquid pipelines. The California Public Utilities Commission has oversight authority for natural gas pipelines in California. These agencies also govern permitting for hazardous materials transportation.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 Federal hazardous waste laws are generally promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. These laws provide for the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes. Any business, institution, or other entity that generates hazardous waste is required to identify and track its hazardous waste from the point of generation until it is A-4-41
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
recycled, reused, or disposed. The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) is responsible for implementing the RCRA program as well as California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are collectively known as the Hazardous Waste Control Law.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires specific training for hazardous materials handlers, provision of information to employees who may be exposed to hazardous materials, and acquisition of material safety data sheets from materials manufacturers. The material safety data sheets describe the risks and proper handling and procedures related to specific hazardous materials. Employee training must include response and remediation procedures for hazardous materials releases and exposures.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as “Superfund,” on December 11, 1980. CERCLA established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) amended the CERCLA on October 17, 1986. SARA stressed the importance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites.
Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act
Also known as SARA Title III, it was enacted in October 1986. This law requires state and local governments to plan for chemical emergencies. Reported information is then made publicly available so that interested parties may become informed about potentially dangerous chemicals in their community. In California, SARA Title III is implemented through California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program.
California Environmental Protection Agency
One of the primary State agencies that regulates hazardous materials is the CalEPA, authorized by the USEPA to enforce and implement certain federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. The California DTSC, a department of the CalEPA, protects California and Californians from exposure to hazardous waste, primarily under the authority of the RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code. The DTSC requirements include the need for written programs and response plans, such as Hazardous Materials Management Plans. The DTSC programs include dealing with aftermath clean-ups of improper hazardous waste management, evaluation of samples taken from sites, enforcement of regulations regarding the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, and encouragement of pollution prevention.
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Like OSHA at the federal level, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) is the responsible State-level agency for ensuring workplace safety. If a work site is contaminated, a Site Safety Plan must be crafted and implemented. Site Safety Plans establish policies, practices, and procedures to prevent the exposure of workers and members of the public to hazardous materials originating from the contaminated site or building.
A-4-42
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
California Department of Transportation and California Highway Patrol Caltrans and the CHP are the two State agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. Caltrans is the first responder for hazardous material spills and releases that occur on highways, freeways, and intercity rail lines. The CHP enforces hazardous materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations designed to prevent leakage and spills of materials in transit and to provide detailed information to cleanup crews in the event of an accident.
California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and California Code of Regulations Title 19, Section 2729 set out the minimum requirements for business emergency plans and chemical inventory reporting. These regulations require businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a hazardous material chemical inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on-site. A business that uses hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials must establish and implement a management plan if the hazardous material is handled in certain quantities.
Title 2. Public Morals, Safety, and Welfare, Division 3. Fire Protection and Explosives and Hazardous Materials, Chapters 4-7 in San Bernardino County Code § 23.0401-§ 23.0762-69 County Fire is an all-risk department that provides oversight and regulation of all commercial hazardous materials and wastes within the County. The County Hazardous Materials (HazMat) Division protects the health and safety of the public and the environment of the County of San Bernardino by assuring that hazardous materials are properly handled and stored. The following three HazMat programs provide services to all businesses in all cities within the County through inspection, emergency response, site remediation, and hazardous waste management:
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) that inspects approximately 7,500 facilities annually to ensure the proper management of hazardous materials and wastes in six areas of State regulatory concern. Underground Storage Tank (UST) that involves the construction, removal, and monitoring of about 800 underground storage tanks, which has led to the investigation of leaks at hundreds of facilities. Staff in this program ensures mediation efforts to remove the contamination and protect groundwater. Hazardous Materials Response Team provides emergency response to, and investigation of, all releases of hazardous materials. This 24/7 team responds to all types of hazardous material releases from businesses, pipelines, tanker trucks, and rail cars. The team develops Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory (Business Plans). The team can mitigate the release and ensure that any contamination resulting from the spill or release is remediated below any level of health risk concern. If there is any sign of misconduct, the program contacts the County Environmental Crimes Task Force that coordinates all investigatory activity with the District Attorney’s office. (San Bernardino County, 2016- 2017)
4.2.5.2 Past Occurrences
Loma Linda has experienced an average of 5.3 hazardous materials spills per year from 2010-2020, reported to the Cal OES Spill Release Reporting database. The vast majority of these incidents involve transporting various materials via railroad and petroleum products such as diesel or gasoline. Table 4-8 identifies the yearly releases reported to Cal OES. Loma Linda has been fortunate to experience such a low number of hazardous materials spills compared to other cities within San Bernardino County.
A-4-43
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-8: Loma Linda Hazardous Materials Spills Cal OES Reporting Year Reported Releases
2010 3
2011 1
2012 5
2013 8
2014 9
2015 9
2016 3
2017 6
2018 7
2019 4
2020 3
Source: Cal OES Database (https://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-divisions/fire-rescue/hazardous-materials/spill-release-reporting)
4.2.5.3 Location/Geographic Extent
Hazardous materials and chemicals are used daily in households and businesses throughout Loma Linda.
Sources of hazardous materials can originate from seemingly harmless places such as service stations, dry cleaners, medical centers, and most industrial businesses. Hazardous waste can take the form of liquids, solids, contained gases, or sludge and can be the by-products of manufacturing processes or simply discarded commercial products, such as cleaning fluids and pesticides.
In severe situations, Loma Linda may also be at risk of hazardous materials release events on a regional level.
With the right prevailing wind conditions, airborne toxic material could spread to and impact various parts of the air basin, including areas of Loma Linda.
4.2.5.4 Severity and Extent
The threat that hazardous materials pose to human health depends on the type of material, frequency, and duration of exposure, and whether chemicals are inhaled, penetrate the skin, or are ingested, among other factors. Exposure to hazardous materials can result in short- or long-term effects, including major damage to organs and systems in the body or death. Hazardous waste is any material with properties that make it dangerous or potentially harmful to human health or the environment. Hazardous materials can also cause health risks if they contaminate soil, groundwater, and air, potentially posing a threat long after the initial release.
4.2.5.5 Frequency/Probability of Future Occurrences
Figure 4-15 identifies stationary hazardous materials locations within Loma Linda that store, use, or produce hazardous materials regulated by the state. While these locations are fixed, roadways throughout the community are commonly used for the transport of hazardous materials and waste. These facilities are common locations for spills and releases. While there is no extent scale for hazardous materials release, the probability of an incident is anticipated to be occasional (less than 10% chance of occurrence) each year.
Most of the release events within Loma Linda have occurred due to human error, malfunctioning equipment, or accidents. Given this, it is anticipated that future events within Loma Linda will include minor incidents similar to past occurrences identified above. A key element identified in Figure 4-15 is the density of hazardous material sites that may contribute to future accidents and hazardous material release events within the community.
Activities to prevent future releases, as well as response strategies, should take this into consideration.
A-4-44
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-15: Hazardous Materials Locations
A-4-45
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.2.6 Human-Caused Hazards
Human-caused hazards include both terrorism and airplane hazards.
Terrorism
There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism; however, FEMA defines "terrorism" as intentional, criminal, malicious acts. FEMA document 386-7 refers to terrorism specifically as the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), including biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological weapons; arson, incendiary, explosive, and armed attacks; industrial sabotage and intentional hazardous materials releases; and "cyberterrorism." FEMA developed the Integrated Emergency Management System (IEMS) using an all-hazards approach. While the IEMS was established as an "all-hazard" approach, responding to the threat of terrorism (referred to as counterterrorism) came to be viewed as the responsibility of law enforcement, defense, and intelligence agencies.
Furthermore, defensive efforts to protect people and facilities from terrorism (referred to as anti-terrorism) were generally limited to the government sector, the military, and some industrial interests.
While the term "mitigation" generally refers to activities that reduce the loss of life and property by eliminating or reducing the effects of disasters, in the terrorism context, it is often interpreted to include a wide variety of preparedness and response actions. For this document's purposes, the traditional meaning will be assumed; that mitigation refers to specific actions that can be taken to reduce loss of life and property from human-caused hazards by "modifying the built environment" or anti-terrorism to reduce the risk and potential consequences of these hazards.
Aircraft Hazards
An aircraft incident refers to when an airborne vehicle, such as an airplane, helicopter, or airship, experiences failure to the degree that people on the ground are endangered by the aircraft. This could be the result of human error, inclement weather, deferred maintenance, design flaw, equipment failure, or, in a worst-case scenario, a collision. An aircraft accident is generally an incident that involves injury, fatality, or major damage to the aircraft.
4.2.6.1 Policies, Plans, and Regulatory Environment
United Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-010-01
Adopted on February 9, 2012, and updated on October 1, 2013, United Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-010-01 defines the United States Department of Defense's (DoD) minimum anti-terrorism standards for both new and existing buildings. The document applies to DoD buildings, National Guard buildings, visitor centers and museums, visitor control facilities, and expeditionary structures. Historic preservation compliance for implementing anti-terrorism standards, philosophy, design strategies, and assumptions is all considered. Site planning, structural design, architectural design, and electrical and mechanical design are discussed in Appendix B. The document is available to the public and can be found online.
Full-time Task Force Officer (TFO) Positions
After the Waterman Terrorism Incident on December 2, 2015, two full-time Task Force Officer (TFO) positions with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) were created. These TFOs have the clearance to conduct terrorism investigations within the County. The JTTF includes partners from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the San Bernardino Police Department, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, the Riverside A-4-46
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
County Sheriff's Department, the Ontario Police Department, the Riverside Police Department, the Corona Police Department, and the Chino Police Department. For more information regarding the positions, contact the San Bernardino Police Department at (909) 384-5742.
According to the State of California Department of Justice's Anti-terrorism program website, the Anti-terrorism program works with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to detect, investigate, prosecute, dismantle, prevent, and respond to domestic and international terrorist activities.
The State of California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services' Power to Arrest Course includes a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) & Terrorism Awareness section. More information regarding the course can be found in the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services California Code of Regulations.
Police protection for the city of Loma Linda is provided by and contracted through the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. According to the Sheriff's Department website, advanced officer training courses available include:
Bombs and Terrorism for Patrol
Chemical Agents Instructor
Dispatch Terrorism Awareness
Dispatch Active Shooter Situations
Dispatchers Role in Mass Casualty Incidents (San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, 2021) Loma Linda General Plan
Maintain Disaster Preparedness: The City will maintain and update on a five-year basis, a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan to coordinate disaster recovery activities within the City of Loma Linda. As a part of this effort, the City will actively solicit the input of local disaster preparedness agencies, including, but not limited to, fire, Sheriff and Highway Patrol, American Red Cross, and Emergency Health providers. The City’s existing plan will be expanded to address issues of domestic terrorism, including incident prevention and response.
Federal Aviation Administration
The Federal Aviation Administration is the federal agency that oversees aviation safety across the United States.
The major roles and responsibilities of this organization include:
Regulating civil aviation to promote safety
Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology Developing and operating a system of air traffic control and navigation for both civil and military aircraft Researching and developing the National Airspace System and civil aeronautics Developing and carrying out programs to control aircraft noise and other environmental effects of civil aviation
Regulating U.S. commercial space transportation
County of San Bernardino Department of Airports
The County of San Bernardino Department of Airports provides for the management, maintenance, and operation of six county-owned airports. They also assist San Bernardino County private and municipal airport operators with planning, interpreting, and implementing FAA general aviation requirements.
A-4-47
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Loma Linda General Plan
After the adoption of the San Bernardino Airport Land Use Plan, adopt an airport overlay zone which specifies the criteria included in the Plan for the airport influence area.
4.2.6.2 Past Occurrences
Terrorism
There have been four terrorist attacks recorded in San Bernardino County since 1970. Two attacks resulted in fatalities and/or injuries; the other two attacks were carried out against a church and university and resulted in property damage; however, no loss of life was reported. Table 4-9 describes these attacks.
Table 4-9: Loma Linda Terrorist Attacks
Date Perpetrator Group Fatalities Injured Target Type
3/16/1970 White Extremists 0 1 Government (General)
4/22/1970 Left-Wing Militants 0 0 Educational Institution 12/2/2015 Jihadi-inspired extremists 16 17 Government (General) 12/7/2016 Unknown 0 0 Religious Figure/Institution (Church) Source: Global Terrorism Database (http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd) The state of California has experienced 620 terrorist attacks from 1970-2018 (Integrated United States Security Database (IUSSD): Data on the Terrorist Attacks in the United States Homeland, 1970-2018 2020); although included in the database, two of these attacks did not happen in California. One was an attack on an American military base in Baghdad. The other attack was United Airlines Flight 93, bound for CA during the 9/11 hijackings.
Aircraft Hazards
Loma Linda is centrally located among multiple airports within a 25-mile radius. Loma Linda, along with the neighboring cities of Colton and Redlands, have all experienced aircraft accidents. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) website (a database which houses all of the reported aircraft accidents/incidents), from 1960-2007 (current data set available from NTSB site), 32 accidents and 43 incidents have occurred in or near the City. Loma Linda has only had one non-fatal incident reported within the City limits, while the remainder is divided among Redlands and Colton, with the majority occurring in Redlands (Redlands Municipal Airport is less than seven miles away). Table 4-10 provides an overview of the past events that have occurred in or near the City. Over the time period on record, there has been an average of 1.5 accidents/incidents annually.
A-4-48
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-10: Aircraft Accidents/Incidents in or near Loma Linda (Loma Linda, Colton, and Redlands) 1960-2007 Accident/Incident Type Number Percentage
Accident 32 43.0%
Incident 43 57.0%
Fatal Accidents 15 46.9%
Fatality Range 1-4 N/A
Aircraft Destroyed 12 N/A
Total Fatal Injuries 26 25.2%
Total Serious Injuries 4 3.9%
Total Minor Injuries 8 7.8%
Total Uninjured 65 63.1%
Source: NTSB database
Notable recent aircraft accidents/incidents near Loma Linda include the following:
May 6th, 2016 - Single-engine plane crashes into a vacant field in Highland on approach to San Bernardino International Airport. Both the pilot and passenger walked away with no injuries. June 5th, 2020 - Small single-engine plane crashes into a hillside in Mentone, killing all three occupants, including the pilot.
4.2.6.3 Location/Geographic Extent
Terrorism
Terrorism can occur anywhere, although public spaces and locations where a lot of people congregate. For Loma Linda, these may include parks, schools, places of worship, government facilities, medical facilities, shopping centers, and public gathering areas.
Acts of terrorism may be located at the locations listed above; however, the perpetrators may also choose highvalue targets such as electric-generating facilities, water treatment plants, dams or reservoirs, railroads, highways, and critical facilities that could impact governmental services.
Aircraft Hazards
Loma Linda has no airports within its boundaries; however, numerous regional, municipal, and international airports are in the City’s surroundings, and the airways above the City are highly trafficked. The following are airports within a 25-mile radius of Loma Linda:
Banning Municipal Airport: (BNG) 24.48 miles away, located in Banning, CA. Ontario International Airport: (ONT) 20.28 miles away, located in Ontario, CA. Riverside Municipal Airport: (RAL) 13.8 miles away, located in Riverside, CA. Redlands Municipal Airport: (REI) 6.4 miles away, located in Redlands, CA. San Bernardino International Airport: (SBD) 3.3 miles away, located in San Bernardino, CA.
In addition to the public airports that operate in the region, March Air Reserve Base is also located within 12 miles of the City. This facility is actively used for military logistics, as well as contracting the use of their tarmac/runways for use by private companies such as Amazon, which maintains large distribution centers in the area.
A-4-49
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
March Air Reserve Base: (RIV) 11.7 miles away, located in Perris, CA.
Air traffic from these facilities and many others within the region fly over the City regularly and could cause any sort of aircraft hazard.
4.2.6.4 Severity and Extent
Terrorism
Acts of terrorism are typically measured by the fatalities, injuries, and destruction they cause, but there is no universally used scale for measuring terrorist events. Terrorism can occur anywhere and at any time, varying in severity and extent. Figure 4-16 shows the different methods of terrorist attacks in the state of California from 1970 to the present. Figure 4-17 shows the various intended targets of those same terrorist attacks.
Figure 4-16: Methods of Terrorist Attacks
Source: Global Terrorism Database (https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=overtime&search=california&count=100) A-4-50
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-17: Intended Targets of Terrorist Attacks
Source: Global Terrorism Database (https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=overtime&search=california&count=100) A-4-51
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
According to the Global Terrorism Database, the number of terrorist attacks in the United States has steadily decreased since 1970. Additionally, Figure 4-18 shows the number of fatalities associated with each attack. The significant increase in 2001 is attributed to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Figure 4-18: Total and Fatal Terrorist Attacks in the United States by Year Source: Global Terrorism Database (https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=overtime&search=california&count=100) 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Attacks
Fatalities
A-4-52
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-19 shows the number of international terrorist attacks against the United States from 1970-201. The graphic indicates that most attacks on American assets happen outside of the nation's borders.
Figure 4-19: International Terrorist Attacks on the United States Aircraft Hazards
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 830, §830.2 provides the following definitions for aircraft accident and aircraft incident:
A-4-53
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
An Accident is an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft that:
Occurs in the time between when the first boarding person enters the aircraft – with the intention of flight –and the last person disembarks.
Results in death or serious injury, or
Causes substantial damage to the aircraft.
An Incident is an occurrence – other than an accident (no intention of flight) – associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operations.
4.2.6.5 Frequency/Probability of Future Occurrences
Terrorism
We can usually forecast the type, frequency, and location of a natural hazard thanks to the laws of physics and nature. However, when dealing with human-caused hazards such as terrorism, we are often dealing with functions of the human mind - malice, incompetence, carelessness, and other behaviors. These actions cannot be predicted with any accuracy; therefore, there is the potential for an act of terrorism to occur anywhere, at any time. Acts of terrorism stem from a variety of factors: economics, societal pressures, mental health, global geopolitics, warfare, and religion, etc., making it impossible to predict when an incident will occur. Since Loma Linda does not feature facilities of critical national or state importance, it is likely that future incidents would originate domestically and are less likely to attract the attention of international terrorist groups. Incidents of these types are more likely to be conducted by smaller organizations or individuals aligned with greater-known organizations, although the effects may be no less significant.
Aircraft Hazards
Given the high volume of air traffic in the area, the possibility of an aircraft accident occurring in Loma Linda will continue to exist. Based on historical events, it is anticipated that future impacts will be similar in nature. A key component to aircraft incident safety is administering the Airport Environs Land Use Plans for the airports closest to Loma Linda, including Redlands Municipal Airport and San Bernardino International Airport. These plans identify the height restrictions and safety zones that require land-use restrictions to minimize potential impacts.
Future land-use decisions that adhere to these restrictions and plan accordingly will help reduce future impacts associated with aircraft incidents. While these efforts can assist in reducing impacts on the ground, there is little that can be done to reduce the impacts associated with aircraft flying overhead under normal flight conditions.
The risk associated with these types of incidents is comparable to other parts of San Bernardino County and southern California.
A-4-54
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
A-4-55
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.2.7 Flood Hazard Profile
Flooding is one of the three primary hazards in California, along with earthquake and wildfire, and represents the second most destructive source of hazard, vulnerability, and risk statewide. (Cal OES, 2018). Most communities in the United States have experienced some kind of flooding during or after spring rains, heavy thunderstorms, winter snow thaws, or summer thunderstorms. Floods can be slow- or fast-rising but generally develop over a period of hours or days.
A flood, as defined by FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), is "[a] general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of two or more acres of normally dry land area or of two or more properties from:
Overflow of inland or tidal waters, or
Unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, or Mudflow, or
Collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or similar body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels." (FEMA, 2011, p. 3)
The standard for flooding is the 1% annual chance flood, commonly called the 100-year flood, the benchmark used by FEMA to establish a flood control standard in communities throughout the country. The 1% annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood.
The 1% annual chance flood is the flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, and it could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. By comparison, the 10% flood (10-year flood) means that there is a 10% chance for a flood of its size to occur in any given year.
The portions of the City of Loma Linda that have been vulnerable to historical flooding are associated with Mission Channel, the Santa Ana River, and small-scale floods originating on hillsides in the southern portion of the City. (City of Loma Linda General Plan, 2009)
4.2.7.1 Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Environment
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. The City of Loma Linda participates in NFIP.
For most communities participating in the NFIP, FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1% annual chance flood (the 100-year flood) and the 0.2% annual chance flood (the 500-year flood).
Base-flood elevations and the boundaries of the 100- and 500-year floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principal tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. FIRMs also designate and display the floodway, which is the river or stream channel, and adjacent land that must remain free from obstruction so that the 100-year flood can be conveyed downstream. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities, they represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program. The most recent city FIRM was completed on August 8th, 2008.
A-4-56
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, the City must ensure that three criteria are met:
New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 100-YR flood;
New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties; and
New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species.
Structures permitted or built in the City before December 31, 1974, are called “pre-FIRM” structures, and structures built afterward are called “post-FIRM.” Post-FIRM properties are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were adopted to decrease vulnerability. Pre-FIRM properties are more vulnerable to flooding because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas. The insurance rate is different for the two types of structures.
Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and by the California Department of Water Resources under a contract with FEMA. Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk reduction.
As discussed herein, the City of Loma Linda greatly reduced populations reliant on the NFIP through the San Timoteo Creek Project that eliminated thousands of residents living in the flood zone.
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a) restricts the release of certain types of data to the public. Flood insurance policy and claims data are included in the list of restricted information. FEMA can only release such data to state and local governments, and only if the data are used for floodplain management, mitigation, or research purposes.
Therefore, this plan does not identify the repetitive loss properties or include claims data for any individual property.
Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act
The Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act of 1965 provided state-level guidance and review of floodplain management, including the review of floodplain management plans, establishment of floodplain management regulations, and the use of designated floodways. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) adopts regulations, maintains a statewide flood management data collection and planning program, manages a statewide grant program, and helps coordinate emergency flood response operations.
City of Loma Linda General Plan
The 2009 City of Loma Linda General Plan includes several policies in the Public Health and Safety Element to mitigate the effects of flood hazards. The Plan’s Guiding Policy directs the City to protect the community from any risks relating to lives and property which might be impacted by flooding and stormwater runoff. The Plan also includes several Implementing Policies aimed at maintaining City flood control and storm drainage infrastructure, require new development to utilize studies and drainage plans to prepare for flooding, and to One Water One Watershed Plan for Santa Ana River Integrated Watershed (2018 Update) This integrated water management plan addresses the Santa Ana River Watershed resources, including hydrogeology, land use, biological resources, water supply, water quality, flood control, and demographics. The plan also presents regional watershed management practices, including water storage, water quality improvements, water recycling, flood control, wetlands, sensitive habitat protection, recreational opportunities, and water conservation. (One Water One Watershed Plan, 2018) A-4-57
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
California Building Code Chapter 18 Section 1804.5
In flood hazard areas established in § 1804.5, grading, fill, or both shall not be approved unless certain criteria are met. These criteria include the placement of fill to minimize shifting and erosion, construction that will not increase flood levels and will not increase the design flood elevation by more than a foot in some instances.
4.2.7.2 Past Occurrences
Table 4-11 shows the flood events that took place in San Bernardino County since the year 2000 that caused either property or crop damage. (NOAA, 2020)
Table 4-11 San Bernardino County Flood Events Since 2000 Date Flood Type
Property Damage
Value ($)
2/25/2001 Flood 30,000
7/6/2001 Flood 45,000
11/24/2001 Flood 70,000
4/26/2002 Flood 25,000
11/8/2002 Flood 200,000
12/16/2002 Flood 500,000
2/11/2003 Flood 300,000
1/9/2005 Flood 3,000,000
1/11/2005 Flood 2,000,000
1/14/2005 Flood 10,000,000
10/19/2010 Flood 5,000
12/19/2010 Flood 97,000,000
12/21/2010 Flood 5,000,000
3/17/2012 Flood 1,000
9/15/2015 Flood 65,000
12/22/2016 Flood 5,000
2/17/2017 Flood 15,000
8/3/2017 Flood 1,000
1/9/2018 Flood 2,000
8/2/2018 Flood 1,000
11/19/2019 Flood 1,000
11/20/2019 Flood 2,000
Source: NOAA Storm Events Database
4.2.7.3 Location/ Geographic Extent
The City is primarily vulnerable to flooding associated with San Timoteo Creek, Mission Channel (Redlands Boulevard), and the Santa Ana River, as illustrated in Figure 4-20. It is also vulnerable to small-scale floods that originate on hillsides in the southern portion of the City. Roadways are vulnerable to flooding where they intersect with waterways. The major roadways that cross over watercourses/channels in the City include Anderson Street and Barton Road (San Timoteo Creek), and Redlands Boulevard (Mission Channel), and Beaumont Avenue (San Timoteo Creek). Improvements to San Timoteo Creek have minimized the risk of flooding hazards in most areas A-4-58
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
of the City. The areas adjacent to the Mission Channel are characterized by business park areas and a medium high-density residential area that is already completely developed. The areas in the City's southern portion are also at lower risk because they have been designated at a very low density. This allows developers to avoid hazards such as flooding. (City of Loma Linda Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011) Flooding may be caused by dam inundation or an earthquake. The northern portion of the City lies within the inundation zone of the Seven Oaks Dam. The failure of this dam would not likely impact the City. The Seven Oaks Dam is a dry dam that decreases peak water flows during spring runoff and rainstorm events. When it is full, the dam water is released by “metering out” water through a culvert located at the foot of the dam. There is also a risk of flooding caused by earthquakes. Canals, levees, and flood control channels may be vulnerable to earthquake-induced effects, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, and primary fault rupture. In Loma Linda, an earthquake could cause local flooding by creating seiches (reverberating waves) by damaging water storage facilities or detention basins that are generally located in the southern foothills. (Id.)
4.2.7.4 Measuring Frequency and Severity
The frequency and severity of flooding are measured using a discharge probability. This statistical tool defines the probability that a certain river discharge or flow level will be equaled or exceeded within a given year. Flood studies use historical records to determine the probability of occurrence for the different discharge levels. The flood frequency equals 100 divided by the discharge probability. For example, the 100-YR discharge has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The “annual flood” is the greatest flood event expected to occur in a typical year. These measurements reflect statistical averages only; it is possible for two or more floods with a 100-YR or higher recurrence interval to occur in a short time period. The same flood can have different recurrence intervals at different points on a river.
Many agencies use the extent of flooding associated with a 1% annual probability of occurrence (the base flood or 100-YR flood) as the regulatory boundary. Also referred to as the special flood hazard area (SFHA), this boundary is convenient for assessing vulnerability and risk in flood-prone communities. Many communities have maps that show the extent and likely depth of flooding for the base flood. Corresponding water-surface elevations describe the elevation of water that will result from a given discharge level, which is one of the most important factors used in estimating flood damage.
4.2.7.5 Severity and Extent
Generally, in urban areas like Loma Linda, flood problems are sometimes intensified because new homes and other structures, and new streets, driveways, parking lots, and other paved areas decrease the amount of open land available to absorb rainfall and runoff, thus increasing the volume of water that must be carried away by waterways.
The average amount of precipitation in Loma Linda is not expected to change under climate change models.
However, rain events are predicted to come as more extreme events, which could create additional flooding concerns. (Cal-Adapt, 2021)
Loma Linda has greatly decreased the historical severity and extent of flooding with the San Timoteo Creek Project, a combination of channelization, stormwater capture basins, and other flood resiliency efforts. As a result, thousands of people are no longer in the floodplain, and the severity and extent of flooding in Loma Linda are significantly reduced.
A-4-59
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.2.7.6 Frequency/ Probability of Future Occurrences
Flood Insurance Rate Maps identify the flood hazard zones for insurance and floodplain management purposes, and they also provide a statement of probability of future occurrence. As illustrated in Figure 4-20, the portion of the City bisected by San Timoteo creek is located in the 100-Year flood zone, which means there is a 1% annual chance of flooding. Portions of Mission Channel are also in a 100-Year flood zone. Although the recurrence interval represents the long‐term average period between floods of specific magnitude, significant floods could occur at shorter intervals or even within the same year.
A-4-60
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-20: 100 and 500- Year Flood Zones in Loma Linda A-4-61
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.2.8 Slope Failure Hazard Profile
Landslides occur when the force pulling the material on the slope in a downward direction under gravitational influence exceeds the strength of the earth materials that compose the slope (USGS, 2004). These materials may move by falling, toppling, sliding, spreading, or flowing. The strength of rock and soil, steepness of the slope, and weight of the hillside material all play an important role in the stability of hillside areas. Weathering and water absorption can weaken slopes, while the added weight of saturated materials or overlying construction can increase the chances of slope failure. Sudden failure can be triggered by earthquake shaking, excavation of weak slopes, and heavy rainfall.
Landslides are primarily associated with mountainous regions or areas with steeper grades. Landslides can occur due to geological, morphological, or human causes. Because portions of southern Loma Linda, notably the South Hills and Badlands areas, include elevated terrain, there is a potential for landslides throughout this area.
Landslides often accompany other natural hazard events, such as earthquakes, flooding, and wildfire.
4.2.8.1 Plans, Policies, and Regulatory Environment
The City of Loma Linda has adopted the California Building Code (2019) which establishes the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, access to persons with disabilities, sanitation, safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment, and to provide safety to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.
The Loma Linda Municipal Code further restricts development on hillsides with steep gradients through its Residential and Hillside Development Control Regulation (§ 19.16), including establishing density limitations and ridgeline setbacks.
City of Loma Linda General Plan
The 2009 City of Loma Linda General Plan includes several policies in the Public Health and Safety Element to mitigate the effects of slope failure. The Plan’s guiding policy directs the City to reduce the potential for property damage and human injury from slope failure, hazards, and erosion. Its implementing policies direct the City to limit cut and fill slopes to 3:1 (33% slope) throughout the City, provide erosion control mechanisms, and utilize soil and geologic reports as part of development review processes.
4.2.8.2 Past Occurrences
Table 4-12 lists the slope failure events that took place in the County since the year 2005. The only type of slope failure event in the NOAA Storm Database in San Bernardino County is debris flow, which typically occurs during the winter months.
A-4-62
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-12: Slope Failure Events Near the City of Loma Linda Since 2005 Date Type of Event Property Damage Value ($)
12/17/2010 Debris Flow $1,090,000
8/17/2012 Debris Flow 0
11/9/2012 Debris Flow 0
2/28/2014 Debris Flow 0
7/6/2015 Debris Flow 0
7/18/2015 Debris Flow 1,000
7/19/2015 Debris Flow 0
7/19/2015 Debris Flow 0
9/15/2015 Debris Flow 0
2/17/2017 Debris Flow 500,000
7/7/2018 Debris Flow 0
7/11/2018 Debris Flow 50,000
7/12/2018 Debris Flow 1,000
8/16/2018 Debris Flow 0
8/16/2018 Debris Flow 0
8/17/2018 Debris Flow 0
11/29/2018 Debris Flow 0
1/17/2019 Debris Flow 0
3/6/2019 Debris Flow 0
5/11/2019 Debris Flow 0
7/24/2019 Debris Flow 0
4/6/2020 Debris Flow 0
4/6/2020 Debris Flow 0
Total: 552,000
Source: NOAA Storm Events Database
4.2.8.3 Location/ Geographic Extent
The best available predictor of where slope failure might occur is the location of past movements. Past landslides can be recognized by their distinctive topographic shapes, which can remain in place for thousands of years— most landslides recognizable in this fashion range from a few acres to several square miles. Most show no evidence of recent movement and are not currently active. A small proportion of them may become active in any given year, with movements concentrated within all or part of the landslide masses or around their edges.
It is important to recognize ancient dormant mass movement sites to identify current areas susceptible to flows and slides because they can be reactivated by earthquakes or exceptionally wet weather. Those ancient scars also consist of broken materials, frequently involve disruption of groundwater flow, and are vulnerable to construction-triggered sliding.
The southern end of the City, which is most susceptible to slope failure, abuts what are known as the Badlands and South Hills, which have steep natural slopes that are vulnerable to instability. The type of instability could include deep-seated landslides, surficial soil slips, wet debris flows, and surficial creep. The majority of these mapped landslides appear to be relatively recent (less than 11,000 years).
A-4-63
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
New expansion will likely occur in the southern portion of the City as potential development will seek to locate in the lower hillsides of the City. As these hillsides are vulnerable to instability, the City’s hillside development regulations will continue to be important and require revisiting to ensure adequacy. (Id.)
4.2.8.4 Severity and Extent
As shown in Figure 4-21, nearly a third of the City has been identified as having medium to high susceptibility to landslides. These areas are generally located along the southern borders of the City, where the land is steep and unstable.
4.2.8.5 Frequency/ Probability of Future Events
As future development occurs near steep slopes, the probability of washouts, sloughing, erosion, rockslides, and landslide events occurring in the City becomes more likely. To prevent current problem areas (highlighted in Section 5.2) from getting worse, the mitigation actions presented in Section 5.4.4 should be completed.
Mismanaged intense residential and recreational development in sloped areas such as the Badlands and South Hills could increase the frequency of damaging landslides occurring in the City. Avoiding development in the medium to high landslide susceptibility areas as well as adequately regulating development occurring in those areas will be critical to reducing the frequency and probability of future landslide events.
A-4-64
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-21: Landslide Susceptibility in the City of Loma Linda A-4-65
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3 Vulnerability Assessment Methods
This section provides an overview of the methods used in the vulnerability assessments in Section 0.
Vulnerabilities to each hazard are assessed in a two-step process, as outlined in this section. First, population, critical facilities, and parcels are inventoried to develop a “lay of the land.” Second, the inventories are used to calculate estimated exposure and damage from hazards at various levels of severity. A more detailed explanation of the methodology is included in Appendix A.
Figure 4-22 illustrates the data inputs and outputs used to create the vulnerability analyses for each hazard in Section 0.
Figure 4-22: Data Source and Method
4.3.1.1 Population and Asset Inventory
To describe vulnerability for each hazard, it is important to first understand the total population and total assets at risk. Population and asset inventories provide a baseline to measure the vulnerability to people and assets for natural hazard events. Asset inventories can also be used to estimate damages and losses expected during a “worst-case scenario” event for each hazard. The following describes the total population, critical facilities, and parcel inventory inputs.
Population
An initial step in producing the hazard-specific vulnerability assessments is to determine the population near each natural hazard. Each natural hazard scenario affects the City residents differently depending on the location of the hazard and the population density of where the hazard event could occur. For hazards that potentially affect the whole city, such as earthquake or drought, the vulnerability assessment assumes 24,482 persons or 100% of the city’s population is exposed. 2 Vulnerability assessments presented in Section 0 summarize the population exposure for each natural hazard, if available.
2 Population estimates were derived from 2013-2017 Census American Community Survey 5-Year (ACS) information.
A-4-66
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Parcel Value Inventory
The County of San Bernardino Assessor’s data is essential to developing parcel values exposed to each hazard and includes the current fair market value of at-risk assets. Loma Linda Parcel Value Inventory is summarized in Section 0. The Parcel Value Inventory includes the market value, 3 content replacement value, and total assessed value (“total value”). Each hazard profile outlines predicted impacts to this inventory for each hazard’s geographic extent. These elements are called out in the table because, in the event of a disaster, the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the land is usually the focus of concern. Generally, the land is not a total loss, and structures can be rebuilt or contents replaced.
“Total market value” as presented in this plan reflects Loma Linda Assessor data, including fair market value where available. If no fair market value was available for a given property, the value reflects the assessed improvement value.
“Total content value” was calculated based on the assessor's use codes, translated to occupancy-based multipliers. Each occupancy class prescribes a specific content cost multiplier used to calculate the content cost values shown in the summary and the hazard profiles in Section 0. Occupancy-based content cost multipliers used in this plan reflect those found in the FEMA Hazus-MH 4.2 technical manuals.
Table 4-13: Loma Linda Parcel Counts and Value
Total Parcels Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Loma Linda
5,661 $ 2,377,019,848 $ 2,264,947,136 $ 4,641,966,984
Total market value as provided by County Assessor's Office. Content value calculated using content multipliers per Hazus occupancy classes per county land use designation. Total value is the sum of total market value and total content value. Improved Parcels Only 3 Market Value includes a long-term asset which indicates the cost of the constructed improvements to land, such as buildings, driveways, walkways, lighting, and parking lots.
A-4-67
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-23: Loma Linda Critical Facilities
A-4-68
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Critical Facilities Inventory
Critical facilities are of particular concern when planning to mitigate hazards. A critical facility is a structure or other improvement that, because of its function, size, service area, or uniqueness, has the potential to disrupt vital socioeconomic activities if it is destroyed, damaged, or functionally impaired.
Critical facilities inventory data was developed from a combination of datasets, including county, city, special purpose district, state, federal, and private industry. A critical infrastructure spatial database was developed to translate critical facilities information into georeferenced 4 points and lifelines.
Critical facility points include facilities such as police stations, fire stations, hospitals, elder care facilities, daycare facilities, schools, transportation infrastructure, utilities, and government buildings. Lifelines include facilities related to communication, electric power, liquid fuel, natural gas, and transportation routes. A current representation of the critical facility points and lifelines is provided in Figure 4-23. Some critical facility information may have been omitted from this document due to national security purposes. For additional information on included critical facilities as well as transportation and lifeline data, see Appendix A.
Critical facilities and transportation and lifeline data came from various sources, including local jurisdictions and a variety of statewide and national datasets. See Appendix A for more detailed sourcing information. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Due to the sensitivity of this information, a detailed list of facilities is not provided. The list is on file with the City. The risk assessment for each hazard qualitatively discusses critical facilities with regard to that hazard.
4.3.1.2 Hazard Exposure and Damage Estimation
The population and inventory information are used to generate specific exposure and damage estimations based on the severity of specific hazard events. The hazards in Loma Linda, which have known geographic extents and corresponding spatial information and thus have exposure and damage estimations, are:
wildfire,
earthquake,
flooding, and
slope failure.
Population and Asset Exposure
“Exposure” of assets and population refers to the total counts of parcels, people, facilities, and assets within the planning area where a hazard event may occur. A natural hazards overlay was developed to reflect the combination of many known natural hazard spatial footprints. The spatial overlay method summarizes building values, parcel counts, population exposure, and critical facility exposure within a hazard’s geographic extents.
Figure 4-24 illustrates hypothetical flooding exposure. Exposure numbers were generated using City of Loma Linda Assessor data, address point, and parcel data for replacement and content cost estimates. 4 To georeference something means to define its existence in physical space. That is, establishing its location in terms of map projections or coordinate systems. The term is used both when establishing the relation between raster or vector images and coordinates, and when determining the spatial location of other geographical features.
A-4-69
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-24: Hazard Exposure Explanation Graphic
Damage Estimation
For flood and earthquake, detailed damage estimations were conducted through FEMA’s Hazus software. Hazus is a nationally applicable, standardized methodology that contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. Hazus uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to estimate the physical, economic, and social impacts of disasters. The estimated damage and losses provided by the Hazus Software are based upon chosen severity of events and provides the ability to understand possible widescale damage to buildings and facilities.
In the hypothetical geography shown in Figure 4-25, even though both structures are exposed to flooding, it is expected that the structure with a first-floor height below the depth of flooding will receive significantly more damage than the structure with a first-floor height above the expected water depth. For a more detailed explanation of risk assessment methods, see Appendix A.
At-risk populations, critical infrastructure, improved parcels, and loss results for each hazard category are provided in bar chart summary tables in Section 0 to evaluate the percentage of assets exposed to different types of hazards. The side-by-side comparison allows the City to evaluate the impacts of potential hazards to prioritize hazard mitigation energy and resources.
Figure 4-25: Hazus Damage Estimation Example
A-4-70
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Vulnerability Assessment
The Disaster Mitigation Act regulations require that the City of Loma Linda evaluate the risks associated with each hazard identified in the planning process. The vulnerability assessment utilizes geospatial data along with local knowledge of past events.
Geospatial data is essential in determining the population and assets exposed to hazards identified in this plan.
Geospatial analysis can be conducted if a natural hazard has a spatial footprint that can be analyzed against the locations of people and assets. Geospatial analysis provides for a quantifiable vulnerability analysis. In the City of Loma Linda, wildfire, earthquake, flooding, and slope failure have identifiable geographic extents and corresponding spatial information about each hazard.
Other information can be collected regarding the hazard area, such as the location of critical community facilities, historic structures, and valued natural resources. Together, this information conveys the vulnerability of that area to a hazard.
This section summarizes the possible impacts and quantifies, where data permits, the City’s vulnerability to each of the priority hazards identified in the hazard profiles. The hazards evaluated as part of this vulnerability assessment include:
Wildfire
SECTION 4.3.2
Earthquake
SECTION 4.3.3
Drought
SECTION 4.3.4
Climate Change
SECTION 4.3.5
Hazardous Waste & Materials
SECTION 4.3.6
Human-Caused Hazards
SECTION 4.3.7
Flood
SECTION 4.3.8
Slope Failure
SECTION 4.3.9
A-4-71
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.2 Wildfire
Risk to the City of Loma Linda from wildfire is a significant concern. Steep hills and clusters of vegetation bordered by residential zones create the potential for both natural and human-caused fires that can result in loss of life and property. In addition, high temperatures, low humidity, and clear sunny days characterize the summer months.
Thunderstorms from July through September can create lightning strikes and erratic high winds that contribute to wildfire ignition.
Potential losses from wildfire include human life, structures and other improvements, natural and cultural resources, quality and quantity of water supplies, cropland, timber, and recreational opportunities. Short and longterm economic losses could also result due to loss of business and other economic drivers. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard. In addition, catastrophic wildfire can create favorable conditions for other hazards such as flooding, landslides, and erosion during the rainy season.
Generally, three major factors sustain wildfires and predict a given area’s potential vulnerability to burning. These factors are fuel, topography, and weather.
Fuel – Fuel is the material that feeds fire and is a key factor in wildfire behavior. Fuel is generally classified by type and volume. Fuel sources are diverse and include everything from dead tree leaves, twigs, and branches, to dead standing trees, live trees, brush, and cured grasses. Human-made structures are also considered a fuel source, such as homes and other associated combustibles. The type of prevalent fuel directly influences the behavior of wildfire. Fuel is the only factor that is under human control. Residential developments in the east, northeast, and a small part of the western region (in the mountains and foothills) currently possess the highest vulnerability to wildfire. Significant measures have been taken to mitigate wildfire when new development has been constructed. Fire prevention strategies also focus on educating the public and enforcement of fire codes. Nevertheless, these high fuel hazards, coupled with a greater potential for ignitions, increase the City's susceptibility to a catastrophic wildfire. Topography – An area’s terrain and slope affect its susceptibility to wildfire spread. Both fire intensity and rate of spread increase as slope increases due to the tendency of heat from a fire to rise via convection. The arrangement of vegetation throughout a hillside can also contribute to increased fire activity on slopes.
Weather – Weather components such as temperature, relative humidity, wind, and lightning also affect the potential for wildfire. High temperatures and low relative humidity dry out fuels that feed wildfires, creating a situation where fuel will ignite more readily and burn more intensely. Thus, during periods of drought, the threat of wildfire increases. Wind is the most treacherous weather factor. The greater the wind, the faster a fire can spread and the more intense it can be. Wind shifts, in addition to wind speed, can occur suddenly due to temperature changes or the interaction of wind with topographical features such as slopes or steep hillsides. As part of a weather system, lightning also ignites wildfires, often in difficult-to-reach terrain for firefighters.
Factors contributing to the high, widespread wildfire risk in Loma Linda include:
Residential landscaping, fencing, and outbuildings increase fuel loading, spotting, and fire intensity, Nature and frequency of ignitions; and increasing population density leading to more ignitions, Slope of the foothills, and
Residential development along the foothills.
A-4-72
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
For more general information on wildfire in Loma Linda, see the hazard profile in Section 0.
4.3.2.1 Population at Risk
Wildfire is of greatest concern to populations residing in the moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones. U.S. Census Bureau block data was used to estimate populations within the Cal Fire identified hazard zones. As seen in Figure 4-26, approximately 2,776 residents live in areas considered very high risk to wildfires, 88 reside in high-risk areas, and 6,841 reside in moderate-risk areas.
Table 4-14: Population at risk from wildfire hazards
Total Population
Loma Linda 23,961
Wildfire Severity Zone Population Count % of Total
Very High 2,776 11.59%
High 88 0.37%
Moderate 6,841 28.55%
Total 9,705 40.50%
Figure 4-26: Population at risk from wildfire hazards
2,776
88 6,841
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Very High High Moderate
Population Exposure
Population Count by Wildfire
Hazard Zone
A-4-73
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-27: City of Loma Linda Exposure Wildfire Vulnerability and Snapshot Map A-4-74
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.2.2 Residential Parcel Value at Risk
The City’s parcel layer was used as the basis for the inventory of improved residential parcels. In some cases, a parcel will be within multiple fire threat zones. GIS was used to create centroids, or points, to represent the center of each parcel polygon – this is assumed to be the structure's location for analysis purposes. The centroids were then overlaid with the fire threat layer to determine the risk for each structure. The fire threat zone in which the centroid was located was assigned to the entire parcel. This methodology assumed that every parcel with a square footage value greater than zero is considered an improved parcel and analyzed using this methodology.
Table 4-15 depicts the portions of Loma Linda that have significant assets at risk to wildfire in the moderate, high, and very high fire severity zones.
Table 4-15: Residential Buildings and Content within Cal Fire Wildfire Severity Zones Total Parcels Total Market Value
($)
Total Content
Value ($) Total Value ($)
Loma Linda 5,661 $ 2,377,019,848 $ 2,264,947,136 $ 4,641,966,984 Fire Hazard Severity
Zone Parcel Count % of Total Market Value Exposure ($)
Content Value
Exposure ($) Total Exposure ($) % of Total
Very High 484 8.5% $ 134,714,104 $ 67,414,747 $ 202,128,851 4.4% High 33 0.6% $ 8,101,834 $ 4,050,919 $ 12,152,753 0.3%
Moderate 2,609 46.1% $ 1,245,688,275 $ 1,203,870,114 $ 2,449,558,389 52.8% Total 3,126 55% $ 1,388,504,213 $ 1,275,335,779 $ 2,663,839,992 57.4%
4.3.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Critical facilities data were overlaid with fire hazard severity zone data to determine the type and number of facilities within each risk classification. Table 4-16 and Table 4-17 list the critical facilities and lifelines in the moderate, high, and very high wildfire hazard zones for Loma Linda.
Table 4-16: Critical Facility Exposure to Wildfire Severity Zones Critical Infrastructure - Wildfire Severity Zone
Infrastructure Type Very High High Moderate
Essential Facility - - 15
EOC - - 1
Hospital - - 13
Fire Station - - -
High Potential Loss 14 - 44
Child Care Center - - 1
School - - 1
Medical Facility - - 10
Reservoir 7 - -
Elder Residential Care 3 - 23
Adult Residential Care 1 - 3
Low Income Housing - - -
Lodging - - -
A-4-75
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Critical Infrastructure - Wildfire Severity Zone
Infrastructure Type Very High High Moderate
Veterinary Care - - -
Water Treatment Facility - - 2
Park 1 - 1
Real Property Asset 2 - 2
Recreation - - -
Library - - 1
Corp Yard - - -
Transportation and Lifeline 5 - 17
Communications Tower 1 - 3
Water Booster 3 - 2
Water PRV - - 7
Highway Bridge - - 1
Lift Station - - -
Water Well 1 - 4
Hazmat - - 6
Hazardous Materials Site - - 6
Grand Total 19 - 82
*Real Property Assets are digitized insurance rolls for demonstrating value and ownership.
Table 4-17: Lifelines in Wildfire Severity Zones
Lifelines (miles) - Wildfire Severity Zone
Infrastructure Type (Linear) Very High High Moderate
Fiber Optics 1.49 0.35 41.54
Sewer Main 0.01 0.01 0.29
Storm Drain Main 0.69 0.02 7.06
Street 34.18 0.66 60.88
Interstate - - 1.39
Major Road - - 5.95
Local Road 9.53 0.34 31.23
Service Road 6.08 0.03 18.08
Bike Path 0.01 0.29 0.86
Walking Path 18.56 - 3.37
Water Main 10.68 0.55 52.74
Grand Total 47.05 1.58 162.51
A-4-76
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.2.4 Past and Future Development
Some past development in Loma Linda occurred within the high wildfire severity zone in the southern portion of Loma Linda, increasing overall vulnerability to wildfire in the City. However, the vast majority of that growth occurred more than two decades ago. Currently, the City has severely limited growth in the high wildfire severity zone on the southern hillside. First, in 2006 voters passed a slow-growth initiative that included hillside development limitations that made hillside development in high wildfire severity zones near impossible. The City also owns significant amounts of that same hillside area of concern.
Future development in Loma Linda is not likely to contribute to wildfire vulnerability. As a result, much of the focus is on protecting existing populations, structures, and critical facilities from wildfire. Fuel reduction projects are ongoing on state and private lands surrounding Loma Linda. Such projects include vegetation management, broadcast burning, pre-commercial thinning, and the removal of dead, dying, and diseased trees, and are often completed in coordination with San Bernardino County.
A-4-77
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.3 Earthquake
Major impacts from earthquakes are primarily the probable number of casualties and damage to infrastructure occurring from ground movement along a particular fault (USGS, 2009). The degree of infrastructure damage depends on the magnitude, focal depth, distance from the fault, duration of shaking, type of surface deposits, presence of high groundwater, topography, and the design, type, and quality of infrastructure construction.
To analyze the risk to Loma Linda residents, the Shakeout2 Scenario was performed at a magnitude of 7.8, and the San Jacinto Scenario was performed at a magnitude of 7.0. The hazard footprints for these scenarios were used to develop exposure results for population, critical facilities, and single-family residential parcel values. FEMA Hazus analyses were used to conduct loss estimation and included building and content loss estimation results based on peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and peak spectral acceleration.
Building codes provide one of the best methods of addressing natural hazards. When properly designed and constructed according to code, the average building can withstand many of the impacts of natural hazards. To reduce future flood losses, hazard protection standards for all new and improved or repaired buildings can be incorporated into the local building code. It is important to note that the City of Loma Linda has adopted California’s 2019 Building Code standards (Volumes 1, 2).
Manufactured or mobile homes are often not regulated by local building codes. They do have to meet construction standards set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that apply uniformly across the country. However, local jurisdictions may regulate the location of these structures and their on-site installation.
For more general information on earthquakes in Loma Linda, see the hazard profile in Section 4.2.2.
4.3.3.1 Earthquake Exposure Methods
The exposure analysis for the City of Loma Linda centers on an earthquake scenario produced from the Shakeout2 fault line. As discussed in Section 4.2.2.4, this scenario presents the highest probability for a severe earthquake and severe shaking in the City of Loma Linda.
An exposure analysis was conducted to develop earthquake vulnerability data throughout the City of Loma Linda using the methods outlined in Section 4.3.1.2. To develop earthquake exposure data for the City, asset inventories for people, property, and critical facilities were superimposed with earthquake shaking intensity data from the USGS. Figure 4-28 depicts the exposure summary for the Shakeout2 scenario. The summary predicts a 100% exposure for the City’s population.
A-4-78
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-28: Loma Linda Shakeout2 (M7.8) Exposure and Snapshot Map A-4-79
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.3.2 Population at Risk
Table 4-18 and Figure 4-29 summarize population exposure results for the M7.8 Shakeout2. The entire population of the City of Loma Linda is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. The degree of exposure depends on many factors, including the age and construction type of dwellings, the soil types on which their homes are constructed, and proximity to the fault location. Whether directly or indirectly impacted, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of functions of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself.
Figure 4-29: Population Exposure to M7.8 Shakeout2
Table 4-18: Population Exposure to M7.8 Shakeout2
Total Population
Loma Linda 23,961
Shake Severity Zone Population Count % of Total
X - Extreme - 0.00%
IX - Violent - 0.00%
VIII - Severe 23,796 99.31%
VII - Very Strong 165 0.69%
Total 23,961 100.00%
4.3.3.3 General Building Vulnerability
One of the key issues that must be addressed in an earthquake vulnerability assessment is the determination of (1) the year in which seismic codes were initially adopted and enforced by the jurisdiction having authority and (2) the year in which significantly improved seismic codes were adopted and enforced, otherwise known as the benchmark year. Table 4-19 provides a listing of code improvements for the City of Loma Linda. Benchmark - -
23,796
165
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
X - Extreme IX - Violent VIII - Severe VII - Very Strong A-4-80
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
years are indicated in bold. For reference, Table 4-20 provides the definitions of the building types listed in Table 4-19.
Generally, structures constructed before the 1976 Uniform Building Code are considerably more vulnerable to earthquake damage without retrofitting.
Table 4-19: Seismic Benchmark Years
Code Edition Effective Date Building Type
(2019 CBC) January 1, 2019
(2016 CBC) January 1, 2016
(2013 CBC) January 1, 2014 N/A
(2012 IBC)
(2010 CBC) January 1, 2011 N/A
(2009 IBC)
(2007 CBC) January 1, 2008 N/A
(2006 IBC)
(2001 CBC) November 1, 2002 N/A
(1997 UBC)
(1998 CBC) July 1, 1999 W1a, S2, S2a, RM1, PC1, PC1a
(1997 UBC)
(1994 UBC) January 7, 1996 S1, S1a, C1, C2, C2a, RM2
(1991 UBC) November 29, 1992 URM
(1988 UBC) April 29, 1990 S2 & S2a
(1985 UBC) November 8, 1987 N/A
(1982 UBC) December 9, 1984 N/A
(1979 UBC) June 21, 1981 N/A
(1976 UBC) November 1, 1977 W1 and W2
(1973 UBC) April 13, 1975 N/A
(1970 UBC) August 29, 1971 N/A
(1967 UBC) July 12, 1968 N/A
(1964 UBC) July 1, 1965 N/A
(1961 UBC) August 17, 1962 N/A
(1958 UBC) October 1, 1958 N/A
(1955 UBC) January 1, 1956 N/A
(1955 UBC) January 1, 1956 N/A
(1946 UBC) June 18, 1948 N/A
(1943 UBC) July 13, 1944 N/A
(1940 UBC) April 4, 1941 N/A
(1937 UBC) September 10, 1937 N/A
(1930 UBC) March 20, 1933 N/A
Source: ASCE 41-13
A-4-81
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-20: Definitions of FEMA Building Types
FEMA Building Type Definition
W1 Wood Light Frame
W1A Wood Light Frame (multi-unit residence)
W2 Wood Frame (commercial and industrial)
S1 Steel Moment Frames
S2 Steel-braced Frames
S3 Steel Light Frames
S4 Steel Frames with concrete shear walls
S5 Steel Frames with infill masonry walls
C1 Concrete Moment Frames
C3 Concrete Frames with infill masonry shear walls
C2 Concrete Shear Walls
PC1 Tilt-Up Concrete shear walls
PC2 Precast Concrete Frames with shear walls
RM1 Reinforced Masonry Walls with flexible diaphragms
RM2 Reinforced Masonry Walls with stiff diaphragms
URM Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Walls
4.3.3.4 Residential Parcel Value at Risk
The City’s parcel layer was used as the basis for the inventory of improved residential parcels. GIS was used to create centroids, or points, to represent the center of each parcel polygon – this is assumed to be the structure's location for analysis purposes. The centroids were then overlaid with the shake severity zones to determine the at-risk structures. Only improved parcels greater than $20,000 were analyzed. The type and year of construction will greatly influence damage for structures subject to similar shaking. Table 4-21 shows the count of at-risk structures and their associated improvement and land exposure values.
Table 4-21: Residential Parcel Value Exposure from Shakeout2 Scenario Total Parcels Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Loma Linda
5,661 $ 2,377,019,848 $ 2,264,947,136 $ 4,641,966,984
Shake Severity Zone
Improved
Res. Parcel
Count
% of
Total Market Value Exposure ($) Content Value Exposure ($) Total Exposure ($) % of Total X - Extreme
5,632
99.5 % $ 2,372,535,982 $ 2,262,700,832 $ 4,635,236,814
99.9 %
IX - Violent
29 0.5% $ 4,483,866 $ 2,246,304 $ 6,730,170 0.1%
VIII - Severe - -
-
-
- -
VII - Very
Strong - -
-
-
- -
Total
29 0.5% $ 4,483,866 $ 2,246,304 $ 6,730,170 0.1%
A-4-82
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.3.5 Critical Facilities with Damage Potential
Earthquakes pose numerous risks to critical facilities and infrastructure. Seismic risks or losses that are likely to result from exposure to seismic hazards include:
Casualties (fatalities and injuries).
Utility outages.
Economic losses for repair and replacement of critical facilities, roads, buildings, etc. Indirect economic losses such as income lost during downtime resulting from damage to private property or public infrastructure.
Roads or bridges that are blocked or damaged can prevent access throughout the area and isolate residents and emergency service providers needing to reach vulnerable populations or make repairs.
Linear utilities and transportation routes are vulnerable to rupture and damage during and after a significant earthquake event. The cascading impact of a single failure can have effects across multiple systems and utility sectors. Degrading infrastructure systems and future large earthquakes with epicenters near-critical regional infrastructure could result in system outages that last weeks for the most reliable systems and multiple months for others.
Table 4-22 provides an inventory of critical facility locations (points only) with earthquake exposure for the Shakeout2 Scenario, respectively. Depending on the “year built,” each critical facility presented in the tables may have varying damage potential.
A-4-83
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-22: Shakeout2 Critical Infrastructure with EQ Risk Critical Infrastructure - M7.8 Shakeout2
Infrastructure Type X - Extreme VIII - Severe VII - Very Strong VII - Very Strong Essential Facility 22 - - -
EOC 1 - - -
Hospital 19 - - -
Fire Station 1 - - -
High Potential Loss 161 - - -
Child Care Center 4 - - -
School 4 - - -
Medical Facility 16 - - -
Reservoir 7 - - -
Elder Residential Care 37 - - -
Adult Residential Care 12 - - -
Low Income Housing 42 - - -
Lodging 2 - - -
Veterinary Care 1 - - -
Water Treatment Facility 3 - - -
Park 8 - - -
Real Property Asset 21 - - -
Recreation 2 - - -
Library 1 - - -
Corp Yard 1 - - -
Transportation and Lifeline 34 - - -
Communications Tower 7 - - -
Water Booster 6 - - -
Water PRV 7 - - -
Highway Bridge 6 - - -
Lift Station 1 - - -
Water Well 7 - - -
Hazmat 21 - - -
Hazardous Materials Site 21 - - -
Grand Total 238 - - -
*Real Property Assets are digitized insurance rolls for demonstrating value and ownership.
4.3.3.5.1 HazMat Fixed Facilities
Although earthquakes are low probability events, they produce hazardous materials (HazMat) threats at very high levels when they do occur. Depending on the year built and construction of each facility containing HazMat, earthquake-initiated hazardous material releases (EIHR) potential will vary. HazMat contained within masonry or concrete structures built before certain benchmark years reflecting code improvements may be of particular vulnerability.
4.3.3.5.2 Transportation
Earthquake events can significantly impact bridges and overpasses, which often provide the only access to some neighborhoods. Since soft soil regions generally follow floodplain boundaries, bridges that cross watercourses are considered vulnerable. Bridges and roadways which intersect waterways are thus at least somewhat vulnerable to earthquakes.
A-4-84
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Interstate 215 is a 54.5 mile-long north-south Interstate highway in the Inland Empire region of Southern California. It is an auxiliary route of Interstate 15, running from Murrieta to northern San Bernardino. While I-215 connects the city centers of both Riverside and San Bernardino, its parent I-15 runs to the west through Corona and Ontario. Freeway overpasses provide throughways to significant regional corridors in San Bernardino County. A single overpass failure can severely disrupt travel, emergency access, public safety, and mutual aid from neighboring public safety districts. The Newport Avenue overpass has undergone seismic safety upgrades, but the Barton Road Overpass has not.
4.3.3.5.3 Public Schools
The Field Act was enacted on April 10, 1933, one month after the Long Beach Earthquake, in which many schools were destroyed or suffered major damage. Public school construction has been governed by the Field Act since 1933 and enforced by the Division of the State Architect. In any community, public schools constructed under the Field Act after 1978 are likely to be among the safest buildings to experience a major earthquake. The Field Act requires:
• School building construction plans be prepared by qualified California licensed structural engineers and architects;
• Designs and plans are checked by the Division of the State Architect (DSA) for compliance with the Field Act before a contract for construction can be awarded;
• Qualified inspectors, independent of the contractors and hired by the school districts, continuously inspect construction and verify full compliance with plans;
• The responsible architects and/or structural engineers observe the construction periodically and prepare changes to plans (if needed) subject to approval by DSA; • Architects, engineers, inspectors, and contractors file reports under penalty of perjury to verify compliance of the construction with the approved plans emphasizing the importance of testing and inspections to achieve seismically safe construction. Any person who violates the provisions or makes any false statement in any verification report or affidavit required pursuant to the Act is guilty of a felony.
Private schools are not subject to the Field Act and fall solely under the jurisdiction of the local building departments and their requirements. Private schools are covered under the Private Schools Building Act of 1986.
The legislative intent is that children attending private schools are afforded life safety protection similar to that of children attending public schools.
In the late 1960s, regulations were put in place to have pre-Field Act (1933) buildings retrofitted, removed from school use, or demolished. (Cal. Edu. Code § 15516, Appendix X (1968)) The Field Act also prohibits the use of unreinforced masonry buildings as school buildings. In general, seismic building standards were greatly strengthened after significant damage to buildings was observed, especially in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The Field Act regulations in place since 1978 are considered adequate for most public school buildings in most cases.
4.3.3.5.4 Utilities
Linear utilities and transportation infrastructure would likely suffer considerable damage in the event of an earthquake. Due to the amount of infrastructure and sensitivity of utility data, linear utilities are difficult to analyze without further investigation of individual system components. Table 4-23 provides the best available linear utility data, and it should be assumed that these systems are exposed to breakage and failure.
A-4-85
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-23: Lifeline Exposure Shakedown2 Scenario
Lifelines (miles) - M7.8 N. San Andreas - N. Coast - Peninsula - SC Mtn.
Infrastructure Type (Linear) X - Extreme IX - Violent VIII - Severe VII - Very Strong Fiber Optics 68.2 - - -
Sewer Main 1.1 - - -
Storm Drain Main 19.6 - - -
Street 161.4 14.5 - -
Interstate 6.4 - - -
Major Road 12.9 - - -
Local Road 67.7 2.1 - -
Service Road 55.2 2.1 - -
Bike Path 4.5 - - -
Walking Path 14.8 10.3 - -
Water Main 114.6 - - -
Grand Total 364.9 14.5 - -
4.3.3.5.5 Water Supply Utilities
The City of Loma Linda provides water within the City boundaries. The municipally owned retail water utility services approximately 6,784 acres, or 10.6 square miles in size. This area is part of the greater San BernardinoOntario metropolitan area and also within the boundaries of the Valley District service area. (San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, 2015)
The supply for the City comes from primarily three local groundwater basins. The Bunker Hill Water Basin lies under the northern area of the City. This water basin underlies most of the San Bernardino Valley, which extends from the San Bernardino Mountain range to the south hills of Loma Linda. This aquifer supplies the majority of water to the City of Loma Linda. The groundwater basin underlying the southwest portion of the City is the Reche Canyon Basin. The San Timoteo Basin is under the southeast portion of the City. The City of Loma Linda's groundwater is supplied from five wells. They include the Richardson Wells #1, #3, and #4, and Mountain View Wells #3, #4, and #5. All of the City’s wells are located in the Bunker Hill Basin. (City of Loma Linda General Plan, 2009)
The California Aqueduct carries water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. The Aqueduct has been designed to “break” at the Devil Canyon Powerplant (approx. 13 miles north of Loma Linda) in the event of a large earthquake. (Upper Santa Ana Integrated Resources Water Management Plan, 2015).
Natural Gas Utilities
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) defines natural gas pipelines under two categories, "Transmission" and "Distribution." Transmission pipelines are primarily used to receive gas from suppliers and move it to distribution load centers or storage facilities.
A-4-86
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
High-Pressure Distribution lines are used to deliver gas to Loma Linda customers. These pipelines operate at pressures above 60 psi and deliver gas to the lower pressure distribution system in smaller volumes. (SoCal Gas Transmission and High Pressure Distribution Pipeline Interactive Map, n.d.) Several common characteristics of earthquakes and their impacts on natural gas safety are:
1. Earthquake ground shaking will generally lead to substantially more instances of building damage than fire ignitions.
2. Ground motions that are sufficient enough to damage buildings are the most likely to impact utility and customer gas systems and create a potential for gas-related fire ignitions.
3. The number of post-earthquake fire ignitions related to natural gas can be expected to be 20% to 50% of the total post-earthquake fire ignitions.
4. The consequences of post-earthquake fire ignitions for residential gas customers are largely financial. A fire ignition only becomes a life safety concern when inhabitants cannot exit the building following earthquakes. Experience in past earthquakes indicates that egress from earthquake-damaged singlefamily homes is generally possible because of the limited structure height, low numbers of occupants, and multiple direct escape paths through doors and windows.
5. The potential life safety dangers from post-earthquake fires are considerably more serious in seismically vulnerable apartment or condominium buildings since they provide a greater chance for damaging the structure and trapping the occupants.
Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), Loma Linda’s natural gas utility, is responsible for designing, constructing, maintaining, and operating the natural gas system safely and efficiently. This includes all the facilities used in the delivery of gas to any customer up to and including the point of delivery to the customers’ gas piping system. SoCal Gas provides seismic safety through compliance with existing regulations, coordinating their emergency planning with local governments, and incorporating earthquake-resistant design considerations into their maintenance activities and new construction.
Gas customers and Loma Linda residents are responsible for using gas safely on their property and within their buildings and other facilities. Customers meet this responsibility by maintaining their gas appliances in good working condition, assuring that only qualified individuals are engaged to modify or maintain their gas service and facility piping, and knowing what to do before and after earthquakes to maintain the safe operation of their natural gas service.
The following conditions, when combined, pose the greatest risk for severe post-earthquake fire damage:
1. Buildings are unoccupied, and individuals are not present to mitigate damage to gas systems or control small fires.
2. High building density or dense, fire-prone vegetation.
3. High wind and low humidity weather conditions.
4. Damage to water systems that severely limits firefighting capabilities.
5. Reduced responsiveness of firefighting resulting from impaired communications, numerous requests for assistance, direct damage to fire stations, restricted access because of traffic congestion and damaged roadways, and delays in mutual aid from neighboring fire districts.
4.3.3.6 Loss Estimation Results
Hazus 4.2 was used to estimate the loss potential to residential properties and Government service facilities exposed to the Shakeout2 earthquake scenario Hazus reports the damage potential and loss potential from a given earthquake scenario in four categories: slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage, and economic loss. Economic loss consists of estimations on repair and replacement costs to damaged or destroyed buildings and contents, relocation expenses, capital-related income, wage losses, and rental income losses. The results shown in Table 4-24 summarize improved parcels and government property loss.
A-4-87
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-24: Shakeout2 Earthquake Building and Content Loss Estimation Building Type
Average of
Potential
Damage to
Exceed “Slight”
Average of
Potential
Damage to
Exceed
“Moderate”
Average of
Potential
Damage to
Exceed
“Extensive”
Average
Economic Loss
for Each Building
Category
Sum of
Economic Loss
Proportion of
Loss (%)
Agriculture 99% 95% 72% $773 $15,465 0%
Commercial 83% 63% 39% $1,662,197 $267,613,730 30%
Education 100% 98% 84% $5,678,040 $141,951,010 16%
Emergency 83% 62% 35% $268,656 $805,968 0%
Government 77% 41% 11% $175,103 $16,809,864 2%
Industrial 99% 95% 74% $177,249 $238,223,124 26%
Religion 84% 53% 17% $637,184 $7,009,020 1%
Residential 63% 27% 5% $57,261 $234,197,855 26%
Total $906,626,037
Note: Total Inventory Values
1 - Building Replacement Costs = $2,400,466,573
2 - Content Replacement Costs = $2,280,402,222
3 - Total Value = $4,680,868,795
Table 4-25: Detailed Insurance Roll of Real Property Asset Exposure to M7.8 Shakeout2 Probability Damage
Exceeds
Site Value
Building/
Site Name
# Bldg.
Structure Content Total
SlightModerateExtensive
Economic
Loss
Loss
Pct.
Corp Yard 2 $502,028 $165,905 $667,933 79% 49% 11% $135,412 20% Corporation Yard 1 $256,526 $52,534 $309,060 79% 49% 11% $69,193 22% Public Works 1 $245,502 $113,371 $358,873 79% 49% 11% $66,219 18% Dwelling 2 $504,996 $2 $504,998 57% 15% 1% $51,076 10%
Dwelling 2 $504,996 $2 $504,998 57% 15% 1% $51,076 10%
Equipment 2 $2 $124,595 $124,597 79% 49% 11% $1 0%
Cable Television Equipment 1 $1 $124,594 $124,595 79% 49% 11% $0 0% City Equipment Storage 1 $1 $1 $2 79% 49% 11% $0 13%
Fire 2 $3,070,302 $436,052 $3,506,354 75% 43% 9% $805,967 23% Fire Department 1 $2,682,853 $436,051 $3,118,904 79% 49% 11% $723,646 23% Fire Station #2 1 $387,449 $1 $387,450 71% 38% 7% $82,321 21% Library 1 $4,881,016 $1 $4,881,017 79% 49% 11% $1,316,557 27% Civic Center Library 1 $4,881,016 $1 $4,881,017 79% 49% 11% $1,316,557 27% Misc. 33 $5,201,804 $257,802 $5,459,606 75% 35% 5% $1,403,080 26% Vacant Land 9 $9 $9 $18 70% 30% 4% $2 9%
Civic Center Complex 1 $5,201,772 $218,025 $5,419,797 79% 49% 11% $1,403,074 26% A-4-88
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Probability Damage
Exceeds
Site Value
Building/
Site Name
# Bldg.
Structure Content Total
SlightModerateExtensive
Economic
Loss
Loss
Pct.
Hulda Crooks Sculpture 1 $1 $39,746 $39,747 56% 18% 2% $0 0% Purchased By
Redevelopment Agency 21 $21 $21 $42 79% 39% 6% $5 11%
Park Land 1 $1 $1 $2 55% 11% 0% $0 4%
Open Space 5 $5 $5 $10 73% 30% 4% $1 9%
Debris Basin 1 $1 $1 $2 79% 39% 6% $0 11%
Vacant Land 1 $1 $1 $2 79% 39% 6% $0 11%
Parkland 2 $2 $2 $4 63% 16% 1% $0 6%
Vacant Lot 1 $1 $1 $2 79% 39% 6% $0 11%
Poplar Commons 18 $18 $18 $36 80% 40% 7% $4 12%
Purchased By
Redevelopment Agency 18 $18 $18 $36 80% 40% 7% $4 12%
Recreation 7 $1,171,880 $78,782 $1,250,662 68% 33% 13% $877,863 70% Senior Center 1 $1,171,874 $1 $1,171,875 99% 96% 74% $877,863 75% Hulda Crooks Park 1 $1 $1 $2 53% 10% 0% $0 4%
Leonard Bailey Park 1 $1 $1 $2 47% 7% 0% $0 3%
Community Garden 1 $1 $1 $2 79% 39% 6% $0 11%
Dawson Park 1 $1 $1 $2 79% 39% 6% $0 11%
Ball Park 1 $1 $1 $2 58% 20% 2% $0 6%
Heritage Park 1 $1 $78,776 $78,777 58% 20% 2% $0 0%
Storage 1 $29,675 $1 $29,676 79% 49% 11% $8,004 27%
40' X 60' Metal Storage
Building 1 $29,675 $1 $29,676 79% 49% 11% $8,004 27%
Water 12 $8,084,995 $14,391,919 $22,476,914 77% 49% 28% $4,023,982 18% Richardson #3 Water
Treatment 1 $1 $1 $2 79% 39% 6% $0 11%
Water Treatment Plant 1 $1 $1 $2 66% 26% 3% $0 8%
Richardson#4 Water
Treatment 1 $1 $1 $2 66% 26% 3% $0 8%
Mountain View #5 Water
Treatment 1 $1 $1 $2 66% 26% 3% $0 8%
Mountain View #3 Water
Treatment 1 $1 $1 $2 82% 44% 8% $0 12%
Reservoir 5 $8,084,988 $7,536,895 $15,621,883 92% 79% 61% $4,023,981 26% Reservoir & Pump Station 1 $1 $6,855,018 $6,855,019 53% 10% 0% $0 0% Golconda Well Site 1 $1 $1 $2 56% 18% 2% $0 6%
Grand Total 85 $23,446,721 $15,455,082 $38,901,803 75% 38% 10% $8,621,948 22% A-4-89
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Probability Damage
Exceeds
Site Value
Building/
Site Name
# Bldg.
Structure Content Total
SlightModerateExtensive
Economic
Loss
Loss
Pct.
*Single dollar values represent locations with no insured valuation.
4.3.3.6.1 Past and Future Development
Loma Linda has some concerning pre-1970s development in the older parts of town, particularly near the University, that is more susceptible to earthquakes. Much of that older construction is from the 1930s and 1940s and may not have adequate retrofitting.
Current and future development in the planning area is regulated through building standards and performance measures so that the degree of risk to buildings and infrastructure is greatly reduced. The California Building Code establishes requirements to greatly reduce seismic risk.
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-4-90
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.4 Drought
Drought has impacted almost every area of California at one time or another, causing more than $2 billion in total costs for some periods. (UC Davis, 2014) Droughts exceeding three years are relatively rare in northern California, the source of much of the state’s water supply. The 1929-1934 drought established the criteria commonly used in designing storage capacity and yield for large northern California reservoirs. The driest single year in California’s measured hydrologic history was 1977. (California Department of Water Resources, 2015)
Drought impacts in California are felt first by those most dependent on annual rainfall, including agencies fighting wildfires, ranchers engaged in dryland grazing, rural residents relying on wells in low-yield rock formations, or small water systems lacking a reliable water source. (Id.) For more general information on drought in Loma Linda, see the hazard profile in Section 4.2.3.
4.3.4.1 Population at Risk
The residents of the City rely on healthy watersheds to provide adequate water for domestic and agricultural purposes. The City of Loma Linda has experienced population growth and is projected to continue growing. No significant life or health impacts are anticipated as a result of drought within the planning area.
4.3.4.2 Property
During drought years, property owners with shallow wells can be impacted by drought with increased demand for groundwater resources. Surface water supplies are often lower, which can reduce available supplies and increase cost. This sometimes encourages growers who historically use surface water to switch to groundwater, which permanently impacts those reliant on groundwater.
No structures will be directly affected by drought conditions, though some structures may become vulnerable to wildfires, which are more likely following years of drought. Droughts can also have significant impacts on landscapes, which could cause a financial burden to property owners. However, these impacts are not considered critical in planning for impacts from the drought hazard.
The agricultural sector is particularly susceptible to drought impacts. Impacts on irrigated agriculture depend on the source and nature of the irrigation water supply, whether it be local groundwater, local surface water, or imported surface water, and any water rights or contractual provisions associated with the source. The extent to which producers may mitigate water shortage impacts depends on multiple factors but is heavily influenced by economic considerations. Factors involved in making decisions about mitigating irrigation water shortages include availability and costs of pumping groundwater, price of alternative surface water sources, capital investments associated with maintaining permanent plantings, and status of international crop markets. (California Drought Contingency Plan, 2010)
4.3.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Critical facilities, as defined for this plan, will continue to be operational during a drought. Critical facility elements such as landscaping may not be maintained due to limited resources, but the risk to the planning area’s critical facilities inventory will be largely aesthetic. For example, landscaped areas will not be watered and may die when water conservation measures are in place. These aesthetic impacts are not considered significant.
A-4-91
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.4.4 Past and Future Development
Like many municipalities in California, Loma Linda is working to conserve water and reduce outdoor landscaping water consumption in current and future development. Past development contributed to some drought impacts by requiring significant outdoor water usage, especially through turfgrass. Loma Linda has long had a waterefficient landscape requirement in Municipal Code § 13.32. The statewide conservation regulations instituted following the 2015-2017 drought aim to further reduce water use in the City.
The City also developed the Richardson Treatment Plant in 2010, which increases water supply options for the City, increasing sustainable water supplies. Since that time, the City has coordinated groundwater production with the San Bernardino Water Conservation District, which oversees groundwater recharges and water quality monitoring of the Bunker Hill Basin, where the City gets its water. On a semi-annual basis the City pays an assessment to ensure groundwater quality and quantity is maintained within the basin, especially during drought conditions. The capabilities assessment offers some additional insight into future opportunities for sustainability measures in the face of drought, such as a comprehensive drought management plan or revisiting the City’s water-efficient landscaping regulations.
A-4-92
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.5 Climate Change
4.3.5.1 Population at Risk
The effects of climate change are not limited or defined by geographical borders. Every resident of Loma Linda is at risk to the impacts of climate change.
Vulnerable populations should receive special attention when assessing the community’s vulnerability to climate change. For example, care and sheltering during extreme heat conditions must be provided for vulnerable populations such as the elderly. According to FEMA, extreme heat is defined as temperatures that hover 10 degrees or more above the average high temperature for the region and last for several weeks. Heat kills by taxing the human body beyond its abilities. In a normal year, about 175 Americans succumb to the demands of summer heat. According to the National Weather Service (NWS), among natural hazards, only the cold of winter—not lightning, hurricanes, tornados, floods, or earthquakes—takes a greater toll. In the 40-year period from 1936 through 1975, nearly 20,000 people were killed in the United States by the effects of heat and solar radiation. In the heatwave of 1980, more than 1,250 people died. (PubMed.gov)
Since climate change can exacerbate other hazards, consideration should also be given to populations living in high hazard wildfire and flood zones. Drought caused by climate change will also affect the entire population.
Agricultural yields will suffer, and drier vegetation creates more fuel for wildfires.
For more general information on climate change in Loma Linda, see the hazard profile in Section 4.2.4.
4.3.5.2 Property
Climate change may exacerbate impacts to property through increased severity and frequency of hazard occurrences such as severe weather, slope failure, wildfire, and flooding. These potential impacts are described in more detail in the hazard-specific vulnerability for each section.
4.3.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
The location of infrastructure, its current condition, and its susceptibility to climate impacts are important factors to consider when accessing the vulnerability of critical facilities to climate change to community function. Roads, rail, water (pipes, canals, and dams), waste (sewer, storm, and solid waste), electricity, gas, and communication systems are all needed for community function. Climate change increases the likelihood of both delays and failures of infrastructure. Delays and failures can result from climate-exacerbated hazards such as flooding, fire, or landslide, as well as increased demand, load, or stress on infrastructure systems that can result from climate change (e.g., heat impacts on roadway durability). Temporary delays or outages can result in inconvenience and economic loss, while larger failures can have disastrous economic and social effects. (California Adaptation Planning Guide)
Three to five more heatwaves will be experienced by 2050, increasing to 12 to 16 in the western parts of the region and more than 18 to 20 in the eastern parts. The age and construction method of essential facilities, transportation systems, lifeline utility systems, high potential loss facilities, and hazardous material facilities will determine how they stand up to the effects of climate change, such as extreme heat days.
A-4-93
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.5.4 Past and Future Development
Loma Linda is committed to continued efforts to address and reduce climate-related risks and future impacts on a holistic and programmatic level. Many of its current regulations aim to ensure future development is prepared to adapt to a changing climate, such as its’ water-efficient landscaping regulations.
The City is currently focusing its efforts on this HMP Update and a concurrent update of the City’s General Plan Safety Element to include policies and implementation actions that consider and mitigate future climate change to the extent possible. These efforts are intended to reduce vulnerability to climate change within the City.
A-4-94
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.6 Hazardous Waste & Materials
For more general information on hazardous materials in Loma Linda, see the hazard profile at 4.2.5.
4.3.6.1 Population at Risk
Loma Linda residents and businesses are at risk of hazardous materials release from a variety of sources. While 21 locations within the City store, use, or produce hazardous materials, these locations are regulated by federal, state, and local regulations. No significant life or health impacts are anticipated as a result of hazardous materials within the planning area.
4.3.6.2 Property
Some properties within Loma Linda are located in close proximity to existing hazardous materials locations or transportation routes (roads/rails) used for the movement of materials. These properties are at greater risk to exposure from a hazardous materials release. While this risk exists, the storage, movement, and use of hazardous materials is regulated by federal, state, and local agencies, which ensure exposure is minimized to the greatest extent possible. As a result, significant life or health impacts are not anticipated as a result of hazardous materials within the planning area.
4.3.6.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
As defined for this plan, critical facilities are not anticipated to be significantly impacted by hazardous materials releases. Key facilities that are located in close proximity to hazardous materials locations include Fire Station 2, and several of the medical facilities within the City that store, use, and dispose of hazardous materials (medical waste). Releases associated with the transport of materials through the City could affect critical facilities located along Barton Road or Redlands Blvd, where most of the City’s facilities are located.
4.3.6.4 Past and Future Development
While most development in the City was constructed many years ago, residents and businesses continue to invest in rehabilitation and retrofit of existing structures. This development activity continues to increase the City's resilience and reduce the potential threat of exposure to hazardous materials release. In addition, new developments adhere to the latest standards and requirements, ensuring future releases are reduced or minimized to the greatest extent possible.
A-4-95
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-4-96
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.7 Human-Caused Hazards
Human-caused hazards include both terrorism and airplane hazards.
For more general information on terrorism in Loma Linda, see the hazard profile at 4.2.6.
4.3.7.1 Population at Risk
Terrorism
All residents and businesses are at risk of terrorism to some degree within Loma Linda.
Certain populations at greater risk may be those who frequent locations within the City that may be considered targets for terrorism incidents; however, these locations and impacts are hard to predict.
Airplane Hazards
All residents and businesses are at risk of airplane hazards primarily from overflight, given the amount of air traffic flying over the City. No specific populations are at significant risk, given airport operations occur several miles outside of the City.
4.3.7.2 Property
Terrorism
Given the unknown nature of terrorism-related incidents, it is assumed that some properties within the City may be at greater risk given the nature of the activities that occur within (medical, religious, civic).
Airplane Hazards
Properties within the City are at risk from airplane hazards; however, it is assumed that taller buildings within the City are at greater risk due to their relative height above the majority of other buildings within the City.
4.3.7.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Terrorism
Critical facilities and infrastructure may be at heightened risk to terrorism incidents due to their role in City operations.
Airplane Hazards
While critical facilities and infrastructure play a key role in City operations, they may not be any more vulnerable than other properties; however, these locations could become targets as part of a malicious act by an aircraft.
4.3.7.4 Past and Future Development
Terrorism
A majority of past development in the City has not taken terrorism into account during the planning and design process. However, for certain critical locations, the City and property owners of these facilities have taken steps to increase security measures and retrofit buildings to reduce the consequences of malicious acts. For future developments within the City, security-related improvements are promoted to increase the safety of residents and businesses to the greatest extent possible.
A-4-97
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Airplane Hazards
Most of the development within the City occurred at times when airplane operations in and around the City were significantly less than current activity. As a result, future developments take greater care in understanding and complying with relevant regulations and requirements associated with airport operations. Future developments will continue to adhere to applicable regulations to reduce vulnerability to airplane hazards.
A-4-98
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.8 Flood
Flooding is a significant problem in Loma Linda, as described in the flood hazard profile.
The portions of the City of Loma Linda that have been vulnerable to historical flooding are associated with Mission Channel, the Santa Ana River, and small-scale floods originating on hillsides in the southern portion of the City. (City of Loma Linda General Plan, 2009) Localized flooding often occurs throughout the City due to drainage issues. In urban areas, the increase in paved areas associated with new development decreases the amount of open land available to absorb rainfall and runoff, thus increasing the volume of water that must be carried away from by waterways.
For more general information on flooding in Loma Linda, see the hazard profile in Section 4.2.7.
4.3.8.1 Population at Risk
Population counts of those living in the floodplain were generated by analyzing County assessor and parcel data that intersect with the 100-YR and 500-year floodplains identified on FIRMs. Using GIS, U.S. Census Bureau information was used to intersect the floodplain, and an estimate of population was calculated by weighting the population within each census block and track with the percentage of the flood risk area. Using this approach, Figure 4-30 and Table 4-26 display the results of this analysis showing how much of the population of Loma Linda is exposed to flood hazard zones. Figure 4-31 displays a visual of the FEMA flood exposure risk for both 100- and 500-year floodplains.
A-4-99
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-30: Population Exposure to Flood
Table 4-26: Summary Population Exposure to Flood
Total Population
Loma Linda 23,961
Flood Hazard Zone Population Count % of Total
Flood Fringe 296 1.24%
Floodway - 0.00%
100-YR Total 296 1.24%
500-YR sans 100-YR 30 0.13%
500-YR Total 326 1.36%
296
-
296
30 326
-
50 100
150
200
250
300
350
Flood Fringe Floodway 100-YR Total 500-YR sans 100-YR 500-YR Total A-4-100
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-31: Loma Linda - FEMA Flood Risk Exposure
A-4-101
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.8.2 Residential Parcel Value at Risk
The City’s parcel layer was used as the basis for the inventory of improved residential parcels within the FEMA NFIP flood zones. According to FEMA, Loma Linda has 33 flood insurance policies in force, with slightly over $8.51 million dollars in coverage, the City has had a total of 13 closed paid losses for a sum total of $37,178. The City does not have any repetitive loss properties. In some cases, a parcel will be within multiple flood zones. GIS was used to create centroids, or points, to represent the center of each parcel polygon – this is assumed to be the structure's location for analysis purposes. The centroids were then overlaid with the floodplain layer to determine the flood risk for each structure. The flood zone in which the centroid was located was assigned to the entire parcel. This methodology assumed that every parcel with a square footage value greater than zero was developed in some way. Only improved parcels greater than $20,000 were analyzed. Table 4-27 shows the count of at-risk parcels and their improvement and land exposure values.
Table 4-27: Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones
Total Parcels Total Market
Value ($)
Total Content
Value ($) Total Value ($)
Loma Linda 5,661 $ 2,377,019,848 $ 2,264,947,136 $ 4,641,966,984 Flood Hazard Zone Parcel Count % of Total Market Value
Exposure ($)
Content Value
Exposure ($) Total Exposure ($) % of Total
Flood Fringe 18 0.3% $ 6,883,327 $ 5,887,861 $ 12,771,188 0.3% Floodway - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0%
100-YR Total 18 0.3% $ 6,883,327 $5,887,861 $ 12,771,188 0.3% 500-YR sans 100-YR 103 1.8% $20,583,115 $10,291,563 $ 30,874,678 0.7% 500-YR Total 121 2.1% $ 27,466,442 $ 16,179,423 $ 43,645,865 0.9% Note: The table above does not display loss estimation results; the table exhibits total value at risk based upon the hazard overlay and San Bernardino County Assessor data.
While there are several limitations to this methodology, it does allow for potential loss estimation. It should be noted that the analysis may include structures in the floodplain that are elevated at or above the level of the base flood elevation, which will likely decrease potential flood damage to these particular structures. Also, it is important to remember that the replacement costs are well below actual market values; thus, the actual value of assets at risk may be significantly higher than those included herein.
4.3.8.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Critical facilities data were overlaid with flood hazard data to determine the type and number of facilities within the 100- and 500-year floodplain. Flooding poses numerous risks to critical facilities and infrastructure:
Roads or bridges that are blocked or damaged can prevent access throughout the area and isolate residents and emergency service providers needing to reach vulnerable populations or make repairs. Creek or river floodwaters can back up drainage systems causing localized flooding. Floodwaters can get into drinking water supplies causing contamination. Sewer systems can be backed up, causing waste to spill into homes, neighborhoods, rivers, and streams. Underground utilities can also be damaged.
Table 4-28 summarizes the critical facilities and infrastructure located in the flood fringe, floodway, and 100-year and 500-year floodplains of Loma Linda.
A-4-102
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-28: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain
Infrastructure Type Flood Fringe Floodway 100-YR Total 500-YR sans 100-YR 500-YR Total
Essential Facility -
- -
- -
High Potential Loss -
- -
- -
Transportation and
Lifeline
3 -
3 -
3 Communications Tower -
- -
- -
Water Booster -
- -
- -
Water PRV -
- -
- -
Highway Bridge
3 -
3 -
3 Lift Station -
- -
- -
Water Well -
- -
- -
Hazmat -
- -
- -
Grand Total 3
- 3
- 3
*Real Property Assets are digitized insurance rolls for demonstrating value and ownership.
4.3.8.3.1 Utilities
It is important to determine who may be at risk if the infrastructure is damaged by flooding. Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged can isolate residents and can prevent access throughout the City, including for emergency service providers needing to get to vulnerable populations or to make repairs. Bridges washed out or blocked by floods or debris also can cause isolation. Water and sewer systems can be flooded or backed up, causing health problems. Underground utilities can be damaged. Levees can fail or be overtopped, inundating the land that they protect. Table 4-29 shows critical facilities (linear) in the floodplain.
A-4-103
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-29: Lifelines in the Floodplain
Lifelines (miles) - Flood Risk Exposure
Infrastructure Type (linear) Flood Fringe Floodway 100-YR Total 500-YR sans 100- YR 500-YR Total
Fiber Optics 0.1 - 0.1 0.3 0.4
Sewer Main 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0
Storm Drain Main 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 0.2
Street 3.5 - 3.5 1.3 4.7
Interstate - - - - -
Major Road 0.1 - 0.1 0.3 0.4
Local Road 0.4 - 0.4 0.8 1.1
Service Road 0.7 - 0.7 0.2 1.0
Bike Path 2.3 - 2.3 - 2.3
Walking Path - - - 0.0 0.0
Water Main 0.7 - 0.7 1.7 2.4
Grand Total 4.4 - 4.4 3.4 7.8
4.3.8.4 Loss Estimation Results
Hazus calculates losses to structures from flooding by analyzing the depth of flooding and type of structure. Using historical flood insurance claim data, Hazus estimates the percentage of damage to structures and their contents by applying established damage functions to an inventory. For this analysis, all non-vacant parcels with current market values were used instead of the default inventory data provided with Hazus. Table 4-30 and Figure 4-32 show the 100-year flood loss estimation (based on depth) in NFIP flood zones by occupancy type. Table 4-31 and Figure 4-33 show the 500-year flood loss estimation (based on depth) in NFIP flood zones by occupancy type.
The City’s insurance data was obtained and formatted for use in Hazus for a detailed damage estimation of Cityowned facilities. This combined government dataset has additional information, including the number of floors, building value, content value, and construction type, that significantly enhances Hazus results. Table 4-30 displays damage estimation for City facilities located in the 100-year flood zone.
Damage Estimation for 100 yr. Floodplain
Table 4-30 and Figure 4-32 display damage estimation summaries for the 100-year floodplain in Loma Linda occupancy type.
A-4-104
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 4-30: 100-Year Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type Figure 4-32: 100-Year Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type $- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 Agriculture
Commercial
Education
Emergency
Government
Industrial
Religion
Residential
Content Damage ($) Building Damage ($)
Building Type Building Damage
($)
Building Damage
(% of total loss)
Content Damage
($)
Content
Damage
(% of
total
loss)
Total Damage ($) Proportion of
Loss (%)
Agriculture $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Commercial $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Education $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Emergency $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Government $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Industrial $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Religion $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Residential $784,967 75% $255,516 25% $1,040,483 100%
Total $784,967 75% $255,516 25% $1,040,483
Note: Total Inventory Values
1 - Building Replacement Costs = $2,400,466,573
2 - Content Replacement Costs = $2,280,402,222
3 - Total Value = $4,680,868,795
A-4-105
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Damage Estimation for 500 yr. Floodplain
Table 4-31 displays the damage estimation for the 500 yr. floodplain in Loma Linda by occupancy type.
Table 4-31. 500-Year Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type Building Type Building Damage
($)
Building Damage
(% of total loss)
Content Damage
($)
Content
Damage
(% of
total
loss)
Total Damage ($) Proportion of
Loss (%)
Agriculture $0 0% $1 0% $1 0%
Commercial $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Education $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Emergency $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Government $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Industrial $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Religion $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%
Residential $80,302 77% $24,050 23% $104,352 100%
Total $80,303 77% $24,051 23% $104,353
Note: Total Inventory Values
1 - Building Replacement Costs = $2,400,466,573
2 - Content Replacement Costs = $2,280,402,222
3 - Total Value = $4,680,868,795
Figure 4-33: 500-Year Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type $- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 Agriculture
Commercial
Education
Emergency
Government
Industrial
Religion
Residential
Content Damage ($) Building Damage ($)
A-4-106
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.8.5 Past and Future Development
The City of Loma Linda has greatly reduced its vulnerability to flooding in the past several decades. The most significant project to date was the San Timoteo Creek Project, conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The project consisted of channelization and various other improvements to San Timoteo Creek. The project includes 3.6 miles of concrete (trapezoidal or rectangular) channel, 2.2 miles of flow-through, 18 sediment control basins, and 1.4 miles of earthen low-flow channels on the upstream end. Thousands of residences were removed from the floodplain as a result of the project. In 2007, FEMA issued a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) showing the significantly reduced flood hazard area. (FEMA, 2019)
The City does currently have some parcels that could be developed in the future in the 100-year floodplain.
However, the City’s review is strict for those parcels and requires a flood hazard area permit before any development can occur in the floodplain (§ 19.12.070) and has instituted standards for flood reduction in §§ 19- 12-120 through 140. The City does not anticipate any further vulnerability to flooding in the future.
A-4-107
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-4-108
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.9 Slope Failure
Landslides, mudflow, debris flow, and rockfall, collectively known as slope failure, may cause damage across the City. They rarely present a threat to human life but often disrupt everyday services, including emergency response capabilities. Landslides can block transportation routes, dam creeks, and drainages and contaminate water supplies. When these hazards affect transportation routes, they are frequently expensive to clean up and can have significant economic impacts on the City. (United States Geological Survey, 2004)
Landslide
The many types of landslides are categorized based on form and type of movement. They range from slowmoving rotational slumps and earth flows, which can slowly distress structures but are less threatening to personal safety, to fast-moving rock avalanches and debris flows that are a serious threat to structures and have been responsible for most fatalities during landslide events. Many large landslides are complex and a combination of more than one landslide type. (United States Geological Survey, n.d.) Mudflow/Debris Flow
When slope material becomes saturated with water, a debris flow may develop. Debris flows can also occur from horizontal seismic inertia forces induced in a slope from ground shaking. There are generally two types of debris flows from a geologic perspective: debris flows related to shallow landslides and post-wildfire debris flows. (United States Geological Survey, 2005)
Debris flows related to shallow landslides occur on hillslope due to soil failure, which liquefies and runs downhill.
This type of debris flow generally results from a shallow landslide (less than 10 to 15 feet deep) and has a discrete initiation zone depositional area. Shallow landslides tend to occur in winter but are most likely after prolonged periods of heavy rainfall when soil materials are saturated. Debris flows are typically more dangerous because they are fast-moving, causing property damage and life loss. (Id.) Post-wildfire debris flows result from post-fire conditions, where burned soil surfaces enhance rainfall runoff that concentrates in a channel and picks up debris as it moves. The post-fire debris flow has a less discrete initiation zone but is similar to a debris flow derived from hillslopes in that it may result in inundation and a detrimental impact on lives and property within its zone of runout and deposition. It can result in downstream flooding. (Id.) For more general information on slope failure in Loma Linda, see the hazard profile in Section 4.2.8.
A-4-109
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.9.1 Population at Risk
An estimated 3,697 persons, or 15.43% of the City’s population, are exposed to slope failure areas, as shown in Table 4-26 below. Population estimates within slope failure areas were generated by analyzing City assessor and parcel data that intersect with landslide hazard areas identified by California Geological Survey. Using GIS, U.S. Census Bureau information was used to intersect slope failure hazards; a population estimate was calculated by weighting the population within each census block and track with the percentage of slope hazard areas.
Table 4-32: Summary Population Exposure to Landslide
Total Population
Loma Linda 23,961
Landslide Susceptibility Population Count % of Total
High 1,935 8.07%
Moderate 1,034 4.31%
Low 729 3.04%
Total 3,697 15.43%
Figure 4-34: Population Exposure to Landslide
1,935
1,034
729
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
High Moderate Low
A-4-110
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 4-35: Loma Linda -Snapshot Layout-Landslide Risk Exposure A-4-111
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.3.9.2 Property
Table 4-33 shows the number of parcels, market value exposure, and content value exposure in the steep-slope risk areas. The predominant zoning classes in cities are single-family, vacant, and manufactured homes.
Table 4-33: Property Value Exposed to Landslides.
Total Parcels Total Market
Value ($)
Total Content
Value ($) Total Value ($)
Loma Linda 5,661 $ 2,377,019,848 $ 2,264,947,136 $ 4,641,966,984 Landslide
Susceptibility Parcel Count % of Total Market Value Exposure ($) Content Value
Exposure ($) Total Exposure ($) % of Total
Low 238 4.2% $ 78,749,697 $ 56,506,377 $ 135,256,074 2.9% Moderate 418 7.4% $ 144,182,864 $ 79,391,828 $ 223,574,692 4.8% High 139 2.5% $ 41,167,203 $ 20,636,921 $ 61,804,124 1.3% Total 795 14% $ 264,099,764 $ 156,535,125 $ 420,634,889 9.1%
4.3.9.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Several types of infrastructure are exposed to mass movements, including transportation, water, sewer, and power infrastructure. At this time, all infrastructure and transportation corridors identified as exposed to the landslide hazard are considered vulnerable until more information becomes available. Table 4-34 and Table 4-35 summarize the critical facilities exposed to the slope failure hazard.
Table 4-34: Critical Facility Points with Slope Failure Hazard Risk Critical Infrastructure - Landslide Susceptibility
Infrastructure Type High Moderate Low
Essential Facility - 1 -
EOC - - -
Hospital - 1 -
Fire Station - - -
High Potential Loss 5 12 2
Child Care Center - 1 -
School - - -
Medical Facility - - -
Reservoir 5 1 1
Elder Residential Care - 5 -
Adult Residential Care - 3 -
Low Income Housing - - -
Lodging - - -
Veterinary Care - - -
Water Treatment Facility - - -
Park - - 1
A-4-112
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Critical Infrastructure - Landslide Susceptibility
Infrastructure Type High Moderate Low
Real Property Asset - 2 -
Recreation - - -
Library - - -
Corp Yard - - -
Transportation and Lifeline 3 1 1
Communications Tower 1 - -
Water Booster 2 1 -
Water PRV - - -
Highway Bridge - - -
Lift Station - - -
Water Well - - 1
Hazmat - - -
Hazardous Materials Site - - -
Grand Total 8 14 3
*Real Property Assets are digitized insurance rolls for demonstrating value and ownership.
Table 4-35: Critical Facilities (Linear) with Slope Failure Hazard Risk Lifelines (miles) - Landslide Susceptibility
Infrastructure Type (Linear) High Moderate Low
Fiber Optics 0.2 3.8 1.4
Sewer Main - 0.1 0.0
Storm Drain Main 0.1 1.3 0.4
Street 23.9 12.8 6.6
Interstate - 0.9 -
Major Road 0.2 0.9 0.4
Local Road 2.6 8.1 3.9
Service Road 4.8 1.2 1.4
Bike Path - - 0.1
Walking Path 16.3 1.7 0.7
Water Main 2.7 9.2 5.3
Grand Total 26.9 27.3 13.6
4.3.9.4 Past and Future Development
The City’s primary vulnerability to slope failure is from the hillside area in the southern part of the City. Some past development in Loma Linda occurred within those moderate and high landslide risk areas, increasing overall A-4-113
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
vulnerability to slope failure in the City. However, the vast majority of that growth occurred more than two decades ago. Currently, the City has severely limited growth in the high landslide risk areas on the southern hillside. First, in 2006 voters passed a slow-growth initiative that included hillside development limitations that made hillside development nearly impossible. The City also owns significant amounts of that same hillside area of concern. In January of 2016, the city installed a series of gabion walls to reduce the damage potential of debris flows in the south hills. A rain gauge was also installed in the south hills to measure rainfall intensity as a way of preliminary identification of potentially hazardous levels of rainfall.
Future development in Loma Linda is not likely to contribute to landslide risk. As a result, much of the focus is on protecting existing populations, structures, and critical facilities from landslides.
A-5-1
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Section 5. Mitigation Strategy
The intent of the mitigation strategy is to provide the City of Loma Linda with a guidebook to implementing future hazard mitigation. The mitigation strategy is intended to reduce vulnerabilities outlined in the previous section with a prescription of policies and physical projects. This will help City staff achieve compatibility with existing planning mechanisms and ensure that mitigation activities provide specific roles and resources for implementation success.
5.1 Planning Process for Setting Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives The mitigation strategy represents the key outcomes of the Loma Linda HMP planning process. The hazard mitigation planning process conducted by the Planning Committee is a typical problem-solving methodology:
Estimate the impacts the problem could cause (See Section 4.2, Vulnerability Assessment); Describe the problem (See Section 5.2, Identifying the Problem); Assess what safeguards and resources exist that could potentially lessen those impacts (See Section,
5.3 Capabilities Assessment);
Develop Goals and Objectives with current capabilities to address the problems (See Section 5.4.1 Goals and Objectives)
Using this information, determine what can be done and select appropriate actions for the community (See Section 5.5, Goal, Objective, and Mitigation Action Matrix).
5.2 Identifying the Problem
As part of the mitigation actions identification process, the HMP Planning Committee identified issues and/or weaknesses as a result of the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis. By combining common issues and weaknesses developed by the Planning Committee, the realm of resources needed for mitigating each can be understood.
For Loma Linda, key issues that the City faces deal with development pressures encroaching in areas of heightened risk. Much of the open space within the City is vulnerable to seismic, geologic, and slope failure risk.
5.3 Capabilities Assessment
The mitigation strategy includes an assessment of the City’s planning and regulatory, administrative/technical, fiscal, and political capabilities to augment known issues and weaknesses from identified natural hazards.
The information in Table 5-1 is used to construct mitigation actions aligned with the City's existing planning and regulatory capabilities. Planning and regulatory tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities are building codes, zoning regulations, floodplain management policies, and other municipal planning documents.
A-5-2
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 5-1. Loma Linda Capabilities Assessment
Resource Name
Type of
Resource Ability to Support Mitigation Website
City of Loma Linda
City Manager’s
Office
Personnel
Resource
The City Manager is the Chief Executive Officer of the City; he provides and coordinates the overall operation of the City under the policy mandates of the City Council, oversees the annual operating budget, and supervises all departments within the organization. Mitigation activities implemented by this office may include direction setting with the City Council and City Departments and prioritization of new initiatives that support mitigation activities within the City
City of Loma
Linda
City Clerk Personnel
Resource
The City Clerk is responsible for the related agendas,
meetings, correspondence, and public hearing notices. Other duties include retaining legal documents, microfilming, administering the State Political Reform Act and the city’s Conflict of Interest Code, coordinating city elections, legal advertising, opening competitive bids, and the overall
coordination of the Redevelopment Agency Affordable
Housing Programs. The city clerk also serves as the clerk of the council, administering municipal elections. Mitigation activities implemented by this department may include recordkeeping and document coordination. Updates to City codes that mitigate future hazards would be administered through the office of the City Clerk.
City Of Loma
Linda
Finance
Department
Personnel
Resource
The Finance Department is responsible for managing the
financial operation of the city, the Loma Linda Housing Authority, and the Loma Linda Redevelopment Successor
Agency in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, federal and state statutes, the city's municipal code, and administrative policies. Mitigation actions include recommending fiscal policies to city management and
implements such policies. The department provides fiscal support to all city departments and programs to ensure that the city's fiscal affairs are effectively managed and projects receive the proper funding. Financial management (and
personnel) within the City can assist with mitigation activities by tracking costs associated with hazard events and
disasters, identifying grant funding opportunities, and establishing financial risk calculations that can help
departments with budgeting operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.
City of Loma
Linda
Human
Resources
Personnel
Resource
The department focuses on recruitment, classification,
compensation, benefits administration, performance
management, training, development, succession planning, safety, and labor/employee relations. The Human Resources City of Loma
Linda
A-5-3
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Resource Name
Type of
Resource Ability to Support Mitigation Website
Department to implement and support processes that add
value to the City of Loma Linda and its employees, leading to improved employee recruitment, development, retention, and morale while aligned with the City of Loma Linda vision and objectives for its employees, stakeholders, and citizens. This department can support mitigation activities by identifying staffing needs and shortfalls and developing plans and
agreements with other jurisdictions/agencies to meet future needs.
Planning
Division
(Community
Development)
Personnel
Resource
The Planning Division provides various services to the public, including zoning information, land use information, assistance with permits, current planning, and long-range planning.
Provides support to the City Council, Planning Commission, Water District, School District, and several City Commissions, Committees, and Boards. The Planning Division also
anticipates and acts on the need for new plans, policies, and Zoning Code changes. Mitigation support can identify large systemic issues within the community and incorporate
mitigation strategies or policies into existing and new projects.
City of Loma
Linda
Building and
Safety Division
(Community
Development)
Personnel
Resource
Building staff implements the Building Code and other
applicable rules and guidelines. This ensures the proper construction of buildings within Loma Linda, protects the public’s health and safety, and protects and improves property values by enforcing standards for high-quality construction.
Mitigation activities for this department come in the form of inspections on new and established constructions, identifying potential hazards, and implementing the necessary retrofits to comply with established policies. Provide emergency
response and damage assessment during and after disaster events.
City of Loma
Linda
Economic
Development
Personnel
Resource
It primarily focuses on attracting new retail and high-tech industrial development to increase the City’s sales tax and property tax revenues and provide new employment
opportunities for local residents. The Department is also responsible for negotiating and developing Agency ownedreal estate within designated Redevelopment Project Areas.
The economic development effort of the City of Loma Linda is a vital element to the city's overall goal of continuing to provide quality services in a family-oriented community.
Mitigation actions include the integration of mitigation action and strategies into the economic development of the city.
Increasing revenue of the City to aid in funding of mitigation strategies.
City of Loma
Linda
A-5-4
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Resource Name
Type of
Resource Ability to Support Mitigation Website
Information
System
Department
Personnel
Resource
The Information System Department reports directly to the City Manager. The department's primary duty is to provide centralized information technology for all city departments.
The City has four primary areas of technology: LAN/WAN
Network – Servers/Clients, VoIP Telephone System, Channel 3 (Cable TV channel), and Fiber to the Home/Business
Network (LLCCP). They also provide the City with all Arc GIS (Geographical Information System) data input and mapping, which aids in hazard mitigation analysis issues and projects. It can help utilize new technologies to improve City planning, research, data collection, mapping, and develop new ways to aid in mitigation strategies and their creation.
City of Loma
Linda
Engineering
Division (Public
Works Dpt.)
Personnel
Resource
This division is responsible for the sections relative to plan check, construction inspection, consultant-contract
administration, contract project administration, and various regional programs that involve transportation, solid waste, stormwater management, and public utilities. This also
includes capital improvement project management and
development review. The department's duty is to implement and cooperate in those programs established and/or
mandated by federal, state, county, and special districts.
Mitigation actions include the planning, designing, and managing of mitigation projects for the City. This department aids the City in the identification of potential violations and creating the projects to address them.
City of Loma
Linda
Operations
Division (Public
Works)
Personnel
Resource
This division conducts all of the department's maintenance activities, including landscape parks, streets, traffic safety, sewer collection, water production and distribution, meters, storm drainages, fleet and equipment, public building and various contract services such as mechanics and
landscapers. Mitigation actions include the maintenance and managing of mitigation infrastructure and assets for the City.
This department aids the City in the identification of potential mitigation shortfalls and creating the projects to address them.
City of Loma
Linda
Loma Linda Fire
Department
Personnel
Resource
The Fire Department is responsible for fire hydrant testing (for fire suppression purposes), disaster preparedness
(earthquakes, flooding), fire investigation (arson), fire inspections (schools, commercial buildings), CPR/First aid courses, and fire safety programs (Learn not to burn).
Department personnel are certified in heavy rescue,
hazardous materials response, vehicle extrication, emergency medical services, and fire suppression in structural, high-rise, wildland, and vehicle firefighting. Firefighters deliver an efficient and effective emergency response through structural City of Loma
Linda
A-5-5
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Resource Name
Type of
Resource Ability to Support Mitigation Website
and wildland fire suppression, emergency medical services, hazardous materials response, technical rescue, and tactical response. The Emergency Preparedness program reduces
vulnerability to hazards, increases community disaster
resiliency, and provides timely economic recovery utilizing comprehensive mitigation, preparedness, and response
programs.
Police
Department
Personnel
Resource
The city of Loma Linda contracts with the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department for police services throughout the city.
Mitigation actions related to the safe movement of traffic (e.g., during evacuations), residents' public safety during
emergency events, and terrorism-related activities may be implemented through Sheriff Department staff. As emergency preparedness is part of the department’s responsibilities, the Sheriff Department can also widely implement other mitigation actions through coordination with other departments and agencies.
City of Loma
Linda
Public Safety Personnel
Resource
Provides fire protection/suppression, emergency medical services, and other programs to reduce the risk of fire and other hazards. In addition, the department conducts
inspections to help prevent potential fire hazards. This department is responsible for fire prevention education and disaster preparedness planning. The Department also
provides for animal control, code enforcement, and parking control.
City of Loma
Linda
Adopted FY
Budget
Financial
Resource
The City adopts its budget, which identifies the funding available for each fiscal year that can be used to support governmental operations. This budget is a key location where future mitigation projects can be identified from a funding perspective.
FY Budget
2019-2020
Capital
Improvement
Program
Financial
Resource
Financial
Resources for
Hazard
Mitigation
Funding
Financial
Resource
The City has many different avenues for raising money to aid in mitigation project funding. Different types of fees and levies (Ex: Sewer Service Fees, Sales Tax, Water Fund, Storm
Drain Fees), the sale of bonds, and Capital Project Funds.
Mitigation activity is funded by many of these programs and further subsidized by FEMA.
Loma Linda
Budget FY
2019-2020
General Plan Plan
Resource
The General Plan is the long-term, comprehensive blueprint for development and changes in the community. The general plan's policies address land uses, public safety, environmental Loma Linda
General Plan
A-5-6
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Resource Name
Type of
Resource Ability to Support Mitigation Website
protection, transportation, etc. The general plan serves as a framework for mitigation actions, establishing the overarching policies for mitigation activities. Mitigation actions may be directly incorporated into the general plan as policies and/or implementation actions to provide a stronger enforcement mechanism
Building Code Plan
Resource
The Building Code is part of the City’s Municipal Code (Title 15, Buildings and Construction), which includes the building code and other associated standards (Residential Code,
Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, etc.) govern how new
buildings are constructed. They are published by the state and are adopted by local communities, sometimes with
amendments to make the codes more locally applicable.
Mitigation actions to construct buildings to a safer standard, allowing them to better resist damage during a hazard event, could be part of future building code updates.
Loma Linda
Municipal
Code
Zoning
Ordinance
Plan
Resource
The Loma Linda Zoning Ordinance (Title 17, Zoning, Loma Linda Municipal Code) implements the City’s general plan. It establishes regulations for land uses throughout the
community, including where other development and land use activity can occur, how these developments can look, and how they may be operated. Mitigation actions related to the siting, construction, and operation of new developments in Loma Linda may be implemented through the Zoning Code to ensure these locations address risks identified in the plan.
Loma Linda
Municipal
Code
City of Loma
Linda Water
Production
Division
Technical
Resource
The City of Loma Linda's water production division provides water from the cities own six production wells. Loma Linda's main water source is groundwater within the vast Bunker Hill Basin. Nearly all of the snowmelt running down from the San Bernardino Mountains replenishes this basin. Loma Linda's water supply meets the City’s current needs, and Loma Linda is not reliant on State Water Project aqueducts and surface channels or rivers, as is the case with many areas of
California. Keeping track of the cities production system is a complex computer system called S.C.A.D.A. (Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition). This S.C.A.D.A. system can monitor the twenty-three remote sites ranging from reservoir levels, pressures in the different zones, chlorine residuals, operation of boosters and wells, and automatically make system adjustments to predetermined set points.
Water
Production
Division
San Bernardino County
A-5-7
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Resource Name
Type of
Resource Ability to Support Mitigation Website
San Bernardino
County Sheriff
Department
Personnel
Resource
Loma Linda contracts through the County of San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department. "The City of Loma Linda is a small university town that maintains a large presence in the Inland Empire and throughout the world. Long noted for its leading role in medical science and higher education, Loma Linda University Medical Center has been a national center for health, wellness, and research for decades. The Jerry L.
Pettis Veterans Memorial Medical Center also joined the community, and in conjunction with the Loma Linda Medical Center, became the major employers of the city. Loma Linda orange groves, once the predominant land use, are giving way to residential developments as the city, with 22,000 residents continues to grow." - San Bernardino County
Sheriff's Web Site
SBC Sheriff
Department
Regional, State, and Federal Agencies
California State
Hazard
Mitigation Plan
Plan
Resource
The California State Hazard Mitigation Plan assesses the types of hazards that may be present in California. It includes descriptions of these hazards, summaries of past hazard events, descriptions of how these hazards may occur in the future, and how these hazards may harm California's people and assets. Like a local hazard mitigation plan, the State Hazard Mitigation Plan is updated every five years. The Committee can use the State Hazard Mitigation Plan as a source of information to refine the hazard profiles and vulnerability assessments in future Loma Linda LHMPs.
CA State
Hazard
Mitigation
Plan
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
Technical
Resource
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the
federal agency responsible for hazard mitigation, emergency preparedness, and emergency response and recovery
activities. It guides state and local governments on hazard mitigation activities, including best practices and compliance with federal requirements. FEMA also provides funding for hazard mitigation actions through grant programs.
FEMA
Cal-Adapt Technical
Resource
Cal-Adapt is an online tool that provides detailed projections for future climate-related conditions in California, including factors such as temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise.
These projections can help inform future hazard events and explain how hazard conditions are expected to change. The Committee can use Cal-Adapt to monitor anticipated changes in future climate conditions and adjust mitigation actions accordingly.
Cal-Adapt
A-5-8
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Resource Name
Type of
Resource Ability to Support Mitigation Website
California
Department of
Transportation
Technical
Resource
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the state agency with jurisdiction over designated highways, including State Route 210 and Interstate Routes 10 and 15.
Mitigation measures related to ensuring the resiliency of statedesignated routes will be implemented through coordination with Caltrans.
Caltrans
California
Governor’s
Office of
Emergency
Services
Technical
Resource
The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) is the state agency responsible for reducing hazards through mitigation activities, conducting emergency planning, supporting emergency response and recovery activities, and acting as a liaison between local and federal agencies on emergency-related issues. Cal OES guides hazard mitigation planning activities, shares best practices, and distributes funding opportunities. The Committee can work with Cal OES to obtain funding to implement LHMP mitigation strategies and receive future updates.
Cal OES
Private Organizations
Southern
California Gas
Company
Technical
Resource
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) is the
natural gas provider for Loma Linda and owns the
community's natural gas infrastructure. Mitigation actions that address the resiliency of natural gas infrastructure and services in Loma Linda will be implemented through
coordination with SoCalGas.
SoCalGas
Southern
California
Edison
Technical
Resource
Southern California Edison (SCE) is the electrical service provider for Loma Linda. SCE also owns the electrical
distribution grid in the community. Mitigation actions relating to Loma Linda’s electrical grid's resiliency will be implemented through coordination with SCE.
Southern CA
Edison
CR&R
Incorporated
Environmental
Services
Technical
Resource
In business since 1963, CR&R’s mission has been to provide our customers with consistent, safe, worry-free, and
sustainable waste and recycling services. CR&R also has an extensive network of processing facilities that can manage every facet of your waste stream, including solid waste, recyclables, green waste, food waste, construction and
demolition waste, electronic waste, and a number of other materials. Through our extensive collection and processing systems, we strive to reduce the negative impact that solid waste can potentially have on our environment for
generations to come. We welcome you to the CR&R family of companies.
Waste
Services
A-5-9
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
5.4 Mitigation Development
Goals and objectives discussed in this section help describe what actions should occur, using increasingly narrow descriptors. Long-term goals are developed, which can be accomplished by objectives. To achieve the stated objectives, “mitigation actions” provide specific, measurable descriptors on accomplishing the objective. The goals, objectives, and actions form the basis for developing a Mitigation Action Strategy and specific mitigation projects to be considered for implementation.
The process consists of 1) setting goals and objectives, 2) considering mitigation alternatives, 3) identifying strategies or “actions,” and 4) developing a prioritized action plan resulting in a mitigation strategy.
5.4.1 Goals
The HMP Planning Committee discussed goals for this plan update at distinct points in the planning process. At the beginning of the planning process, the Planning Committee discussed overall project goals and based on the results of the risk assessment and the identified issues/weaknesses to be addressed by Mitigation Actions. During that time, the HMP Planning Committee opted to develop a new set of goals as a result of the risk analysis and community priorities. More details of this particular meeting are provided in Appendix B. The following goals have been developed as part of this planning effort:
Save lives and reduce injuries among Loma Linda community members and visitors. Avoid damage to public and private property and environmental systems. Preserve key government functions and other critical services. Integrate hazard mitigation activities into City policies. Maintain the City’s eligibility for increased hazard mitigation and disaster recovery funding. Support compliance with state laws addressing hazards, including the effects of climate change.
5.4.2 Considering Mitigation Alternatives
In February 2021, the HMP Planning Committee participated in developing and reviewing mitigation actions with a wide range of alternatives. To narrow mitigation alternatives for inclusion, FEMA’s six broad categories of mitigation alternatives were used: prevention, property protection, public education and awareness, natural resource protection, emergency services, and structural projects. The HMP Planning Committee developed several mitigation alternatives for implementation under each mitigation category.
5.4.3 Mitigation Costs
The cost-effectiveness of each measure was a primary consideration when developing mitigation actions.
Because mitigation is an investment to reduce future damages, it is important to select measures for which the reduced damages over the life of the measure are likely to be greater than the project cost. For structural projects, the level of cost-effectiveness is primarily based on the likelihood of damages occurring in the future, the severity of the damages when they occur, and the level of effectiveness of the selected measure.
While a detailed analysis was not conducted during the mitigation action development process, these factors were of primary concern when selecting measures. For measures that do not result in a quantifiable reduction of damages, such as public education and outreach, the relationship between probable future benefits and the cost of each measure was considered when developing the mitigation actions.
A-5-10
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
5.4.4 Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
Common failures of a mitigation plan involve the prioritization of mitigation actions for future implementation.
Implementing the identified mitigation actions in Table 5-2 can be overwhelming for any community, especially with limited staffing and fiscal resources. To ensure that the City of Loma Linda’s HMP reflects a reality of what the City can do with its available resources, mitigation actions are prioritized with public input, risk factor scores, and HMP Planning Committee agreement. This method assists the City to direct resources appropriately during particular planning windows.
5.4.4.1 Public Input
The results of the survey indicated the following:
• 18 respondents have been affected by a disaster
• Approximately 65% of respondents are somewhat concerned or very concerned about climate change • A majority of respondents identified trainings, education, and effective emergency communications/notifications as the best way to assist residents and businesses • The top three hazards of concern based on responses include Sesimic Hazards, Wildfire, and Flooding (see word cloud. Below)
The complete survey results can be found in Appendix B.
5.4.4.2 Planning Committee Prioritization Process
Using risk factor scores and their historical knowledge and local expertise, the Planning Committee prioritized the mitigation actions. These mitigation actions were compared to the results of the Community Survey to validate the Priority Mitigation Actions. This process is documented in Appendix B.
The benefits of proposed projects were also weighed against estimated costs as part of the project prioritization process. A review of the apparent benefits versus the apparent cost of each project was performed. Parameters were established for assigning subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to the benefits of these projects.
Benefit ratings were defined as follows:
A-5-11
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property. Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on reducing risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property. Low—Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.
Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios are considered cost-beneficial and are prioritized accordingly.
5.5 Mitigation Action Strategy
Based upon the City’s capabilities, Table 5-2 lists each priority mitigation action (listed in order of priority by hazard) and identifies the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, and an implementation plan for each action.
A-5-12
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-5-13
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Table 5-2: Mitigation Action Tracker
Action
No. Year Hazard Type Department Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation
Type Priority Rating Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit
Potential Funding
Source(s)
Expected Time Frames
for Completion
1 2021 All hazard Information
Systems
Install or upgrade backup power
systems (generator or battery)
for IT server farms, IDF, and/or
LLCCP MDF locations, including
but not limited to City Hall,
Corporate Yard, Fire Station 252,
Shady Lane, Monarch Cove,
Mission Trails, Mission Creek,
and Barton Vineyards.
Structural
Projects
Medium Medium - The project could be
implemented with existing funding
but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of
the project would have to be
spread over multiple years.
Medium - The project will have a longterm impact on reducing risk exposure for life and property, or the project will
not provide an immediate reduction in
the risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 3-5 Years
2 2021 All hazard Information
Systems
Replace antiquated battery
backup systems for Server
Farms and install a backup
internet circuit for IT redundancy.
Structural
Projects
Medium Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
High - Project will provide an
immediate reduction of risk exposure
for life and property.
HMGP / BRIC 3-5 Years
3 2021 All hazard Public
Works,
Water
Install emergency generators at
city wells.
Emergency
Services
High Medium - The project could be
implemented with existing funding
but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the project's
cost would have to be spread over
multiple years.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 1-3 Years
4 2021 All hazard Public
Works,
Water
Install or upgrade emergency
generators for water reservoirs.
Emergency
Services
High Medium - The project could be
implemented with existing funding
but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the project's
cost would have to be spread over
multiple years.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 1-3 Years
5 2021 All hazard Public
Works,
Water
Install a parallel water main
distribution line to create
redundancy in the City's water
system.
Structural
Projects
Low High - Existing funding will not
cover the project's cost;
implementation would require new
revenue through an alternative
source (for example, bonds, grants,
and fee increases).
High - Project will provide an
immediate reduction of risk exposure
for life and property.
Internal Funding 5-10 Years
6 2021 Drought/Climate
Change
Public
Works,
Water
Construct 3 new, 2-million-gallon
water reservoirs.
Structural
Projects
Medium High - Existing funding will not
cover the project's cost;
implementation would require new
revenue through an alternative
source (for example, bonds, grants,
and fee increases).
High - Project will provide an
immediate reduction of risk exposure
for life and property.
HMGP / BRIC 5-10 Years
A-5-14
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Action
No. Year Hazard Type Department Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation
Type Priority Rating Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit
Potential Funding
Source(s)
Expected Time Frames
for Completion
7 2021 All hazard Public
Works,
Water
Install a looped fiber-optic
communications network to
groundwater well sites.
Structural
Projects
Medium Medium - The project could be
implemented with existing funding
but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the project's
cost would have to be spread over
multiple years.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 1-3 Years
(Under Construction)
8 2021 All hazard Public
Works,
Water
Install redundant waterlines
across railroad rights of way and
drainage channel located on
Beaumont Avenue.
Structural
Projects
Low Medium - The project could be
implemented with existing funding
but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the project's
cost would have to be spread over
multiple years.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 1-3 Years
9 2021 Earthquake Public
Works,
Water
Conduct seismic retrofit analysis
and improvements at existing
water reservoirs.
Structural
Projects
Medium Medium - The project could be
implemented with existing funding
but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the project's
cost would have to be spread over
multiple years.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 3-5 Years
10 2021 All hazard Public
Works,
Sewer
Install a new sewer trunk line
crossing railroad rights of way to
increase redundancy in sewer
treatment.
Structural
Projects
Medium Medium - The project could be
implemented with existing funding
but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the project's
cost would have to be spread over
multiple years.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 1-5 Years
11 2021 All hazard Public
Works,
Sewer
Install backup emergency
generators at sewer pumping
stations.
Emergency
Services
Medium Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Low - Long-term benefits of the project
are difficult to quantify in the short
term.
HMGP / BRIC 1-3 Years
12 2021 All hazard Public
Works,
General
Install a 2000-gallon fuel tank at
Fire Station 252 on the north
side of town.
Emergency
Services
Medium Medium - The project could be
implemented with existing funding
but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the project's
cost would have to be spread over
multiple years.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 1-3 Years
A-5-15
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Action
No. Year Hazard Type Department Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation
Type Priority Rating Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit
Potential Funding
Source(s)
Expected Time Frames
for Completion
13 2021 All hazard Public
Works,
General
Construct a new Public Works
Building at the Corporate Yard
that meets or exceeds current
code requirements.
Structural
Projects
High High - The project could be
implemented with existing funding
but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the project's
cost would have to be spread over
multiple years. The project is
estimated to cost four million
dollars.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 3-5 Years
14 2021 All hazard Public
Works,
General
Construct an at grade crossing at
the railroad tracks at Parkland
St., parallel to the Anderson
Bridge.
Structural
Projects
Low Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Low - Long-term benefits of the project
are difficult to quantify in the short
term.
HMGP / BRIC 3-5 Years
15 2021 All hazard Public
Works,
General
Install generators for the Senior
Center and Library to be used as
Cooling Centers.
Emergency
Services
Medium Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Low - Long-term benefits of the project
are difficult to quantify in the short
term.
HMGP / BRIC 1-3 Years
16 2021 All hazard Public
Works,
General
Install backup communications
system and Mass
Notification/Emergency Alert
Messaging System for City Hall,
EOC, City yard, City residents,
and businesses.
Emergency
Services
Medium Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 1-3 Years
17 2016 Flood Public
Works,
General
(San
Bernardino
County Flood
Control)
Upgrade the Mission Zanja Flood
Control Channel.
Structural
Projects
Medium Medium - The project could be
implemented with existing funding
but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the project's
cost would have to be spread over
multiple years.
High - Project will provide an
immediate reduction of risk exposure
for life and property.
HMGP / BRIC 5-10 Years
18 2021 Flood Public
Works,
General
Storm Drain at Benton St from
Barton Rd to Lawton Ave.
Structural
Projects
Medium Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 3-5 Years
19 2021 Flood Public
Works,
General
Construct a detention basin at
the end of Almond Court.
Structural
Projects
Low Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Low - Long-term benefits of the project
are difficult to quantify in the short
term.
HMGP / BRIC 5-10 Years
A-5-16
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Action
No. Year Hazard Type Department Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation
Type Priority Rating Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit
Potential Funding
Source(s)
Expected Time Frames
for Completion
20 2021 Earthquake Public
Works,
General
Conduct a seismic retrofit on the
bridge at New Jersey St. and
Citrus St. Bridge is owned and
managed by San Bernardino
Flood Control.
Structural
Projects
Low Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 3-5 Years
21 2021 Wildfire Fire
Department
Conduct brush clearance and
vegetation management
activities in areas of elevated fire
risk.
Structural
Projects
High Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC Annually
22 2021 All hazard Fire
Department
Prepare a Communication Plan
for Mass Evacuation Notification
and Emergency Alerting.
Structural
Projects
High Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 1-3 Years
23 2021 Wildfire Fire
Department
Prepare a Community Wildfire
Protection Plan identifying areas
of potential access for the WUI.
Prevention High Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Medium - Project will have a long-term
impact on reducing risk exposure for
life and property, or the project will not
provide an immediate reduction in the
risk exposure for property.
HMGP / BRIC 1-3 Years
24 2021 All hazard Fire
Department
Conduct public education and
outreach to reduce cardiac
events, wildfire risks, slip and fall
hazards, cooking fires, and
increase social media presence.
Public
Education
& Outreach
Medium Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Low - Long-term benefits of the project
are difficult to quantify in the short
term.
HMGP / BRIC Annually
25 2021 All hazard Fire
Department
Perform a Community Risk
Assessment (CRA).
Prevention High Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Low - Long-term benefits of the project
are difficult to quantify in the short
term.
HMGP / BRIC 1-3 Years
26 2021 All hazard Community
Development
Conduct Development Code and
General Plan Amendments to
streamline zoning and land use
Prevention Medium Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Low - Long-term benefits of the project
are difficult to quantify in the short
term.
Internal Funding 1-3 Years
A-5-17
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Action
No. Year Hazard Type Department Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation
Type Priority Rating Estimated Cost Estimated Benefit
Potential Funding
Source(s)
Expected Time Frames
for Completion
designations to reduce hazard
vulnerability.
27 2021 All hazard Community
Development
Update the development
application to streamline future
reviews and address hazard
vulnerabilities.
Prevention Medium Low- the project could be funded
under the existing budget. The
project is part of or can be part of
an ongoing existing program.
Low - Long-term benefits of the project
are difficult to quantify in the short
term.
Internal Funding 1-3 Years
28 2021 Earthquake Loma Linda
Hospital
The installation of a Vertical
Isolation System (VIS) as a
seismic enhancement to the new
Hospital.
Structural
Project
High High - Existing funding will not
cover the project's cost;
implementation would require new
revenue through an alternative
source (for example, bonds, grants,
and fee increases).
High - Project will provide an
immediate reduction of risk exposure
for life and property.
HMGP / BRIC 3-5 Years
A-5-18
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-6-1
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Section 6. Plan Implementation and Maintenance
As a living document, it is important that this plan becomes a tool in the City’s resources to ensure reductions in possible damage from a natural hazard event. This section discusses plan adoption, implementation, monitoring, evaluating, and updating the HMP. Plan implementation and maintenance procedures will ensure that the HMP remains relevant and continues to address the changing environment in the City. This section describes the incorporation of the HMP into existing City planning mechanisms and how the city staff will continue to engage the public.
6.1 Plan Adoption
To comply with DMA 2000, the City Council has officially adopted the 2021 City of Loma Linda HMP. The adoption of the 2021 HMP recognizes the City’s commitment to reducing the impacts of natural hazards within the city limits. A copy of the 2021 HMP adoption resolution is included in Appendix A.
6.2 Implementation
Over time, Implementation Strategies will become more detailed, and the City’s mitigation planners will work to provide more detail for priority mitigation actions. The following provides several options to consider when developing implementation strategies in the future:
Use processes that already exist: initial strategy is to take advantage of tools and procedures identified in the capability assessment in Section 5. Using planning mechanisms already in use and familiar to City departments and organizations will give the planning implementation phase a strong initial boost, especially if a mitigation strategy calls for expanding existing programs or creating new programs or processes at a later date.
Updated work plans, policies, or procedures: hazard mitigation concepts and activities can help integrate the 2021 LHMP into daily operations. These changes can include how major development projects and subdivision reviews are addressed in hazard-prone areas or ensure that hazard mitigation concerns are considered in the approval of major capital improvement projects. Job descriptions: working with department or agency heads to revise job descriptions of government staff to include mitigation-related duties could further institutionalize hazard mitigation. This change would not necessarily result in great financial expenditures or programmatic changes.
6.3 Future Participation
The City of Loma Linda HMP Planning Committee has become a permanent advisory body to administer and coordinate the implementation and maintenance of the 2021 HMP. The Fire Department will lead the 2021 HMP plan development and updates and all associated HMP maintenance requirements. On an annual basis, the HMP Planning Committee will report to the City Council and the public on the status of plan implementation and A-6-2
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
mitigation opportunities in the City. Other duties include reviewing and promoting mitigation opportunities, informing, and soliciting input from the public, and developing grant applications for hazard mitigation assistance.
6.4 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the HMP
This section describes the schedule and process for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the 2021 LHMP.
6.4.1 Schedule
Monitoring the progress of the mitigation actions will be ongoing throughout the five-year period between the adoption of the 2021 LHMP and the next update effort. The HMP Planning Committee will meet on an annual basis to monitor the status of the implementation of mitigation actions and develop updates as necessary.
The HMP Planning Committee should meet two months prior to the City budget process to prepare an evaluation report on the success and failures of the 2021 LHMP and provide a formal budget request for approval by the City at a later date.
The HMP will be updated every five years, as required by DMA 2000. The update process will begin at least one year prior to the expiration of the 2021 LHMP. However, should a significant disaster occur within the City, the HMP Planning Committee will reconvene within 30 days of the disaster to review and update the HMP as appropriate. The City Council will adopt written updates to the HMP as a DMA 2000 requirement.
6.4.2 Process
The HMP Planning Committee will coordinate with responsible agencies/organizations identified for each mitigation action. These responsible agencies/organizations will monitor and evaluate the progress made on implementing mitigation actions and report to the HMP Planning Committee on an annual basis. Working with the HMP Planning Committee, these responsible agencies/organizations will be asked to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation actions and modify the mitigation actions as appropriate. An HMP Mitigation Action Progress Report worksheet, provided in Appendix D, was developed as part of this HMP to assist mitigation project managers in reporting on the status and assessing the effectiveness of the mitigation actions.
Information culled from the mitigation leads or “champions” will be used to monitor mitigation actions and annual evaluation of the HMP. The following questions will be considered as criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the HMP:
Has the nature or magnitude of hazards affecting the City changed? Are there new hazards that have the potential to impact the City? Do the identified goals and actions address current and expected conditions? Have mitigation actions been implemented or completed? Has the implementation of identified mitigation actions resulted in expected outcomes? Are current resources adequate to implement the HMP?
Should additional local resources be committed to addressing identified hazards? Future updates to the HMP will account for any new hazard vulnerabilities, special circumstances, or new information that becomes available. Issues that arise during monitoring and evaluating the HMP, which require changes to the risk assessment, mitigation strategy, and other components of the HMP, will be incorporated into A-6-3
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
the next update of the 2021 LHMP in 2026. The questions identified above would remain valid during the preparation of the 2026 update.
6.5 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
An important implementation mechanism is to incorporate the recommendations and underlying principles of the HMP into community planning and development, such as capital improvement budgeting, building and zoning codes, general plans, and regional plans. Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated within the day-today functions and priorities of the jurisdiction attempting to implement risk-reducing actions. The integration of a variety of City departments on the HMP Planning Committee provides an opportunity for constant and pervasive efforts to network, identify, and highlight mitigation activities and opportunities at all levels of government. This collaborative effort is also important to monitor funding opportunities that can be leveraged to implement mitigation actions. Information from this 2021 HMP can be incorporated into:
City of Loma Linda General Plan: The 2021 HMP will provide information that can be incorporated into the Land Use, Public Health and Safety, and Sustainable Development Elements during the next general plan update. Specific risk and vulnerability information from the City of Loma Linda HMP will assist in identifying areas where development may be at risk to potential hazards. City Building / Development Codes and Zoning Ordinances: The 2021 HMP will provide information to enable the City to make decisions on appropriate building/development codes and ordinances.
Appropriate building codes and ordinances can increase the City’s resilience against natural disasters. San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP): The 2021 HMP highlights areas of concern regarding climate change and the added pressure it will place on the City’s water supply.
Suitable mitigation actions from the HMP can be included in the UWMP.
6.6 Continued Public Involvement
During the five-year update cycle (2021-2026), City staff will involve the public using public workshops and meetings. Information on upcoming public events related to the HMP or solicitation for comments will be announced via newspapers, mailings, and the City website (https://www.lomalindaca.gov/our_city/departments/community_development/hazard_mitigation_plan). An electronic copy of the current HMP document will be accessible through the City website, with hard copies available for review at the City of Loma Linda Planning & Development Services office and Public Works Department. The HMP Planning Committee will, as much as practicable, incorporate the following concepts into its public outreach strategy to ensure continued public involvement in the HMP planning process:
A-6-4
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Collaborate with San Bernardino County on hazard mitigation efforts Work with public service clubs, i.e., The Lions Club, Loma Linda University Foundation, Loma Linda Senior Center
Collaborate with faith-based organizations, i.e., Loma Linda University Church of the Seventh-day Adventists, Redeemer Fellowship, St. Joseph the Worker Church Create story ideas for media outlets, such as newspapers, local radio, and TV Distribute emails and postcards/mailers to City residents about hazard mitigation updates Post-meeting announcements at coffee houses, grocery stores, libraries, etc. Educate and collaborate with insurance companies.
Piggyback on other existing local community meetings
Distribute information through K-12 schools
Continue to use the City website as a distribution point of hazard mitigation information A-7-1
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Section 7. Works Cited
Bedsworth, e. a. (2018). California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment: Statewide Summary Report.
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4-2018- 013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf
CA Fire Alliance. (n.d.). The California Fire Alliance. CA Fire Alliance.
Cal OES. (2018). California State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved 03 11, 2021, from https://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardMitigationSite/Documents/002- 2018%20SHMP_FINAL_ENTIRE%20PLAN.pdf
Cal OES. (2018). State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved from https://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardMitigationSite/Documents/002- 2018%20SHMP_FINAL_ENTIRE%20PLAN.pdf#search=404
Cal. Dep't of Conservation. (2019). Seismic Hazards and Zones of Required Investigation. Retrieved 11 2, 2020, from https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Pages/Program-SHP/regulatory-hazard-zones.aspx Cal. Dep't of Water Resources. (2015). California's Most Significant Droughts: Comparing Historical and Recent Conditions.
Cal-Adapt. (2020). Extended Drought Scenarios. Retrieved from https://cal-adapt.org/tools/extended-drought/ Cal-Adapt. (2021). Annual Averages. Retrieved 03 25, 2021, from https://cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages/ (n.d.). California Adaptation Planning Guide. California Emergency Management Agency.
California Building Code. (2019). Chapter 18 Soils and Foundations. Retrieved from https://up.codes/viewer/california/ibc-2018/chapter/18/soils-and-foundations#18 California Department of Water Resources. (2015). California's Most Significant Droughts. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/What-We-Do/DroughtMitigation/Files/Publications-And-Reports/CalSigDroughts19_v9_ay11.pdf (2010). California Drought Contingency Plan. California Department of Water Resources. Retrieved 05 14, 2020, from
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/waterplan/docs/cwpu2013/Final/vol4/drought/01California_Drought_Co ntigency_Plan.pdf
California Energy Commission. (2016). 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings.
(2013). California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
A-7-2
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
California Office of Emergency Services. (2018). California State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved from https://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-divisions/hazard-mitigation/hazard-mitigation-planning/state-hazardmitigation-plan CGS. (2020). Rockfall. Retrieved from Colorado Geological Survey:
https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/hazards/rockfall/
CGS. (2020). Seismic Shaking Hazard Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Pages/PSHA/shaking-assessment.aspx (2011). City of Grand Terrace 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Draft. (2011). City of Grand Terrace 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT.
City of Grand Terrace. (2016, January 16). Retrieved from http://www.grandterraceca.gov/uploads/8/1/1/9/8119166/01-20-16_press_release_-_nfip__2_.pdf City of Grand Terrace Code of Ordinances . (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.municode.com/library/ca/grand_terrace/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8HESA_C H8.72ABOR
(2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan.
(2010). City of Grand Terrace General Plan.
City of Loma Linda General Plan. (2009). City of Loma Linda General Plan. Retrieved from https://www.lomalindaca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7279443/File/Our%20City/General%20Plan/GP-Adopted-May09.pdf City of Loma Linda General Plan. (2009). City of Loma Linda General Plan. Retrieved 03 11, 2021, from https://www.lomalindaca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7279443/File/Our%20City/General%20Plan/GP-Adopted-May09.pdf City of Loma Linda Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. (2011). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved from http://www.lomalinda-ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7279443/File/Departments/Fire/09-07- 2011%20Loma%20Linda%20LHMP.pdf
City-Data.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/city/Grand-Terrace-California.html D. Branum, R. C. (2016). Earthquake Shaking Potential for California. CGS. Retrieved 04 07, 2020, from https://ssc.ca.gov/forms_pubs/shaking_18x23.pdf
FEMA. (2011). Definitions. Retrieved from
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/nfip/manual201205/content/22_definitions.pdf FEMA. (2019, Nov. 19). Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for San Bernardino, Califorina. Retrieved Nov. 9, 2020, from https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1636-20490-4881/st_sanbern.pdf FEMA. (2020). Wildland urban interface (WUI). Retrieved from https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/ A-7-3
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014). Direct and Indirect Effects of Sea-Level Rise.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/nr/climpag/pub/eire0047_en.asp (2010). Grand Terrace General Plan.
(2011). Grand Terrace MPD Update Drainage Study.
Grand Terrace, California- Code of Ordinances. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.municode.com/library/ca/grand_terrace/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT15BUCO_ CH15.18CAFICO_15.18.010FIADCAFICO
Hall. (2018). California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment: Los Angeles Region Report. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Reg%20Report-%20SUM-CCCA4-2018- 007%20LosAngeles_ADA.pdf
Hopkins, F. (2018). Inland Deserts Summary Report. University of California, Riverside, SUM-CCCA4-2018- 008, 17-18. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Reg_Report-SUMCCCA4-2018-008_InlandDeserts_ADA.pdf (2020). Integrated United States Security Database (IUSSD): Data on the Terrorist Attacks in the United States Homeland, 1970-2018. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.
Loma Linda University Health. (2019). Flexible pipes add to new hospital's seismic safety. Vision 2020.
Retrieved from Flexible : https://lluhvision2020.org/stories/flexible-pipes-add-newhospital%E2%80%99s-seismic-safety Los Angeles Times. (2013, April 23rd). Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/23/local/la-me-lnlandslide-san-bernardino20130423 National Center for Disaster Preparedness. (2020). Vulnerable Populations. Retrieved 01 24, 2020, from https://ncdp.columbia.edu/research/vulnerable-populations/ NOAA & NIDIS. (2021). Current U.S. Drought Monitor Conditions for California. Retrieved from https://www.drought.gov/states/california
NOAA. (2020). Storm Events Database. Retrieved Jan. 30, 2020, from National Centers for Environmental Information: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=5486532 One Water One Watershed Plan. (2018). One Water One Watershed Plan Update 2018. Retrieved from https://www.santa-ana.org/sites/default/files/pw/documents/The-OWOW-Plan-2018.pdf Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. (n.d.). Ground Motion. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://pnsn.org/outreach/earthquakehazards/ground-motion PubMed.gov. (n.d.). Combatting the Heat Wave of 1980: Lessons for the Future. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10253341/
(2010). Riverside Highland Water Company Urban Water Management Plan.
A-7-4
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
San Bernardino County. (2016-2017). Hazardous Materials. Retrieved 03 12, 2021, from http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/CAO/Budget/2016-2017-
0/County/Recommended/SanBernardinoC/SanBernardinoC/Hazardous_Materials.pdf San Bernardino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. (2017). San Bernardino County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved from http://countywideplan.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/09/SBC_MJHMP_FEMAapproved_20170713.pdf San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. (2021). Policies/Operating Procedures. Retrieved 03 12, 2021, from https://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/policiesoperatingprocedures-advanced-officer-training/ San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. (2015). San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showdocument?id=4196
SCAG Economic Conference Preparation Report. (2017). SCAG Economic Conference Preparation Report:
Inland Empire. Retrieved from
http://economy.scag.ca.gov/Economy%20site%20document%20library/2017_EconomicReportIE.pdf Scripps Institution of Oceanography . (2018). Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios For California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment. State of California Energy Commission.
SoCal Gas Transmission and High Pressure Distribution Pipeline Interactive Map. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.socalgas.com/stay-safe/pipeline-and-storage-safety/natural-gas-pipeline-map/sanbernardino Sperling's Best Places. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bestplaces.net/climate/zipcode/california/grand_terrace/92313 The National Flood Insurance Program. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insuranceprogram UC Davis. (2014). Econoimc Analysis of the 2014 Drought for California Agriculture. Retrieved 03 15, 2021, from https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/files/biblio/DroughtReport_23July2014_0.pdf United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/0630658,00 United States Census Bureau. (2019). Quick Facts. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/lomalindacitycalifornia United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Alluvial Fan Process Group. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/
United States Forest Service. (n.d.). Prescribed Fire. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/prescribed-fire
United States Geological Survey. (2004). Landslide Types and Processes. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3072/fs-2004-3072.html
A-7-5
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
United States Geological Survey. (2005). NOAA-USGS Debris-Flow Warning System-Final Report. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1283/pdf/Circular1283.pdf United States Geological Survey. (n.d.). Landslide Hazards. Retrieved from https://www.usgs.gov/naturalhazards/landslide-hazards United States Geological Survey. (n.d.). The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/science/modified-mercalli-intensity-scale?qtscience_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects (2015). Upper Santa Ana Integrated Resources Water Management Plan.
US Census Bureau Factfinder. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF USGS. (2004). Landslide Types and Processes. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3072/pdf/fs2004-3072.pdf.
USGS. (2009).
USGS. (2020). 2018 United States (Lower 48) Seismic Hazard Long-term Model. Retrieved from https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/science/2018-united-states-lower-48- seismic-hazard-long-term?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects USGS. (n.d.). California Drought. Retrieved from https://ca.water.usgs.gov/california-drought/california-droughtcomparisons.html USGS. (n.d.). Earthquake Catalog. Retrieved from https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ USGS. (n.d.). Earthquake Hazards 201 - Technical Q&A. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from USGS Science for a Changing World: https://137.227.224.120/hazards/learn/technical.php#accel USGS. (n.d.). The Pacific Coastal Fog Project. Retrieved June 16, 2020, from https://www.usgs.gov/centers/wgsc/science/pacific-coastal-fog-project?qt-science_center_objects=0#qtscience_center_objects USGS. (n.d.). The Science of Earthquakes. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from United States Geological Survey:
Science for a Changing World: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquakehazards/science/science-earthquakes?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects USGS. (n.d.). The Science of Earthquakes. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from United States Geological Survey:
Science for a Changing World: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquakehazards/science/science-earthquakes?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects USGS. (n.d.). What is liquefaction? Retrieved May 15, 2020, from United States Geological Survey: Science for a Changing World: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-liquefaction?qt-news_science_products=0#qtnews_science_products Wuebbles Et al. (2017). Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment. Retrieved 03 11, 2021, from https://science2017.globalchange.gov/
A-1
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Appendix A. Analysis Methodology
A-2
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
A GIS-based vulnerability assessment was conducted for each of the priority hazards identified by the Planning Committee. Several sources of data are necessary to conduct a vulnerability analysis. This appendix presents an outline of the data inputs, processing steps, and outputs used to create the vulnerability analysis results presented in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The analysis methodology is presented first, followed by an overview of the analysis data.
A.1. Natural Hazard Exposure
The natural hazard exposure analysis (see C. Natural Hazard Exposure in Figure 7-4) is an inventory of population, parcels, critical facilities, and other assets within each natural hazard area. As shown in Figure 7-1, the presence of a structure inside a natural hazard area (the flood zone in this example) qualifies that structure as exposed to the natural hazard.
Figure 7-1: Hazard Exposure
The total counts of parcels, people, facilities, assets and the sum of values within the planning area which could be exposed to a hazard event is referred to as the “exposure” in this plan. A natural hazards overlay was developed to reflect the combination of many known natural hazard spatial footprints. The spatial overlay method enables summarization of building values, parcel counts, population exposure, and critical facility exposure within a hazard’s geographic extents (see C. Natural Hazard Exposure in Figure 7-4). The input data is used to evaluate exposure for earthquakes, landslides, flooding, dam inundation, and wildfire.
Damage Estimation with Hazus
FEMA’s Hazus software was implemented to conduct a detailed loss estimation for flood, earthquake, and dam inundation. Hazus is a nationally applicable standardized methodology that contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. Hazus uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to estimate physical, economic, and social impacts of disasters. For purposes of this planning effort, Hazus was used to generate damage estimations due to possible earthquakes, flooding, and dam inundation depths. The estimated damage and losses provided by the Hazus Software provide the ability to understand possible widescale damage to buildings and facilities (see D. Hazus Damage Estimations in Figure 7-4).
In the hypothetical geography shown in Figure 7-3, even though both structures are exposed to flooding, it is expected that the structure with a first floor height below the depth of flooding will receive significantly more damage than the structure with a first floor height above the expected water depth. Note that not all building data contains first floor height and first floor height is an example of the type of field utilized by Hazus in calculating damage estimates.
A-3
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Figure 7-2: Flood Depth and Damage Curves
Figure 7-3: Hazus Damage Estimations
Hazus is a FEMA product with highly detailed documentation provided on the analysis steps and algorithms performed against the input data and associated scenarios in the process of obtaining loss estimates. The explanation in this appendix section is simplified. Refer to the full documentation and technical manuals from FEMA for greater explanation on Hazus specifics.
Distinguishing Results – Natural Hazard Exposure Analysis vs Hazus Results Table and chart references throughout the hazard mitigation plan are explicitly called out for Hazus results as “Damage Estimates”. There are expected differences in the results between estimations of Natural Hazard overlays and detailed Hazus results. Snapshot tables and Natural Hazard Exposure sections do not contain Hazus estimates.
A-4
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
A.2. Analysis Data
Assets, Value, and Population
A.2.1.1. Parcels
County provided parcel geometry was joined with county assessor data. Centroids were created to represent parcels at a single location. Fields required by Hazus that were not present in the parcel data provided were given default values based on the mapped use-codes of each parcel. Earthquake building design level attribution was based on year built (where the default was 1972) and building code adaptation chronology. Improved parcels were chosen for the parcels dataset by a query of improvement value presence and use-code descriptors.
A.2.1.2. Asset Insurance Schedules
Loma Linda’s insurance schedule was used in developing Real Property Asset data with valuations and structural data for analyses. The city owned assets were utilized in damage estimations and exposure analysis. City owned real property assets and individual participating jurisdiction asset data were used in exposure analysis. The tabular data were geocoded and quality checked for building placement. These data are presented in the exposure analysis as “Real Property Assets” and in Hazus results as appropriate general use code type or specific building location description.
A.2.1.3. Population
Population estimates were derived from 2013-2017 5-year Census American Community Survey (ACS) numbers as applied to Census block groups and Census Place geographies, then processed through GIS modeling in order to break down the proportional population for smaller units of area in relation to natural hazards.
A.2.1.4. Critical Infrastructure
Critical facilities and transportation/lifeline typically include hospitals, fire stations, police stations, storage of critical records, and similar facilities. These data came from a collection of sources including but not limited to:
City GIS, city insurance data, CDSS, CEC, FCC, Hazus, USACE, FEMA, and NPS. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. See Table 7-1 for a list of Critical Infrastructure data used in the analysis.
A.2.1.5. Hazus Inputs
Hazus data inputs include hazard scenario data and detailed building data. The GIS team conducted a Level 2 analysis utilizing user-defined buildings with refined building characteristic parameters as inputs for the damage estimation calculations (See A.2.1.1 and A.2.1.2). Both city building data and assets were used as inputs in this level 2 analysis. The customized user defined building dataset allows for more accurate results for damage estimation based upon detailed building characteristics.
Note: FEMA’s Hazus software utilizes different user defined building information inputs to develop loss estimates depending on the hazard module. The Hazus flood and earthquake modules use fragility curves based upon the user’s definition of building characteristics including but not limited to:
Area
Year Built
Construction Type
A-5
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Number of Stories
EQ Design Level
Occupancy Type (Residential, Government, etc)
Building Values
Defaults were used for missing fields and values based on use-code and other available information for that input.
Natural Hazard Data
A.2.2.1. Dam Inundation Zones
Dam inundation zone GIS data were provided by Cal OES and DWR. These represent the estimated flood extent in the event of dam failure for individual dams. No Dam Inundation Zones are found within the municipal city limits of Loma Linda.
A.2.2.2. Earthquake Shaking
The CGS 2 percent chance – 50-yr probability map was used as a qualitative guide in selecting an earthquake epicenter based shakemap scenario for analyses. The M7.8 Shakeout1 and M7.0 San Andreas -N. Coast – Peninsula – SC MTN Scenarios were chosen for use in analyses.
Intensity MMI Description/Damage
I-Not felt 0-1 Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions.
II-Weak 1-2 Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings.
III-Weak 2-3
Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly.
Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.
IV-Light 3-4
Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.
V-Moderate 4-5 Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.
VI-Strong 5-6 Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.
VII-Very strong 6-7
Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.
VIII-Severe 7-8
Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.
IX-Violent 8-9
Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse.
Buildings shifted off foundations.
X-Extreme 9-10 Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.
Source: USGS Scenario MMI Grid
A-6
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
A.2.2.3. Flood Zones
The input parameters for Hazus analysis of Flood exposure included depth grids created with the FEMA Flood Zone data mentioned in section A.2.2.3. 100-YR and 500-YR were scenarios that were used to analyze the exposure to inputs as depicted in Figure 7-4.
Hazard Flood Zone Description
100-YR Flood
[SFHA]
Subtype: Floodway
A "Regulatory Floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Communities must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations.
SFHA outside
Floodway
The land area covered by the floodwaters of the base flood is the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on NFIP maps. The SFHA is the area where the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP's) floodplain management regulations must be enforced and the area where the mandatory purchase of flood insurance applies.
500-YR Flood
[non-SFHA]
Subtypes: 0.2%
Annual Chance,
Protected by Levee
Moderate risk areas within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, and areas protected from the 1-percentannual-chance flood by a levee. No BFEs or base flood depths are shown within these zones.
Source: FEMA MSC DFIRM
A-7
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
A.2.2.4. Landslide Susceptibility
GIS layer with geographic boundaries defining the likelihood of deep-seated landslides. Underlying geology and slope angle are used in the creation of this layer by the California Geological Society. Low, Medium, and High landslide classes were chosen as summary classes for this plan.
Hazard Description
Low 1-5
These classes express the generalization that on very low slopes, landslide susceptibility is low even in weak materials, and that landslide susceptibility increases with slope and in weaker rocks.
Medium 6-7 Very high landslide susceptibility, classes VIII, IX, and X, includes moderate and steep slopes in hard rocks and weak rocks.
High 8-10 Very high landslide susceptibility, classes VIII, IX, and X, includes very steep slopes in hard rocks and moderate to very steep slopes in weak rocks.
Source: CGS Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides in California A.2.2.5. Wildfire Hazard Severity
A proprietary DP+S composite GIS layer derived from Wildland-urban interfaces, California Public Utilities Commission fire threat areas and Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Hazard Native Class Description
Moderate
Tier 1 HHZs are zones in direct proximity to communities, roads, and utility lines, and are a direct threat to public safety.
1 WUI is the potential treatment zone in which projects could be conducted to reduce wildland fire threats to people.
1 / Moderate See Cal Fire FHSZ (State Responsibility Area [SRA] & Local Responsibility Area [LRA])
High
Tier 2
Tier 2 fire-threat areas depict areas where there is an elevated risk (including likelihood and potential impacts on people and property) from utility associated wildfires.
High See Cal Fire FHSZ (State Responsibility Area [SRA] & Local Responsibility Area [LRA])
Very High
Tier 3
Tier 3 fire-threat areas depict areas where there is an extreme risk (including likelihood and potential impacts on people and property) from utility associated wildfires.
Very High
Classification of a zone as moderate, high or very high fire hazard is based on a combination of how a fire will behave and the probability of flames and embers threatening buildings. Each area of the map gets a score for flame length, embers, and the likelihood of the area burning.
Scores are then averaged over the zone areas. Final zone class (moderate, high and very high) is based on the averaged scores for the zone.
Source: Moderate - Cal Fire Tree Mortality, WUI, FHSZ; High - CPUC Utility Threat, Cal Fire FHSZ; Very High - High - CPUC Utility Threat, Cal Fire FHSZ (SRA & LRA)
A-8
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Methodology Overview
Figure 7-4: Data Analysis Methodology
A-9
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Data Dictionary
Table 7-1: Data Dictionary
Dataset Data Steward Notes
Municipal Boundaries Local Jurisdiction Have from local jurisdiction data request DEM NOAA NOAA Digital Coast
GNIS USGS Census
Stream Esri, NHD Rivers and Streams
Water Esri, NHD Bodies of water
Parcel Geometry County From county
Parcel Roll County From county, lacks some contributing fields to Hazus CDMS analysis but has required
Emergency Operations
Center Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table at Barton Road Fire Station Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table and insurance roll Hospital Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table
Police Local Jurisdiction All police departments are outside of municipal bounds
Hazardous Materials Site Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table Adult Residential Care Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table Child Care Center Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table Corp Yard Local Jurisdiction From local insurance roll
Dam USACE NID None in NID
Elder Residential Care Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table Library Local Jurisdiction From local insurance roll
Lodging Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table
Low Income Housing Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table and insurance roll Medical Facility Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table Park Local Jurisdiction Insurance roll from local jurisdiction Real Property Asset Insurance Provider Insurance roll from local jurisdiction Recreation Local Jurisdiction From local insurance roll Reservoir Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table and insurance roll School Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table
Veterinary Care Local Jurisdiction From Geocoded CI table Water Treatment Facility Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table and insurance roll Communications Tower Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table Fiber Optics Local Jurisdiction From data request
Highway Bridge Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table Levee FEMA None within municipal bounds
Levee Flood Wall USACE NLD None within municipal bounds A-10
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Dataset Data Steward Notes
Lift Station Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table
Sewer Main Local Jurisdiction From data request
Storm Drain Main Local Jurisdiction From data request
Street OSM OSM
Water Booster Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table Water Main Local Jurisdiction From data request
Water PRV Local Jurisdiction From geocoded CI table
Water Well Local Jurisdiction From data request and insurance roll Census Block US Census Bureau Census Tiger
Census Block Group US Census Bureau Census Tiger
ACS_2017 US Census Bureau
ACS
ACS 2017 data calculated to adjust for
demographics report, used in RA
Census Tract US Census Bureau Census Tiger
Awareness Zones DWR Not utilized in previous plans
Dam Inundation Cal OES Cal OES Dam inundation, DWR was referenced, little exposure
EQ Probabilistic MI USGS, CISN Used for defining EQ1
EQ Scenarios 1-X USGS, CISN
EQ1 is from closest most probabilistic San Jacinto
SJ Valley EQ2 is from Shakeout2 utilized in County
Plan
Flood Hazard FEMA Regional study from FEMA
Landslide Susceptibility CGS CGS Landslide classes
Wildfire Hazard Severity
Zone Cal Fire / CPUC Utilize new composite fire layer: Fire Threat CPUC, Tree Mortality, WUI, FHSZ EQ Fault Zones CGS Processed from CGS landslide susceptibility Fire Perimeter Calfire Cal Fire Statewide for burn perimeters 2019, in cartography dataset
Fire Regime MFRI USGS https://www.landfire.gov/NationalProductDescription s13.php
Qfaults USGS Obtained from USGS
A-11
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Insured Assets Roll
Site Value
Building/
Site Name # Bldg. Structure Contents Total
Corp Yard 2 $502,028 $165,905 $667,933
Corporation Yard 1 $256,526 $52,534 $309,060
Public Works 1 $245,502 $113,371 $358,873
Dwelling 2 $504,996 $ - $504,996
Dwelling 2 $504,996 $ - $504,996
Equipment 2 $ - $124,594 $124,594
Cable Television Equipment 1 $ - $124,594 $124,594
City Equipment Storage 1 $ - $ - $ -
Fire 2 $3,070,302 $436,051 $3,506,353
Fire Department 1 $2,682,853 $436,051 $3,118,904
Fire Station #2 1 $387,449 $ - $387,449
Library 1 $4,881,016 $ - $4,881,016
Civic Center Library 1 $4,881,016 $ - $4,881,016
Misc 35 $5,201,772 $269,354 $5,471,126
Vacant Land 10 $ - $ - $ -
Civic Center Complex 1 $5,201,772 $218,025 $5,419,797
Piano 1 $ - $11,583 $11,583
Hulda Crooks Sculpture 1 $ - $39,746 $39,746
Purchased By Redevelopment Agency 21 $ - $ - $ -
Park Land 1 $ - $ - $ -
Open Space 7 $ - $ - $ -
Debris Basin 2 $ - $ - $ -
Vacant Land 1 $ - $ - $ -
Parkland 2 $ - $ - $ -
Vacant Lot 1 $ - $ - $ -
Park Land 1 $ - $ - $ -
Poplar Commons 18 $ - $ - $ -
Purchased By Redevelopment Agency 18 $ - $ - $ -
Recreation 7 $1,171,874 $78,776 $1,250,650
Senior Center 1 $1,171,874 $ - $1,171,874
Hulda Crooks Park 1 $ - $ - $ -
Leonard Bailey Park 1 $ - $ - $ -
Community Garden 1 $ - $ - $ -
Dawson Park 1 $ - $ - $ -
Ball Park 1 $ - $ - $ -
Heritage Park 1 $ - $78,776 $78,776
A-12
CITY OF LOMA LINDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF LOMA LINDA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Site Value
Building/
Site Name # Bldg. Structure Contents Total
Storage 1 $29,675 $ - $29,675
40' X 60' Metal Storage Building 1 $29,675 $ - $29,675
Water 12 $8,084,988 $14,391,913 $22,476,901
Richardson #3 Water Treatment 1 $ - $ - $ -
Water Treatment Plant 1 $ - $ - $ -
Richardson#4 Water Treatment 1 $ - $ - $ -
Mountain View #5 Water Treatment 1 $ - $ - $ -
Mountain View #3 Water Treatment 1 $ - $ - $ -
Reservoir 4 $6,701,905 $6,805,158 $13,507,063
Reservoir 1 $1,383,083 $731,737 $2,114,820
Reservoir & Pump Station 1 $ - $6,855,018 $6,855,018
Golconda Well Site 1 $ - $ - $ -
Grand Total 89 $23,446,651 $15,466,593 $38,913,244
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
A-1
A
Appendix B. Process Documentation
B-2
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
Date: July 29, 2020
Time: 10:00 AM -12:00 AM
Location: Virtual (ZOOM)
City of Loma Linda
Hazard Mitigation Planning Meeting #1
Agenda:
1. Team Introductions (10 minutes)
2. City of Loma Linda Project Overview (10 minutes)
3. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Overview (10 minutes)
4. Project Goals and Expectations (10 minutes)
5. Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Roster (10 minutes)
6. Communication Protocols (5 minutes)
7. Break (5 minutes)
8. 2011 City of Loma Linda LHMP (15 minutes)
9. Data Needs (Critical Facilities List, vulnerable
populations, recent/past hazards, GIS) (10 minutes)
10. Community Engagement and Outreach Strategy (10
minutes)
11. Hazard Identification/Prioritization (20 minutes)
12. Next Steps and To Do List (5 minutes)
City of Loma Linda Project Overview
The City of Loma Linda has initiated an update to their Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and General Plan Safety Element. The General Plan was originally adopted in 2009.
Two components of this General Plan Update that address natural hazards and resilience:
2 - 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 1 - General Plan Safety Element Why Update these Documents Together?
General Plan Safety Element Goals
The following guiding policies (goals) are included in the 2009 General Plan Safety Element:
GOAL PS-1: Minimize the risks of property damage and personal injury resulting from seismic and geologic hazards.
GOAL PS-2: Protect the community from risks to lives and property created by flooding and stormwater runoff
GOAL PS-3: Reduce the potential for property damage and personal injury from slope failure hazards and erosion.
GOAL PS-4: Minimize the threat to persons, property, and the environment resulting from wildfires.
GOAL PS-5: Minimize the negative impacts associated with the storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials.
GOAL PS-6: Maintain a level of preparedness to adequately respond to emergency situations and disasters
GOAL PS-7: Support the San Bernardino Airport Land Use Commission.
GOAL PS-8: Minimize the threats to drivers and pedestrians at rail-highway crossings.
Safety Element
Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan
Emergency
Operations Plan
•Affects development and impacts
communities for 20 years
•Foundation for protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare
of residents and businesses
within your community
•Five year implementation plan
focused on mitigating hazards in
the short, medium, and long term.
•Identifies what to do within the
first 24-72 hours of an active or
passive emergency event.
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Overview
The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is Loma Linda’s strategic plan to assess and reduce the threat from natural hazard conditions. The LHMP will also help identify future impacts from climate change, allowing the City to prepare for these future conditions and mitigate their effects before they become a substantial problem. Under California law, cities must assess their vulnerability to climate change when preparing or updating an LHMP.
While not a requirement, having an LHMP creates a unified and deliberate approach to improving community resilience. A valid LHMP makes communities eligible for grant funding and additional post-disaster relief funds from FEMA and Cal OES. LHMPs remain valid for five years following approval and adoption by City Council.
The LHMP is part of a larger cycle of emergency management:
• The event (the disaster)
• Response: Taking action to save lives, minimize injuries, and reduce future damage immediately after an emergency
occurs.
• Recovery: Restoring normal conditions and “life as usual” after an emergency.
• Mitigation: Planning to reduce the threat to life, health, and property from future emergencies. The LHMP primarily applied to this part of the cycle.
• Preparedness: Planning the response activities in
anticipation of future emergencies.
Figure 3 - Four Phases of Emergency
Management
Figure 4 - Mitigation Linkages
Project Goals and Expectations
A key component of the LHMP is the identification of Plan Goals. These goals should cover the overall intent of the LHMP and be tailored to match Loma Linda’s characteristics and values. Often, we look to existing plans for goals that can be incorporated into the LHMP. The General Plan goals listed earlier can become a foundation for this plan. In addition, the following are goals from the 2011 LHMP:
• Reduction of damage caused by a significant earthquake in or near Loma Linda
• Prevention or mitigation of damage caused to structures and infrastructure by uncontrolled wildfire.
• Reduction or elimination of potential damage to structures and infrastructure caused by flooding from the San Timoteo Creek and tributaries.
• Reduce risk of wildfires through fuel reduction, by developing weed abatement protocol and distribute educational materials to residents. • To improve channel flow in conjunction with the realignment of Redlands Blvd. and California Street project. Include channel improvements during phase 1 of the realignment project.
LHMP Best Practices:
• Should consider the broader goals of Loma Linda
• Should be flexible and adaptable to changing conditions • Help define future mitigation efforts and actions
Goal Setting Process:
• The goals will be discussed/ re-visited at each meeting • Goals will be finalized prior to release of public draft LHMP Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Roster
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team (HMPT) actively guides the development of the LHMP and provides feedback during the process. The Planning Team predominantly consists of representatives from City departments. Representatives from stakeholder agencies and community partners are also invited to participate in different ways. The Planning Team has invited the following individuals:
• Shannon Kendall (City of Loma Linda/
LHMP POC)
• Barbara Erwin (Omnitrans)
• Barbara Nicholson (City of Loma Linda)
• Brett McPherson (LLUH)
• Carrie Cruz (County OES)
• Dan Harker (City of Loma Linda)
• Diana DeAnda (City of Loma Linda)
• Ehren Ngo (LLUH)
• Eleazar Rubalcava (City of Loma Linda)
• Ellie Bergthold (VA Hospital)
• Esther Martinez (City of Redlands)
• Eric Schilt (LLUH)
• Frank Sirna(Community Rep/ CERT)
• Geoffry Danker (So Cal Gas)
• Haide Aguirre (City of Grand Terrace)
• James Farner (BNSF RR)
• Jarb Thaipejr (City of Loma Linda)
• Jeff Peterson (City of Loma Linda)
• John Toon (Cal FIRE)
• John Trujillo (City of Loma Linda)
• Ken Morse (Redlands USD)
• Kristine Scott (Sempra)
• Konrad Bolowich (City of Loma Linda)
• Lorena A Matarrita (City of Loma Linda/
Safety Element POC)
• Mark Cloud (SC Edison)
• Melissa Curtis (Cal FIRE)
• Mark Brettnacher (LL Academy)
• Nick Oldendorf (City of San Bernardino)
• Raymond Martinez (Cal FIRE)
• Robert Anderson (Red Cross)
• Robert McCray (VA Hospital)
• Russ Handy (City of Loma Linda)
• Robert Bavier (Union Pacific RR)
• Sonia Brown (Cal OES)
• Tom Ingalls (City of Loma Linda)
Question: Who is missing from this list?
The HMPT can invite key stakeholders/participants to this process; the following is a list of potential invitees:
• American Red Cross
• Cal FIRE
• Loma Linda University Health
• University of Redlands
• City of Redlands
• City of Colton
• City of San Bernardino
• County of San Bernardino
• Colton Joint Unified School District
• Redlands Unified School District
• Southern CA Gas Company
• Southern California Edison
• Frontier Communications
Question: Who is missing from this list?
Communication Protocols
The primary contacts for the City of Loma Linda and Atlas Planning will be responsible for most of the communication. These primary contacts are:
City of Loma Linda
Shannon Kendall
Emergency Services Coordinator
Phone: (909) 799-2860
Email: [email protected]
Atlas Planning Solutions
Aaron Pfannenstiel, AICP, LEED AP
LHMP Project Manager
Phone: (909) 374-4848
Email: [email protected]
At times, it may be more efficient to have communication between persons other than the primary contacts. In these instances, please make sure the primary contacts are CC’d on any transmittals.
2011 LHMP Hazards of Concern
What Additional Hazards Should Be Added?
• Drought
• Climate Change
2011 Critical Facilities
Type of Facility Names of Facility Number of Facilities Medical Facilities • Jerry L. Pettis VA Medical
Center
• Loma Linda University
Medical Center (LLUMC)
• LLUMC Children’s Hospital
• LLUMC Behavioral
Medicine Center
• LLUMC East Campus
Hospital
• LLUMC Heart and Surgical
Hospital
7 City Services • City Hall 1
Emergency Services • Fire Station 251
• Fire Station 252
• Police Department
3 What additional facilities should be added to this list? • Water Infrastructure?
• Bridges?
• Parks?
• Community Centers?
2011 Mitigation Actions
Implementation
Strategy Mitigation
Project
Lead
Agency
Hazard Funding Source Cost Timeframe
Anderson Bridge
Seismic Retrofit
City Public
Works
Earthquake Federal
Transportation
Grant (CalTrans)
$259,000 Short-term
Zanja Channel
Improvement
City Public
Works
Flood TBD $6,000,000 Short-term
Urban-Wildland
Interface Hillside
Weed Abatement
City Fire
Department
Fire Fire Department
Annual Budget
TBD Long-term
Loma Linda University
Medical Center:
Seismic Retrofit
Project
Loma Linda
University
Medical
Center
Earthquake TBD TBD Long-term
Did you progress on any of these actions since the last plan? Data Needs
Various types of data are necessary to complete the LHMP. This includes information on hazard types present in Loma Linda and the areas of elevated hazards, recent hazard events, past hazard mitigation actions, critical facilities, and persons and community assets who face heightened vulnerability to hazards. The following categories of data are crucial to LHMP development. • Critical Facilities List (to be created by the team)
• Vulnerable Populations or Assets
• Past Disasters
• Recent Hazard Events
• GIS Data Sets (State and Federal sources)
Vulnerable Populations and Assets
Past Disasters
Past Hazard Events
• Landers Earthquake 06/28/1992, San Jacinto 1968 04/09/1968, • "South Hills" wildfires:
o 2001-one wildfire
o 1999-two wildfires
o 1998-seven wildfires
• December 2010 Winter Storms, Flood of 1969 01/18/1969, Flood of 1938 (Worst flood in Loma Linda history)
Since 1980 there have been 45 Disaster Declaration/Proclamations for the state of California from the Federal, State, and County Governments:
• 27 Wildfires
• 1 Earthquake
• 7 Floods
• 11 Severe Storms/Weather Events
• 1 Terrorist Attack
LHMP Community Engagement and Outreach
In accordance with FEMA guidance, communities should use an open public involvement process with developing hazard mitigation plans. Typical engagement for an LHMP includes these components:
Online Engagement –
• Online Survey to Loma Linda community members
• Social Media Posts:
o Facebook
o Twitter: Police Department
o NextDoor
o Nixle
o City Newsletters
• Project Website
The overall City of Loma Linda Engagement Strategy is still under review and should be completed shortly. Upon completion, specific activities for the LHMP process will be finalized.
What Community Engagement is occurring within the City
today?
Hazard Identification / Prioritization
As part of the data collection process, the Planning Team will identify the hazards to be addressed in the LHMP. The table provided identifies hazards typically covered in an LHMP and some preliminary recommendations.
Hazard
Natural Hazard
Other Hazards
Technological
Hazard
Threat and
Disturbance Hazard
SHMP
Included in this
LHMP
Agricultural pests/diseases X X
Air pollution X X
Aircraft incident X
Aquatic Invasive Species X X N/A
Avalanche X X N/A
Civil disturbance and riot X X
Climate change X X All Profiles
Coastal flooding and storms X X N/A
Cyber Threats X X
Dam failure X X
Drought X X
Energy shortage X X
Epidemic/ Pandemic/Vector Borne Disease X X
Erosion X X
Expansive soil X N/A
Extreme cold X X
Extreme heat X X
Flooding X X
Fracking X X N/A
Hail X N/A
Hazardous materials release X X
Hurricane X N/A
Landslide X X
Levee failure X X
Lightning X
Methane-containing soils X N/A
Natural Gas Pipeline Hazards X X
Oil Spills X X N/A
Hazard
Natural Hazard
Other Hazards
Technological
Hazard
Threat and
Disturbance Hazard
SHMP
Included in this
LHMP
Radiological Accidents X X N/A
Sea level rise X X N/A
Seiche X X N/A
Seismic Hazards X X
Fault rupture X X
Seismic Shaking X X
Liquefaction X X
Severe wind X
Severe weather and Storms X X
Storm surge X N/A
Subsidence X
Terrorism X X
Thunderstorm X
Tornadoes X N/A
Transportation Accidents X X
Tree Mortality X X
Tsunami X X N/A
Urban Fire X X
Volcano X X N/A
Wildfire X X
Climate Change: Under state law, cities must assess their vulnerability to climate change when preparing or updating an LHMP. Our recommendation is to treat climate change a factor that can influence the frequency, intensity, and/or locations of other hazards and used to determine future risk for relevant hazards.
After identifying the hazards, these hazards will be prioritized using a method recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Each hazard is graded on four criteria, using a scale of 1 to 4. Each criterion is assigned a weighting value, and all scores are aggregated to determine a final priority for each hazard.
The four criteria for each hazard are:
Next Steps
» Hazard Mitigation Planning Process July 2020 - December 2020 » Community Outreach October 2020 - February 2021
» Administrative Draft LHMP January 2021
» Public Review Draft LHMP Document February 2021 – March 2021 » Cal OES/FEMA Review Draft Document March 2021
First Name Last Name Email Registratio Approval Status
Robert McCray robert.mcc ######## approved
Mark Cloud Mark.cloud######## approved
Thomas Ingalls tingalls@lo ######## approved
City of Loma Linda jthaipejr@ ######## approved
Eric Schilt eschilt@llu ######## approved
Frank Sirna fscert2014 ######## approved
Elfega "EllieBergthold elfega.berg######## approved
Eleazar Rubalcava Erubalcava ######## approved
Melissa Curtis melissa.cur######## approved
Esther Martinez emartinez@######## approved
John Trujillo Jtrujillo@lo######## approved
Lorena Matarrita lmatarrita@######## approved
Ehren Ngo [email protected]######## approved
Kristine Scott Kscott@so ######## approved
Ken Morse ken_morse ######## approved
Shannon Kendall skendall@l ######## approved
Loma Linda
Hazard Mitigation Plan
2021 Update
Planning Committee Meeting #2
Wed. Nov 18, 2020
PLEASE NAVIGATE TO: pollev.com/dynamicplanning
Important Links and Project Info
Project Website: mitigatehazards.com
http://mitigatehazards.com/loma-linda/
Password: LomaLinda2020
Polling Website for Smartphone:
pollev.com/dynamicplanning
Agenda
Welcome and Introductions
Meeting #1 Recap
Risk Assessment Data Review
RAMP (Risk Assessment Mapping Platform)
Tool Review
RAMP Poll EV Exercises
Discussion of hazard-specific areas of
concern
Outreach update
Next Steps
Welcome and Introductions
Meet the Team
POLL-EV
Introductions
PLEASE NAVIGATE TO:
pollev.com/dynamicplanning
Meeting #1 Recap
Hazard Mitigation Planning & More
Meeting #1 Recap
Project Goals and Expectations (2011 LHMP)
• Reduction of damage caused by a significant earthquake in or near Loma Linda
• Prevention or mitigation of damage caused to structures and infrastructure by uncontrolled wildfire.
• Reduction or elimination of potential damage to structures and infrastructure caused by flooding from the San Timoteo Creek and tributaries.
• Reduce risk of wildfires through fuel reduction, by developing weed abatement protocol and distribute educational
materials to residents.
• To improve channel flow in conjunction with the realignment of Redlands Blvd. and California Street project. Include channel improvements during phase 1 of the realignment
project.
Meeting #1 Recap
Community Engagement and Outreach
Water Bill Insert
Channel 3 Advertisement
Planning Process
Risk Assessment Review
Current methods and data
Risk Assessment Process
• Inventory hazards in document.
• Inventory historic plans and identify hazards.
• Develop Universe of Hazards.
• Understand Hazard Perceptions.
• Understand Frequency of Occurrences.
• Understand Severity (geographic extent, possible impacts). 2011 HMP Profiled:
Natural
Hazards:
• Earthquakes
• Floods
• Slope Failure
• Wildfires
Non-natural
Hazards:
• Airplane Crash
• Hazardous Waste
& Materials
• Railroad crash
• Terrorism
Potential Hazards
Hazards
2011 Loma Linda
HMP
2009 Loma Linda
General Plan
2016 San Bernardino
County MJHMP
2018 California State
HMP
Climate Change ■ ■ ■
Dam Failure ■
Drought ■ ■ ■
Earthquake ■ ■ ■ ■
Flood ■ ■ ■ ■
Landslide ■ ■
Levee Failure ■ ■
Human-caused ■* ■ ■ ■
Pandemic ■
Severe Weather ■ ■
Soil Hazards ■ ■ ■
Terrorism & Tech ■* ■ ■
Volcano ■
Wildfire ■ ■ ■ ■
* Medium priority, not profiled in 2011 HMP
Hazard Ranking from Meeting #1
• Slope Failure • Slope Failure
2021 updates to 2011 HMP:
Natural Hazards:
• Earthquakes
• Floods
• Slope Failure
• Wildfires
Additional natural
hazards:
• Climate Change
• Drought
Non-natural
Hazards:
• Airplane Crash
• Terrorism
• Hazardous Waste
& Materials
• Railroad crash
Hazards with Known
Spatial Footprints
“Human-caused
Hazards”
“Haz. Waste &
Materials”
2021 HMP
Risk Assessment Data
Developing Data and Hazard Profiles
Hazard Mitigation
Risk Assessment Data
Paradigm:
Risk
Assessment
Data /
FEMA
Vulnerability
Requirements
Meaningful and
Detailed
Mitigation
Program
Risk Assessment
Data
Inputs:
Population
Parcels
Critical Infrastructure
Outputs:
Hazard Exposure
Damage Estimations
Risk Assessment Data Mapping
Hazard Exposure
Damage Estimation
New Risk Assessment Maps
• Custom Maps for City
• Demographics Data
• Hazard Overview Maps
• Hazard Exposure Snapshots w/ Maps
Demographic Data
• 2017 5-year estimates, Census
American Community Survey
(ACS)
• Understanding population
demographics is import for
communication and outreach
• Provides “general”
understanding of vulnerable
populations
Critical
Infrastructure
Parcel Value
Parcel Count
Population
Exposure
Snap Shots
Exposure Maps: Flood and Slope Failure
EQ Scenario selection
• Step one: Understand probability of large-scale earthquakes in the area.
• Step two: Explore EQ Scenarios available from USGS
• Step three: Research EQ risk available about local active faults. • Step four: Select Scenarios
• Step five: Use scenarios in conjunction with FEMA software to run damage estimation models.
Earthquake
Probability
ShakeMap
• CGS mapping shows the
relative intensity of ground
shaking in California from
based upon local fault
rupture potential.
• The shaking potential is
calculated as the level of
ground motion that has a
2% chance of being
exceeded in 50 years,
which is the same as the
level of ground-shaking with
about a 2500-year average
repeat time.
Source: 2016 California
Geological Survey (CGS)
data
Drought and Climate Change
Climate Change could cause increased
frequency and durations of:
EXTREME HEAT SEVERE WEATHER DROUGHT
HIGH WIND LEVEE FAILURE
Climate Change Projections
Risk Assessment Mapping Platform (RAMP)
RAMP • Provides stakeholders the ability to interact with risk assessment data.
• Not a replacement for local knowledge but
reinforcement of known vulnerabilities.
• Provides flood risk exposure summaries for parcels,
populations and critical facilities data within FEMA’s
mapped floodplains.
• Useful in all phases of emergency management.
Let’s pinpoint your
vulnerabilities
• Use your tools
• Use preexisting documents
• Plans; CWPPs, Safety Elements, CIPs
• Reports; Drainage Reports, Building
Reports
• Use your local knowledge!
POLL-EV
Risk Assessment
PLEASE NAVIGATE TO:
• pollev.com/dynamicplanning
Mitigation Strategies
General Discussion
Potential mitigate actions and outstanding issues
Prior 2011 Mitigation Actions
• Anderson Bridge retrofit completed (completed, previous MA) • Mission Zanja channel improvement (partially completed, previous MA)
• Urban-Wildland Interface Hillside Weed Abatement
• Loma Linda University Medical Center: Seismic Retrofit Project Additional Opportunities (not included in 2011 LHMP)
• 2010 Flood created opportunity for construction of flood control basins in the foothills south of the city to mitigate flood hazards • Replacement of water mains and installation of fiberoptic cables to enhance water system capabilities
Potential Mitigation Actions
Typical Mitigation Categories
• Plans and Regulations
• Ordinances, Regulations
• Structural Projects
• Utility Undergrounding, Structural Retrofits
• Natural Systems Protection
• Stream restoration, erosion control
Potential Mitigation Actions
Typical Mitigation Categories
• Education Programs
• Outreach materials, websites, presentations
• Preparedness and Response Actions
• Mutual aid agreements, equipment purchases,
notification protocols
Mitigation Action Ideas
• Work with Edison on future undergrounding projects.
• Identify new crossing alternatives over the railroad ROW and flood-control channel.
• Coordinate with existing care facilities about trainings and exercises.
• Construction of an additional water reservoir to increase water supply in case of earthquake
• Install a vertical isolation system for LLUH
• Implement a Nixle evacuation system for City residents and businesses
Outreach Updates
• Continue pushing the online survey out to any and
every group/organization that can assist with
outreach
• Water Bill Insert distribution anticipated to occur
in November and December
• Leverage CERT volunteers for additional outreach
assistance.
Next Steps
Next Steps (4 Month Window)
Finalize Risk Assessment
Start Damage Assessments
Develop Hazard Profiles in Narrative Format
Start Exercises #2 and #3
Finalize
Upcoming Data Requests…
• Any damage resulting from natural hazard events.
• New Building Permits (municipalities).
• Capabilities Assessments.
• Successful Mitigation Activities.
• Reporting on Historic Mitigation Actions.
Thank You!!!
Ethan Mobley, AICP
Dynamic Planning + Science
[email protected]
Phone: 970-323-4331
Aaron Pfannenstiel, AICP
Atlas Planning Solutions
[email protected]
Phone: 909-374-4828
First Name Last Name Email Registratio Approval Status
Robert McCray robert.mcc ######## approved
Mark Cloud Mark.cloud######## approved
Thomas Ingalls tingalls@lo ######## approved
City of Loma Linda jthaipejr@ ######## approved
Eric Schilt eschilt@llu ######## approved
Frank Sirna fscert2014 ######## approved
Elfega "EllieBergthold elfega.berg######## approved
Eleazar Rubalcava Erubalcava ######## approved
Melissa Curtis melissa.cur######## approved
Esther Martinez emartinez@######## approved
John Trujillo Jtrujillo@lo######## approved
Lorena Matarrita lmatarrita@######## approved
Ehren Ngo [email protected]######## approved
Kristine Scott Kscott@so ######## approved
Ken Morse ken_morse ######## approved
Shannon Kendall skendall@l ######## approved
City of Loma Linda - Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
1 9/30/2019
2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
I. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Dear Community Member,
Is your home or place of work susceptible to damage from natural hazards? Do you want to recover quicker from disasters and prevent damage from future events? Your participation in this survey can help Loma Linda become safer. We know you are busy; we respectfully request a few moments of your time to respond to the brief survey below.
The City of Loma Linda is conducting a local effort to prepare a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. This plan identifies natural hazards throughout the City and presents an assessment of critical facilities vulnerable to these hazards.
The plan lists potential actions to reduce risk and future damage.
Your responses to this survey will inform the preparation of the plan. Thank you for your time and cooperation.
II. Hazard Awareness
1. Please indicate whether you live or work in the City of Loma Linda. a. I live in the City of Loma Linda.
b. I work in the City of Loma Linda.
c. I live and work in the City of Loma Linda.
d. Neither applies to me, but I am interested in the City’s resiliency.
2. What is the ZIP code of your home?
3. Has a disaster in your current residence impacted you? a. Yes
b. No
4. If you answered yes to the previous question, please select the type of disaster that you have been impacted by (select all that apply).
Aircraft Incident Drought
Slope Failure Seismic Hazards
Flooding Wildfire
Terrorism Other
Hazardous Materials
Climate Change
5. If you selected Other above, please list any additional hazards that have previously impacted your neighborhood or home. (insert paragraph Option)
City of Loma Linda - Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
2 9/30/2019
6. The following hazards could potentially impact the City. Please mark the THREE (3) hazards that are of most concern to your neighborhood or home.
Aircraft Incident Drought
Slope Failure Seismic Hazards
Flooding Wildfire
Terrorism Other
Hazardous Materials
Climate Change
7. If you selected Other above, please list any additional hazards that have previously impacted your neighborhood or home. (insert paragraph Option)
8. The planning team is using various data sources to identify hazards in your community; however, some of these data sources do not provide data at a general citywide level. Are there any small-scale issues, such as ponding at a certain intersection during rain, that you would like the planning team to consider? a. I am not aware of local hazards
b. I am aware of local hazards
Please provide as much detail as possible, including location and type of hazard.
9. How concerned are you that climate change may create new hazardous situations in Loma Linda, or make existing natural hazards worse?
a. Very concerned
b. Somewhat concerned
c. Somewhat unconcerned
d. Not at all concerned
e. Unsure
10. If you have taken any action to protect yourself against natural hazards, how confident are you that these actions will be sufficient to protect against more severe hazards that are expected because of climate change?
a. Very confident
b. Somewhat confident
c. Somewhat unconfident
d. Not at all confident
e. Unsure
11. When do you think climate change will pose a threat to your health, property, livelihood, or overall wellbeing?
a. It already is
b. Within the next five years
c. In five to twenty years
d. Not for at least another twenty years
e. Never, or not in my lifetime
City of Loma Linda - Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
3 9/30/2019
12. If you are a homeowner, do you have adequate homeowners’ insurance to cover the hazards that could impact your home?
a. Yes, my insurance coverage should be adequate.
b. No, I don’t believe my insurance coverage would be adequate for a major disaster. c. Unsure
d. I do not have an insurance policy.
e. Not applicable; I rent my current residence.
13. If you rent your residence, do you have renters’ insurance? a. Yes
b. No
c. Not applicable; I own my residence.
14. Do you have flood insurance for your home?
a. Yes, I own my home and have flood insurance.
b. Yes, I rent my home and have flood insurance.
c. No, but I am interested in reviewing flood insurance options (http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/).
15. Have you done anything to your home to make it less vulnerable to hazards such as earthquakes, floods, and fires? a. Yes
b. No
c. Not applicable; I rent my residence.
If not, do you plan to?
16. If a severe hazard event occurred today such that all services were cut off from your home (power, gas, water, sewer) and you were unable to leave or access a store for 72 hours, which of these items do you have readily available? Select all that apply.
a. Potable water (3 gallons per person)
b. Cooking and eating utensils
c. Can opener
d. Canned / nonperishable foods (ready to
eat)
e. Gas grill/camping stove
f. Extra medications and contact lenses (if
applicable)
g. First aid kit/supplies
h. Portable AM/FM radio (solar-powered,
hand crank, or batteries)
i. Handheld “walkietalkie” radios (with
batteries)
j. Important family photos/documentation in
a water- and fireproof container
k. Extra clothes and shoes
l. Blanket(s) / sleeping bag(s)
m. Cash
n. Flashlight (with batteries)
o. Gasoline
p. Telephone (with batteries)
q. Pet supplies
r. Secondary source of heat
For more information on emergency kits, visit: https://www.ready.gov/kit What else do you have in your emergency kit?
City of Loma Linda - Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
4 9/30/2019
17. Are you familiar with the special needs of your neighbors in the event of a disaster situation (special needs may include limited mobility, severe medical conditions, memory impairments)? a. Yes
b. No
18. Are you a trained member of your Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)? a. Yes
b. No, but I would like to learn more about CERT.
c. No, I am not interested in being a trained CERT member.
For more information about CERT, please visit:
http://www.lomalindacert.com/
19. How can the City help you become better prepared for a disaster? (choose all that apply) a. Provide effective emergency notifications and communication. b. Provide training and education to residents and business owners on how to reduce future damage. c. Provide community outreach regarding emergency preparedness. d. Create awareness of special needs and vulnerable populations. e. Other (please specify)
If you do NOT work in the City of Loma Linda, please skip to question 21.
20. What is the ZIP code of your workplace?
21. Does your employer have a plan for disaster recovery in place? a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
22. Does your employer have a workforce communications plan to implement following a disaster, so they are able to contact you?
a. Yes
b. No
City of Loma Linda - Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
5 9/30/2019
III. Recommendations and Future Participation
23. Would you like to be contacted when the Draft 2021 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan is available for review? a. Yes; please notify me using my contact information in the next question. b. No
24. If you would like to be notified of future opportunities to participate in hazard mitigation and resiliency planning, please provide your name and e-mail address. If you do not have an e-mail address, please provide your mailing address.
Full Name:
EMail Address:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip:
25. Please provide us with any additional comments/suggestions/questions that you have regarding your risk of future hazard events.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. If you have any questions, or if you know of other people/organizations that should be involved, please contact Shannon Kendall at [email protected]. 7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 1/16 Hazard Awareness
Please indicate whether you live or work in the City of Loma Linda. 57 responses
What is the ZIP code of your home?
57 responses
2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan
Survey
57 responses
Publish analytics
I live in the City of Loma Linda.
I work in the City of Loma Linda.
I live and work in the City of
Loma Linda.
Neither applies to me, but I am
interested in the City’s
resiliency.
15.8%
73.7%
91730 91750 92301 92346 92374 92404 92503 92506 92584
0 5
10 15
1 (1.8%)
2 (3.5%)
1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%)1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%)1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%)1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%)1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%)1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%) 6 (10.5%)
4 (7%)
11 (19.3%)
2 (3.5%)
3 (5.3%)
1 (1.8%)
2 (3.5%)
1 (1.8%)
2 (3.5%)
3 (5.3%) 3 (5.3%)3 (5.3%) 3 (5.3%)
1 (1.8%)
2 (3.5%)
1 (1.8%)
2 (3.5%)
1 (1.8%)
2 (3.5%)
1 (1.8%
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 2/16 Has a disaster in your current residence impacted you?
57 responses
If you answered yes to the previous question, please select the type of disaster that you have been impacted by (select all that apply). 57 responses
Yes
No
68.4%
31.6%
0 10 20 30
Aircraft Incident
Climate Change
Drought
Flooding
Hazardous Materials
Seismic Hazards
Slope Failure
Terrorism
Wildfire
Other
2 (3.5%)
3 (5.3%)
7 (12.3%)
14 (24.6%)
2 (3.5%)
10 (17.5%)
2 (3.5%)
5 (8.8%)
13 (22.8%)
23 (40.4%)
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 3/16 If you selected Other above, please list any additional hazards that have previously impacted your neighborhood or home. (Otherwise put "N/A") 57 responses
The following hazards could potentially impact the City. Please mark the THREE (3) hazards that are of most concern to your neighborhood or home.
57 responses
N/A
n/a
Pandemic
NA
na
Does not apply to me.
Wild animals, such as small Coyotes and/or Cougar spotted on my front porch going after my cat.
COVID Pandemic
Does not apply but I had to answer the question.
0 10 20 30 40
Aircraft Incident
Climate Change
Drought
Flooding
Hazardous Materials
Seismic Hazards
Slope Failure
Terrorism
Wildfire
Other
9 (15.8%)
9 (15.8%)
18 (31.6%)
23 (40.4%)
10 (17.5%)
40 (70.2%
5 (8.8%)
18 (31.6%)
29 (50.9%)
7 (12.3%)
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 4/16 If you selected Other above, please list any additional hazards that have previously impacted your neighborhood or home. (Otherwise put "N/A") 57 responses
The planning team is using various data sources to identify hazards in your community; however, some of these data sources do not provide data at a general citywide level. Are there any small-scale issues, such as ponding at a certain intersection during rain, that you would like the planning team to consider?
57 responses
N/A
n/a
NA
na
Homeless encampments; increased homeless roaming the neighborhood; general safety
Overhanging electric cables (Edison)
Severe Weather
Flooding
Local crime
I am not aware of local hazards
I am aware of local hazards
22.8%
77.2%
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 5/16 If you indicated “I am aware of local hazards” above, please provide as much detail as possible, including the location and type of hazard. (Otherwise put "N/A") 57 responses
How concerned are you that climate change may create new hazardous situations in Loma Linda, or make existing natural hazards worse? 57 responses
N/A
n/a
NA
na
Potential for flooding at Loma Linda Academy during periods of heavy rain. Potential for flooding at the base of the South Hills along Lawton and Beaumont Avenues when the hillside interfaces with homes.
Debris flow from hills south of town. Catch basins overwhelmed.
Does not apply to me.
street flooding at Richardson between Redlands Blvd and the 10 freeway at the hotel exit of Richardson
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Somewhat unconcerned
Not at all concerned
Unsure
10.5%
19.3%
10.5%
54.4%
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 6/16 If you have taken any action to protect yourself against natural hazards, how confident are you that these actions will be sufficient to protect against more severe hazards that are expected because of climate change?
57 responses
When do you think climate change will pose a threat to your health, property, livelihood, or overall wellbeing?
57 responses
Very confident
Somewhat confident
Somewhat unconfident
Not at all confident
Unsure
10.5%
14%
21.1%
50.9%
It already is
Within the next five years
In five to twenty years
Not for at least another twenty
years
Never, or not in my lifetime
12.3%
8.8%
31.6%
12.3%
35.1%
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 7/16 If you are a homeowner, do you have adequate homeowners’ insurance to cover the hazards that could impact your home?
57 responses
If you rent your residence, do you have renters’ insurance? 57 responses
Yes, my insurance coverage
should be adequate.
No, I don’t believe my insurance
coverage would be adequate for
a major disaster.
Unsure
I do not have an insurance
policy.
Not applicable; I rent my current
residence.
29.8%
17.5%
40.4%
Yes
No
Not applicable; I own my
residence.
19.3%
66.7%
14%
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 8/16 Do you have flood insurance for your home?
57 responses
Have you done anything to your home to make it less vulnerable to hazards such as earthquakes, floods, and fires?
57 responses
Yes, I own my home and have
flood insurance.
Yes, I rent my home and have
flood insurance.
No, but I am interested in
reviewing flood insurance
options (http://
www.floodsmart.gov/
floodsmart/).
59.6%
8.8% 31.6%
Yes
No
Not applicable; I rent my
residence.
19.3% 26.3%
54.4%
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 9/16 If you answered no above, do you plan to do anything to your residence to make it less vulnerable to hazards such as earthquakes, floods, and fires? (Otherwise put "N/A")
57 responses
N/A
n/a
NA
Does not apply to me.
Have items more secure to not fall to the ground
I plan to
na
"N/A"
Yes
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 10/16 If a severe hazard event occurred today such that all services were cut off from your home (power, gas, water, sewer) and you were unable to leave or access a store for 72 hours, which of these items do you have readily available? Select all that apply.
57 responses
0 20 40 60
Potable water (3 gallons…
Cooking and eating utensils
Can opener
Canned / nonperishable f…
Gas grill/camping stove
Extra medications and co…
First aid kit/supplies
Portable AM/FM radio (s…
Handheld “walkietalkie” r…
Important family photos/d…
Extra clothes and shoes
Blanket(s) / sleeping bag(s)
Cash
Flashlight (with batteries)
Gasoline
Telephone (with batteries)
Pet supplies
Secondary source of heat
38 (66.7%)
50 (87.7%)
52 (91.2%)
53 (93%)
39 (68.4%)
40 (70.2%)
54 (94.7%)
34 (59.6%)
20 (35.1%)
23 (40.4%)
46 (80.7%)
48 (84.2%)
42 (73.7%)
51 (89.5%)
15 (26.3%)
32 (56.1%)
32 (56.1%)
23 (40.4%)
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 11/16 What else do you have in your emergency kit? (If nothing else, put "N/A") 57 responses
For more information on emergency kits, visit: https://www.ready.gov/kit Are you a trained member of your Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)?
57 responses
N/A
n/a
Solar chargers with battery packs; shelters; sanitation supplies; disaster medical supplies;
shelter and sanitation supplies
HAM RADIO, WEAPONS
4x4 vehicle, mountain bikes, Camping trailer, self defense tools Medical triage items, list from CERT,
Disposable paper products, trash bags, firewood, lighter/matches, fire extinguisher, toiletries, sanitizing products, towels, small tools,
Yes
No, but I would like to learn
more about CERT.
No, I am not interested in being
a trained CERT member.
24.6%
33.3%
42.1%
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 12/16 For more information about CERT, please visit:http://www.lomalindacert.com/ How can the City help you become better prepared for a disaster? (choose all that apply)
57 responses
0 20 40 60
Provide effective
emergency notifications…
Provide training and
education to residents an…
Provide community
outreach regarding emer…
Create awareness of
special needs and vulner…
Other (please specify
below)
50 (87.7%)
36 (63.2%)
43 (75.4%)
32 (56.1%)
0 (0%)
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 13/16 If you answered "Other" above, please specify below.
57 responses
*If you do NOT work in the City of Loma Linda, please skip the next question* What is the ZIP code of your workplace?
57 responses
N/A
n/a
NA
"N/A"
Does not apply to me.
None
na
Send emails
send out informative fliers and scenario examples through mail. 92223 92346 92350 92354 92408 92418 92534 92563
0 20
40 60
1 (1.8%) 2 (3.5%) 4 (7%)
44 (77.2%)
3 (5.3%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (1.8%) 7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 14/16 Does your employer have a plan for disaster recovery in place? 57 responses
Does your employer have a workforce communications plan to implement following a disaster, so they are able to contact you?
57 responses
Recommendations and Future Participation
Yes
No
I don’t know
93%
Yes
No
98.2%
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 15/16 Would you like to be contacted when the Draft 2021 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan is available for review?
57 responses
If you would like to be notified of future opportunities to participate in hazard mitigation and resiliency planning, please provide your name and e-mail address.
If you do not have an e-mail address, please provide your mailing address. This information will be kept confidential.
57 responses
N/A
No
n/a
na
[email protected]
Cambria Boyer [email protected]
Joe Bruno [email protected]
[email protected]
No.
Yes; please notify me using my
contact information in the next
question.
No
31.6%
68.4%
7/9/2021 2020 Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-AUd8QagYuKZxNhzzv9p7BPq0JhZ2IpZQIJap6Pzet4/viewanalytics 16/16 Please provide us with any additional comments/suggestions/questions that you have regarding your risk of future hazard events.
57 responses
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy N/A
n/a
None
NA
none
Thank you
Thanks for reaching out with this survey.
None.
.
Forms
We are updating our Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
GET INVOLVED &
PROVIDE YOUR INPUT
HTTPS://FORMS.GLE/XWRC2P3XXD5FVUZM6
VISIT OUR PROGRESS AT:
HTTPS://WWW.LOMALINDACA.GOV/OUR_CITY/DEPARTMENTS/COMMUNITY_DEVE LOPMENT/HAZARD_MITIGATION_PLAN
WHAT IS AN LHMP?
• Improves local resilience to hazards
• Funded through grant money from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)
• Prepared by city staff
o Support from key city stakeholders
o Support from technical consultants
• Incorporates community member feedback
• Draft will be available for public review
February 2021
• Final adoption in the spring 2021
o Pending Cal OES approval
o Pending FEMA approval
FOLLOW OUR PROGRESS/TAKE THE
SURVEY
THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA IS PREPARING ITS LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN! WHAT DOES AN LHMP DO?
• Summarizes our community’s threats, such as —
o drought, flooding, earthquakes, wildfires
• Identifies how climate change affects future hazards in the City • Identifies how community members and assets are vulnerable to the threats of these hazards
• Outlines a strategy to aid in specific policy and action recommendations to City staff and community partners to improve resiliency to hazard events • Includes steps on how to maintain and keep the plan updated and current WHY HAVE AN LHMP?
• Protect our community from current and future hazards • Make Loma Linda eligible for more FEMA funding for additional hazard mitigation efforts (Robert T. Stafford Act and the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000)
• Make Loma Linda eligible to receive disaster relief funding (California Government Code § 8685.9)
City of Loma Linda Hazard Mitigation Plan
Announcement
The City of Loma Linda has begun preparation of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), a five-year strategic plan to be better prepared for hazard events. Development of the plan, is being funded through a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The plan is being prepared by City staff, with support from key stakeholders, and technical consultants. As part of the planning process the City will be seeking input from Loma Linda residents and businesses. Please check the City’s website for future meetings, surveys, and online engagement opportunities. https://www.lomalindaca.gov/our_city/departments/community_development/hazard_mitigation_plan To take our survey, please use the following address:
https://forms.gle/XWrC2p3Xxd5FVuzm6
The plan will outline a Hazard Mitigation Strategy that will provide specific policy and action recommendations to City staff and community partners to improve how Loma Linda responds to hazard events. In addition to protecting Loma Linda from current and future hazards, having an LHMP will allow Loma Linda to be eligible for grants from FEMA , it will also make Loma Linda eligible to receive additional disaster relief funding from the State of California. Community participation is appreciated and is key to ensuring that the City’s resident’s concerns are heard and addressed. We look forward to hearing from you!
CC AGENDA ITEM 19
CC AGENDA ITEM 20
CC AGENDA ITEM 2
1 CC AGENDA ITEM 2
2