C5: Second Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Meeting Notes
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Meeting 2
Maywood City Hall
February 26, 2025
The meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with 10 in-person participants and 2 virtual participants. The meeting began at about 10 am with Ben Schattschneider, Project Manager, Stantec, making opening remarks.
Introductions
Ben Schattschneider began the presentation following the agenda and going around the room to give everybody a chance to introduce themselves. He then provided a brief refresher of the hazard mitigation panning process and progress updates. Additionally, he mentioned upcoming milestones including the public outreach planned for that day, and the mitigation action workshop scheduled for April.
Capability Assessment Results
Priya Satish, Stantec provided an overview of the City’s planning, administrative, fiscal, and political capabilities to evaluate the City’s ability and potential challenges to implement mitigation strategies. She summarized the plans reviewed, findings, and recommendations including additional plans the City may consider creating and adopting, administrative roles to be filled, and opportunities to integrate hazard mitigation planning efforts with other local and regional climate and resiliency action plans.
Discussion about the findings led to conversations about other regional hazard mitigation plans, and the LA County water plan, with committee members recommending that the City of Maywood look to these plans to identify strategies for their local plan. Additionally, one committee member recommended visiting lessons learned from the January wildfires in the Los Angeles region and incorporate them in the City’s planning process.
Committee members also raised concerns about ongoing soil cleaning operations by Exide expressing concerns that the amount of soil removed is not enough to remediate the contamination. While current efforts limit soil removal to 6 inches, some experts recommend up to 18 inches soil removal for brownfield remediation.
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan
Risk Assessment Overview
Ben introduced the process of the risk assessment and the priority ranking of hazards studied.
After detailed discussions of all hazards’ findings, the committee voted to re-align the priority rankings. The following table contains the hazards, their initial and revised priority rankings.
Hazard Initial Priority
Ranking
Revised Priority
Ranking
Drought High
High Earthquake High
Extreme Heat High
Hazardous Materials and Waste Medium
High Winds (Includes Strong Winds
Santa Ana Winds, and Tornadoes) Low
Public Health Emergency High Medium
Structural and Industrial Fire Medium
Wildfire Low
Dam and Levee Failure Low
Low Flood Low
Thunderstorm, Lightning and Hail Medium
Tsunami Low
Results from the risk assessment from each of the hazards was discussed and the committee provided input on additional vulnerabilities, and considerations to include in the plan.
• Drought: The committee emphasized the need to state of drought and extreme heat events are inextricably connected. A lake of green space, shade, and water can lead to both hazards. Additional concerns were raised about worsening water quality during droughts. TCE, TCP concentration in drinking water during times of crisis is unknown. • Extreme heat: The committee pointed out that displacement of populations during an extreme heat event exacerbates the possibility of being affected by heat-related illnesses. According to California demographic screening score cards, the City of Maywood has a score of 91 for rent burden. Access to emergency shelters and services impacts people’s ability to return after a heat event.
The City asked Stantec about the impacts of using turf for playing fields on the urban heat island effect. Stantec explained that artificial turf can exacerbate heat effects and natural parks, and greenspace are a better choice.
• Public Health Emergency: A committee member pointed out the criticality of each individual’s actions during the Covid-19 pandemic. For example, one person’s failure to wash their hands could spread the disease further. Additionally, the committee suggested looking into the long-term health impacts from the pandemic.
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Earthquakes: A committee member asked about the extent and expected severity of liquefaction zones in the City. The City of Maywood lies within the zone where the stability of foundation soils must be investigated, and countermeasures be taken in the design and construction of structures for human occupancy. • Hazardous Materials and Incidents: The committee highlighted that while the City has done a good job of working with the Exide working group, additional support from the State is needed to speed up cleaning of the brownfields and Exide affected sites.
Additionally, the committee raised the concern of water contamination and asked for the impacts on water quality to be included in the risk assessment. Further, they highlighted the cascading impacts of extreme heat on air and water quality due to HAZMAT incidents and asked to include long term health impacts from these events in the risk assessment.
• Wildfires – Wildfires in January 2025 impacted the City of Maywood with poor air quality, power and communication outages. Cascading impacts from wildfires such as loosening soil, air quality, and possibility of flooding should be noted in the risk assessment. The committee also asked to look at air quality reports from the wildfires. • Flood – The committee members pointed out that nuisance flooding and sewer spills were noted as a concern in the City. The intersections of Mayflower and 56th, and King and 56th were noted as having previous issues with flooding up to the curb level.
Stormwater and urban flooding is a concern in the City. • High Winds – The committee expressed concerns about how high winds can down power grid and trees and can have far reaching impacts. • Power Outages – The committee asked if power outages can be included as a hazard.
Stantec explained that power outages are included as a consequence of hazards in the risk assessment.
Next Steps
The Hazard Mitigation Committee will identify goals, objectives and mitigation actions for the hazard mitigation plan in the workshop in April. Stantec will finalize the risk assessment and draft plan and provide it for review in May. A second community outreach event will be held during the City’s earth day celebrations on April 26th.
The meeting concluded at 11:30am.
The list of attendees is included on the sign in sheets.
C6: Third Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Meeting
Presentation
5/9/2025
1 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N City of Maywood, California Hazard Mitigation
Plan
Hazard Mitigation Committee
Meeting #3 – Mitigation Strategy April 25, 2025 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Agenda
1. Progress Updates 2. Public Survey Results 3. Mitigation Strategies 4. Next Steps P R O J E C T U N D E R S T A N D I N G & C R S P O I N T S 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Introductions P R O J E C T U N D E R S T A N D I N G & C R S City of Maywood P O I N T S • Miguel Leon, Administrative Analyst • Karen Iniguez, Community Development Analyst Stantec
• Ben Schattschneider, Project Manager • Priya Satish, Planning Lead • Emily Ng, Engagement Lead 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Progress Updates Progress Updates What is Hazard Mitigation?
Any sustained action taken to reduce or
eliminate the long-term risk to human life and
property from hazards. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Plan Process Hazard Mitigation Plans: o Identify hazard risk o Develop strategies to reduce it o Break the disaster cycle 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Hazard Mitigation Plan Elements 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N P R O J E C T U N D E R S T A N D I N G & Element A.C R S P O I N T S Planning Process Element B. Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Element C. Mitigation Strategy Element D. Plan Maintenance Element F. Plan Adoption Element E. Plan Update WE ARE HERE 1 2
3 4
5 6
5/9/2025
2 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Milestones Task Completion December 4, 2024 Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee (HMSC) Kickoff Meeting February 25, 2025 Risk Assessment and Capability Assessment Results – Committee Meeting February 25, 2025 Risk Assessment Public Engagement TODAY! April 25, 2025 Mitigation Strategy Workshop April 26, 2025 Mitigation Strategy Public Engagement May-June 2025 City, HMSC, and Public Draft Plan Review Period State Review June 2025 Public Survey Results Progress Updates 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Public Survey Results
Survey – Still live! • English and Spanish paper form • Social Pinpoint Site • Paper responses documented digitally
• Close to 50 responses so far • PUBLICIZE! 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N 1 2
8 8
9 11
14 15
23 23
25 27
Tsunami Dam and Levee Failure
Flood Wildfire Urban Fire High Wind Severe Storms Drought Hazardous Materials and Waste Public Health Emergencies Extreme Heat Earthquake HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IMPACTED BY THE FOLLOWING HAZARDS? Public Survey Results 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Public Survey Results 3
2 2
3 4
4 6
7 9
8 20
16 8
12 10
22 21
22 20
22 23
22 0
14 26
23 23
17 15
13 12
11 9
9 6
6 Hazardous Materials and Waste Earthquake Extreme Heat Public Health Emergencies Urban Fire Drought Severe Storms Wildfire High Wind Flood
Tsunami Dam and Levee Failure HOW CONCERNED ARE YOU ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF YOUR COMMUNITY BEING IMPACTED BY THIS HAZARD? Not concerned Somewhat concerned Extremely Concerned 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Public Survey Results 1 1 1 1 1
2 3
4 5
7 7 7
29 28 27
25 25 24 Structural Projects Emergency Services Property Protection Prevention Public Education and Awareness Natural Resource Protection HOW IMPORTANT ARE THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITY AREAS FOR HAZARD MITIGATION?* Not Important Somewhat imporant Very Important * Respondents were provided with example projects for each activity area 7 8
9 10
11 12
5/9/2025
3 Progress Updates Risk Assessment Results 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N List of Hazards Revised Priority Ranking Hazard High Drought Earthquake Extreme Heat Hazardous Materials and Waste Medium High Winds (Includes Strong Winds Santa Ana Winds, and Tornadoes) Public Health Emergency (Includes communicable diseases, pandemics) Urban Fires (Includes Structural and Industrial Fires) Wildfire Low Dam and Levee Failure (Includes consequences of dam and levee failure from other regions) Flood Severe Storms (Thunderstorm, Lightning and Hail) Tsunami Mitigation Strategies Progress Updates Goals 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N ADOPT AND ENFORCE MEASURES TO REDUCE RISK FROM HAZARDS AND PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM THEIR IMPACTS
IMPROVE COMMUNITY AWARENESS OF HAZARDS AND MEASURES TO SAFELY RESPOND TO AND RECOVER FROM THEMFOSTER PARTNERSHIPS AND RESOURCE SHARING BETWEEN LOCAL AGENCIES, BUSINESSES, NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, AND RESIDENTS RISK REDUCTION
COMMUNITY AWARENESS COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS
WHAT ARE YOUR OPINIONS ON THE GOALS? SHOULD WE INCLUDE ADDITIONAL GOALS? 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Mitigation Actions Identify
Ongoing mitigation activities in the City
New mitigation needs
13 14
15 16
17 18
5/9/2025
4 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Ongoing Mitigation Actions Urban Forest Management and Tree Planting Project Action Description Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood Hazards Addressed City of Maywood, Amigos de Los Rios Lead Implementor Funding State grants Status Ongoing 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Proposed Mitigation Actions City of Maywood Resilience Hub Action Description All Hazards Hazards Addressed Source Maywood Energy Resilience Plan Removal of end-of-life assets from Maywood City Hall for increased physical and IT security Action Description All, Other (Cybersecurity) Hazards Addressed Source Modern IT 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Proposed Mitigation Actions Supply information to community about local hazard risks and preparedness Action Description All Hazards Hazards Addressed Maywood General Plan Safety Element, Youth Commission of Maywood Source Coordinate with county and other public agencies, including transportation agencies and health care providers, on emergency planning, response activities, and evacuation planning Action Description All Hazards Hazards Addressed Maywood General Plan Safety Element Source 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Hazard Mitigation Planning Techniques
• Prevention
• Property Protection
• Natural Resource Protection
• Structural Projects
• Emergency Services
• Public Education and Awareness 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Prevention
• Planning and zoning • Building codes
• Open space preservation requirements
• Drainage system maintenance
• Capital improvements programming
• Social Cohesion (e.g., community tree
planting) 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Property Protection • Earthquake Retrofitting
• Critical facilities protection
• Insulation/ structural upgrades
for critical facilities
19 20
21 22
23 24
5/9/2025
5 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Natural Resource Protection • Tree canopy increase • Green Streets
• Green roofs
• Decrease impervious surfaces 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Structural Projects • Storm sewer expansions • Detention basins 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Emergency Services • Warning systems and monitoring
• Emergency response
equipment • Shelter Operations
• Evacuation planning and
management • Emergency response training
and exercises
• Community Resilience Hubs 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Public Education and Awareness • Outreach projects
• Social media
• Speaker series/ demonstration events
• Hazard map information
• Real estate disclosure
• Library materials
• School children educational
programs
• Hazard expositions
Progress Updates Next Steps 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Next Steps
• Survey ends - April 30
• Review Draft Plan • City of Maywood - May 2 – May 16, 2025 • Committee, City Council, & Public – May 23- June 6, 2025 • Submit for State review – June 16
25 26
27 28
29 30
5/9/2025
6 2 0 2 5 C I T Y O F M A Y W O O D H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Contact Information
Thank you! Thank you!
Miguel Leon
Administrative Analyst, City of Maywood 323-562-5747 [email protected] 31
C7: Third Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Meeting
Notes
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Meeting 3
Maywood City Hall
April 25, 2025
1:00pm to 2:30pm
The meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with 9 in-person participants and 7 virtual participants. The meeting began at about 1:05 pm with Ben Schattschneider, Project Manager, Stantec, making opening remarks.
Introductions
Ben Schattschneider began the presentation following the agenda and going around the room to give everybody a chance to introduce themselves. He then provided a brief refresher of the hazard mitigation panning process and progress updates. Additionally, he mentioned upcoming milestones including the public outreach planned for April 26 at the City of Maywood Earth Day event, and plan review period expected to begin in May 2025.
Survey Results
Priya Satish, Stantec provided an overview of survey responses received to date. Survey respondents mostly agreed with the City and Committee’s views on hazard priorities considering hazardous materials incidents, earthquakes, and extreme heat as the most concerning hazards.
Priya shared that the survey would remain open for another week until May 9 before being closed and tallying final results.
Mitigation Actions Review
Priya shared the goals for the plan which were then finalized by the committee and the City.
Next, Priya and Ben went over proposed mitigation actions provided to participants as a printout or spreadsheet and went over each action in order to discuss the City’s progress in each area, ongoing related activities, priority, lead implementation partners, and if the City and Committee wished to keep the action in the plan. Proposed actions were identified from committee members who submitted them, a review of complimentary planning efforts in the city, hazard mitigation plans from neighboring jurisdictions, and the Mitigation Ideas Handbook. A brief overview of items discussed is provided in the table below:
Proposed Action Discussion
The City of Maywood energy resilience plan
included a survey and preliminary scoping of
suitable locations for establishing a resilience
hub in the city. The City Teen Center, YMCA,
and County Library were identified as top
options. Identify and secure the resources to
establish one of these locations as the
resilience hub.
The City Manager shared that the Teen Center is
the most likely candidate for the future resilience
hub. The City has already secured funding for the
design of the center, and construction is expected
to occur in 2026. A priority rating of “High” was
assigned to this action.
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan
Proposed Action Discussion
Expand community member participation in
existing emergency notification systems such as
MyShake.
The City agreed with this action and a priority
rating of “medium” was assigned to this action
Implement a public emergency notification
system through the existing GoGov App.
The City shared that the GoGov application they
use does indeed have the capability to provide
emergency notifications. The City will initiate
discussions and estimate costing to implement
those features on the app. A priority rating of
“Medium” was assigned to this action.
Update the emergency operations and
functions plan in the City Code.
The update would begin by referring to resources
providing guidelines for a City plan and later
considering external consultant support to
complete the update. A priority rating of “High”
was assigned to this action.
Formalize partnerships with neighboring
jurisdictions, state, and local agencies for
emergency response and resource sharing.
One of the committee members mentioned that it
is also important for the City to look internally to
identify key players in emergency response within
the City. In large regional disasters, limited state
and county response resources are insufficient to
respond to all affected areas. A priority rating of
“Medium” was assigned to this action.
Continue and expand urban forest
management and tree planting project.
The City shared that the current program is an
extension of a previous grant by CalFire.
Maintenance and upkeep is included in the grant.
The grant will likely get renewed and urban forest
management will continue in the City. A priority
rating of “High” was assigned to this action.
Promote drought-tolerant landscaping and
smart irrigation systems.
The City and Committee shared that this action
would be outreach focused as a water efficiency
ordinance is already in place in the City. A priority
rating of “Low” was assigned to this action.
Removal of end-of-life assets from Maywood
City Hall for increased physical and IT security,
and to maintain capacity for essential city
services.
The IT consultant for the city shared that a grant
application submitted in 2024 did not succeed. The
City will reapply for grant funding in the next cycle.
The City manager also mentioned that the city may
have access to other grant funding that can support
a portion of this action. A priority rating of “high”
was assigned to this action.
Review, update, and enforce earthquake
resistant building code.
The committee decided to merge these two
actions. The City is in talks with a consultant to
explore grant funding for bringing multi-family
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan
Proposed Action Discussion
Conduct building safety inspections routinely
for earthquake and fire safety compliance.
homes up to code. The City also has some funding
from Permanent Housing Allocation to support a
portion of residences in the City. A priority rating
of “medium” was assigned to this action.
Coordinate with utility companies to ensure
fire hydrants functionality is routinely
inspected.
The City and Committee shared that the water
utilities are responsible for this action. There was
consensus that the City will increase
communication with the utilities to receive updates
about fire hydrant inspections and conditions. A
priority rating of “high” was assigned to this action.
Increase awareness about the importance of
inspecting and maintaining fire safety elements
including fire extinguishers and fire alarms on
private property.
The City is trying to host a campaign for “fire safety
in your home” and is partnering with Red Cross for
smoke detectors and extinguishers for homes. A
priority rating of “high” was assigned to this action.
Implement maintenance standards for tree
pruning around utility and communication lines
Public works mentioned that this program is
already in place and does not need any additional
action at the moment. This action was removed
from the list.
Continue support of soil cleanup activities led
by DTSC
The City asked to revise this action to focus on
collaboration and partnership as the effort is
already led by DTSC.
Provide financial incentives for businesses and
residents to replace high-water-use appliances,
fixtures, and plumbing
The City provides education and outreach along
with partners at city events. The city requested
revising this action to focus on continued outreach
rather than financial incentives.
Evaluate aging sewer infrastructure for
retrofitting, lining, and replacement to prevent
system failures that can lead to contamination,
overflows, and health hazards
The City has an ongoing project with funding from
EPA. The entire process is expected to take up to 5
years. A priority rating of “high” was assigned to
this action.
Conduct regular maintenance and debris
removal for city stormwater drainage system to
prevent nuisance flooding
Public works mentioned flooding hotspots in the
city that have insufficient drainage outlets. A
priority rating of “medium” was assigned to this
action.
Next Steps
The Hazard Mitigation Committee will review updated actions and provide any feedback before May 9th, 2025. Following the finalizing of the actions, Stantec will share the draft plan with the City and begin the review process. The City will share the draft plan with the public through the City Council in June, 2025.
The meeting concluded at 2:30pm.
The list of attendees is included on the sign in sheets.
C8: Public Engagement Activity Posters (Blank)
The City of Maywood is developing a Hazard Mitigation Plan. The plan will assess the City’s risk to hazards and identify strategies to mitigate them. All data collected will be used only to inform the planning process.
La Ciudad de Maywood está desarrollando un Plan de Mitigación de Riesgos. El plan evaluará el riesgo de la ciudad a los peligros y a identificar estrategias para mitigarlos. Todos los datos obtenidos en esta encuesta se utilizarán estrictamente para informar el proceso de planificación.
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan / Plan De Mitigación De Riesgos De La Ciudad De Maywood Dam and Levee Failure
Rotura de presas y diques
Drought
Sequía
Earthquake
Terremoto
Extreme Heat
Calor extremo
Flood
Inundación
Hazardous Materials & Waste
Materiales y residuos peligrosos
High Wind
Vientos fuertes
Public Health Emergencies
Emergencias de salud pública
Severe Storms
Fuertes tormentas de Verano
Tsunami
Maremoto
Wildfire
Incendio forestal
Urban Fire
Fuego urbano
Which hazards have you been impacted by or are concerned about? Place a sticker next to it. ¿Qué riesgos le han afectado o le preocupan? Pon una pegatina al lado.
Para participar en nuestra encuesta u obtener más información sobre el Plan de Mitigación de Riesgos, escanea el código QR.
To participate in our survey or for more information about the Hazard Mitigation Plan, scan the QR code.
YOUR OPINION IS IMPORTANT/ SU OPINIÓN ES IMPORTANTE
(Includes consequences from surrounding regions)
(Includes Strong Winds, Tornadoes, and Santa Ana Winds) (Includes communicable diseases and pandemics) (Includes thunderstorms, lightning, and hail)
(Includes structure and industrial fires)
(Incluye tormentas eléctricas, relámpagos y granizo)
(Incluye incendios estructurales e industriales)
(Incluye enfermedades transmisibles y pandemias)
(Incluye vientos fuertes, tornados y vientos de Santa Ana) (Incluye las consecuencias de las regiones circundantes)
The City of Maywood is developing a Hazard Mitigation Plan. The plan will assess the City’s risk to hazards and identify strategies to mitigate them. All data collected will be used only to inform the planning process.
La Ciudad de Maywood está desarrollando un Plan de Mitigación de Riesgos. El plan evaluará el riesgo de la ciudad a los peligros y a identificar estrategias para mitigarlos. Todos los datos obtenidos en esta encuesta se utilizarán estrictamente para informar el proceso de planificación.
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan / Plan De Mitigación De Riesgos De La Ciudad De Maywood Para participar en nuestra encuesta u obtener más información sobre el Plan de Mitigación de Riesgos, escanea el código QR.
To participate in our survey or for more information about the Hazard Mitigation Plan, scan the QR code.
YOUR OPINION IS IMPORTANT/ SU OPINIÓN ES IMPORTANTE
Which goals are important to include in the Hazard Mitigation Plan? Place a sticker next to it. ¿Qué objetivos es importante incluir en el Plan de mitigación de peligros? Pon una pegatina al lado.
Emergency Response &
Recovery Community Resilience
Education, Awareness,
& Outreach
Long-term Planning Protection of Life &
Property
Respuesta de Emergencia
y Recuperación
Resiliencia Comunitaria Educación, Conciencia,
y Extensión
Planificación a Largo
Plazo Protección de Vida y
Propiedad
Strengthen emergency response and
recovery procedures to minimize
disruptions after a disaster
Foster partnerships and resource
sharing between local agencies,
businesses, neighboring communities,
and residents.
Increase awareness of hazards and
promote preparedness through
education and community engagement
Integrate hazard mitigation strategies
into long-term community planning to
ensure sustainable growth and
development.
Reduce the risk of injury, loss of life, and
property damage from hazards.
Fortalece los procedimientos de
recuperación y respuesta de
emergencia para minimizar las
interrupciones después de un desastre.
Crea asociaciones y comparte recursos
entre agencias locales, empresas,
comunidades vecinas y residentes.
Aumenta la conciencia sobre los
peligros y promueve la preparación a
través de la educación y la
participación comunitaria.
Integra estrategias de mitigación de
riesgos en la planificación comunitaria a
largo plazo para garantizar el
crecimiento y el desarrollo sostenibles.
Reduce el riesgo de lesiones, pérdida de
vidas y daños a la propiedad debido a
peligros.
C9: Food Distribution Event Outreach Notes
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Mitigation Plan Community Outreach #1
City of Maywood YMCA, Southeast Rio Vista, Maywood
February 26, 2025
On February 26, 2025, hazard mitigation planning staff from the City of Maywood along with four team members from Stantec conducted a tabling event and outreach activity at the YMCA’s monthly food distribution event for Maywood residents. The engagement activity was advertised on the City’s social media accounts on Facebook and Instagram, as well as the city’s citizen information app, “Connect Maywood”. Over 100 community members attended the food distribution event and the planning team attempted to speak to as many people as possible while they lined up for the distribution.
Bilingual staff and team members spoke with community members informing them about the planning process, hazards assessed, and solicited feedback through activities related to hazard impacts, plan goals, and surveys distributed in English and Spanish. Additionally, the team provided handouts that summarized the planning process, provided links to the online survey, and preparedness information for children and adults. All flyers and handouts can be found in Appendix D.
Figure 1 - Community Member participating in the hazard activity
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan
Engagement Outcomes
Community members were asked to review the list of hazards and mark if they have been impacted by or are concerned about the hazards using colored stickers. Outcomes of this activity are in Figure 1.
Figure 2 - Community activity to mark hazards of concern and previous impacts Conversations with community members revealed the following concerns related to each hazard:
• Extreme Heat and Greenery – Residents expressed concerns regarding rising temperatures and recommended an increase in tree planting and green spaces to mitigate heat impacts.
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Exide Cleanup and Remediation (Hazardous Materials and Waste) – Residents raised concerns regarding the prioritization of cleanup efforts, response delays, bureaucratic challenges (Red tape), contractor performance, and staffing changes.
Additional concerns were noted regarding the City’s proximity to highly polluted industrial areas, traffic congestion, and freeway emissions.
• Tsunami Risk – Considered a low priority concern due to the City’s inland location. • Earthquake Preparedness – Residents expressed concerns regarding the structural integrity of buildings and adherence to updated seismic safety codes. • Disaster Response – Community members emphasized the need for improved emergency response times from fire, sheriff, and other relevant agencies. • Dam and Levee Failure – Low to moderate concern, particularly for the eastern portion of Maywood near the Los Angeles River and northern areas adjacent to bridges and waterways.
• High Winds – Residents had mixed opinions; some consider it a low risk, while others cited incidents of property damage, fallen trees, and displaced belongings due to strong winds. • Flooding – Low to moderate concern, as many residents have not experienced significant flooding within the City. However, concerns remain due to the proximity of the Los Angeles River.
• Severe Storms – Considered a low concern as residents reported limited exposure to severe storms, with seasonal rainfall being short-lived in the region. • Wildfire Risk – Moderate to high concern, primarily due to secondary impacts such as poor air quality from wildfire smoke and debris rather than direct exposure to fire hazards. Many residents expressed concerns about the lack of preparedness and access to protective equipment, such as proper face coverings.
• Urban Fire Risk – High concern due to past fire-related emergencies in the City, including incidents at the PEMACO site in Riverfront Park and other industrial facilities in the western part of Maywood, which have led to displacement and contamination issues.
Additionally, concerns were raised about the “potential” for intentional fires and arson contributing to further environmental hazards.
• Public Health Emergencies – Low to moderate concern; while residents feel more prepared following the COVID-19 pandemic, uncertainty remains regarding future public health crises and appropriate response measures.
• Drought and Water Quality – High concern due to ongoing drought conditions and reduced precipitation at the state and county levels.
Additional concerns were raised about the quality of drinking water, potential contamination, and overall water safety.
In addition to hazard concerns, some community members engaged in an activity to review proposed goals for the hazard mitigation plan. They provided insight on what goals the city should consider. Notable concerns raised include
• Improve land planning measures to prevent people from having to live close to polluting industries
• Improve riverfront access and enhance green space
• Provide resources to unhoused populations to help them prepare for hazardous situations
• Establish a resilience hub to provide mutual aid, backup battery storage, and solar panels
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Establish emergency alerts and notification systems.
Figure 2 shows responses provided on the goals and actions ideation activity.
Figure 3 - Community activity to identify goals and actions A few community members filled out paper form of the complete survey. The City of Maywood will distribute more surveys through City hall and the YMCA through the rest of the planning process. A second outreach event will be conducted during the Earth Day celebrations in the City on April 26, 2025.
Appendix D:
Correspondence
This appendix includes:
D1: Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Invite
D2: Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Meeting Invites D3: Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Attendance Records D4: General Informational Flyer
D5: Social Pinpoint Site Screenshots
D6: Survey Publicity Social Media Post Screenshots
D7: Public Outreach Event Publicity Flyers
D8: Completed Mitigation Action Forms
D9: Notice of Plan Review Period
D1: Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Invite
D2: Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Meeting Invites HMSC Meeting #1, First Invite
HMSC Meeting #1, Follow up Invite
HMSC Meeting #1, Post-meeting follow up
HMSC Meeting #2, Invite
From: Miguel Leon <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:04 AM
To: Miguel Leon; Schattschneider, Ben; Ng, Emily; Satish, Priya; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Claudia Zavala; Nancy Rodriguez; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jerry Gomez; Rimo Hanson; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mark Berg; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Raul RodriguezT; Angelina Martinez; Diego Jimenez; Crystal Acosta; magaly.guzman626; [email protected]; iroyhernandez2008; Mohammad Mostahkami; Santacruz, Vivian; [email protected]; Montecinos, Maeli; Jaime Guerrero Cc: Jennifer Vasquez; Daisy Guerrero; Planning; Norma Hernandez; Sylvia Arredondo; Tiffany McClain Subject: Invitation – Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Meeting #2 | February 26, 2025 When: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 10:00 AM-11:30 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).
Where: City of Maywood CA (4319 E Slauson Ave, Maywood, CA 90270) Hello, Hazard Mitigation, Steering Committee Members,
The City of Maywood invites you to participate in the second Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, February 26, 2025, from 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM at Maywood City Hall, 4319 E. Slauson Ave, Maywood, CA.
Your engagement is critical to the development of a comprehensive and effective Hazard Mitigation Plan. This meeting will provide updates on our planning efforts and facilitate meaningful discussions on key mitigation strategies.
Meeting Agenda:
• Planning Progress Updates
• Capability and Capacity Assessment Results
• Risk Assessment Findings
• Mitigation Strategies Discussion
To ensure robust collaboration, we encourage in-person attendance. However, a hybrid option will be available for those unable to attend in person.
For virtual participation, please use the Zoom link below:
• https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82171395444
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (323) 562- 5747 or [email protected].
We appreciate your dedication to this important initiative and look forward to your participation.
Sincerely,
Miguel Leon
City of Maywood
HMSC Meeting #3, Availability Poll
HMSC Meeting #3, First Invite
HMSC Meeting #3, Follow up Invite
D3: Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Meeting Attendance Records HMSC Meeting #1, In-Person Sign-In
HMSC Meeting #1, Zoom Sign-In
HMSC Meeting #2: In-Person Sign-In
HMSC Meeting #2: Zoom Sign-In
HMSC Meeting #3: In-Person Sign-In
HMSC Meeting #3: Zoom Sign-In
D4: General Informational Flyer - English
D4: General Informational Flyer - Spanish
D5: Social Pinpoint Site Screenshots
Engagement Summary
Page Preview
Page Preview
D6: Survey Publicity and Social Media Post Screenshots
D6: Survey Publicity and Social Media Post Screenshots
D7: Public Outreach Event Publicity Flyers
D8: Completed Mitigation Action Forms
D8: Completed Mitigation Action Forms
D8: Completed Mitigation Action Forms
D8: Completed Mitigation Action Forms
D8: Completed Mitigation Action Forms
D9: Notice of Plan Review Period
Placeholder for notices of plan review period sent to steering committee, city staff, interested parties and public
Appendix E:
Plan Review Tool
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL The Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool (PRT) demonstrates how the local mitigation plan meets the regulation in 44 CFR § 201.6 and offers states and FEMA Mitigation Planners an opportunity to provide feedback to the local governments, including special districts.
1. The Multi-Jurisdictional Summary Sheet is a worksheet that is used to document how each jurisdiction met the requirements of the plan elements (Planning Process; Risk Assessment; Mitigation Strategy; Plan Maintenance; Plan Update; and Plan Adoption).
2. The Plan Review Checklist summarizes FEMA’s evaluation of whether the plan has addressed all requirements.
Plan Information
Jurisdiction(s) City of Maywood
Title of Plan City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan
New Plan or Update New Plan
Single- or Multi-Jurisdiction Single Jurisdiction
Date of Plan
Local Point of Contact
Title Miguel Leon, Assistant to the City Manager
Agency City of Maywood
Address 4319 E. Slauson Ave. Maywood, CA 90270
Phone Number 323-562-5747
Email [email protected]
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
Additional Point of Contact
Title Ben Schattschneider, Project Manager
Agency Stantec
Address 1500 Lake Shore Drive, Suite 100
Phone Number 740-417-7055
Email [email protected]
Review Information
State Review
State Reviewer(s) and Title
State Review Date
FEMA Review
FEMA Reviewer(s) and Title
Date Received in FEMA
Region
Plan Not Approved
Plan Approvable Pending
Adoption
Plan Approved
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
Multi-Jurisdictional Summary Sheet
# Jurisdiction Name
Requirements Met (Y/N)
A. Planning
Process
B. Risk
Assessment
C. Mitigation
Strategy
D. Plan
Maintenance
E. Plan
Update
F. Plan
Adoption
G. HHPD Requirements
1 City of Maywood
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
Plan Review Checklist
The Plan Review Checklist is completed by FEMA. States and local governments are encouraged, but not required, to use the PRT as a checklist to ensure all requirements have been met prior to submitting the plan for review and approval. The purpose of the checklist is to identify the location of relevant or applicable content in the plan by element/sub-element and to determine if each requirement has been “met” or “not met.” FEMA completes the “required revisions” summary at the bottom of each element to clearly explain the revisions that are required for plan approval. Required revisions must be explained for each plan sub-element that is “not met.” Sub-elements in each summary should be referenced using the appropriate numbers (A1, B3, etc.), where applicable.
Requirements for each element and sub-element are described in detail in Section 4: Local Plan Requirements of this guide.
Plan updates must include information from the current planning process.
If some elements of the plan do not require an update, due to minimal or no changes between updates, the plan must document the reasons for that.
Multi-jurisdictional elements must cover information unique to all participating jurisdictions.
Element A: Planning Process
Element A Requirements Location in Plan Met /
(section and/or page Not Met
number)
A1. Does the plan document the planning process, including how it was prepared and who was involved in the process for each jurisdiction? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(1)) A1-a. Does the plan document how the plan was prepared, including the schedule or time frame and activities that made up the plan’s development, as well as who was involved? Section 2 Planning
Process
A1-b. Does the plan list the jurisdiction(s) participating in the plan that seek approval, and describe how they participated in the planning process?
Section 2 Planning
Process, pages 18-22
A2. Does the plan document an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development as well as businesses, academia, and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(b)(2)) A2-a. Does the plan identify all stakeholders involved or given an opportunity to be involved in the planning process, and how each stakeholder was presented with this opportunity?
Section 2 Planning
Process, page 26,
Appendix D
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
Element A Requirements Location in Plan Met /
(section and/or page Not Met
number)
dA3. Does the plan document how the public was involved in the planning process during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(b)(1)) A3-a. Does the plan document how the public was given the opportunity to be involved in the planning process and how their feedback was included in the plan?
Section 2 Planning
Process, pages 21-54,
Appendix C and D
A4. Does the plan describe the review and incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(b)(3)) A4-a. Does the plan document what existing plans, studies, reports and technical information were reviewed for the development of the plan, as well as how they were incorporated into the document?
Section 2 Planning
Process, page 26
Element A Required Revisions
Required Revision:
Element B: Risk Assessment
Element B Requirements Location in Plan Met /
(section and/or page Not Met
number)
B1. Does the plan include a description of the type, location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction? Does the plan also include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(2)(i))
B1-a. Does the plan describe all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction(s) in the planning area, and does it provide the rationale if omitting any natural hazards that are commonly recognized to affect the jurisdiction(s) in the planning area? Section 4 Risk
Assessment, pages 44-45
B1-b. Does the plan include information on the location of each identified hazard?
Section 4 Risk
Assessment
B1-c. Does the plan describe the extent for each identified hazard?
Section 4 Risk
Assessment
B1-d. Does the plan include the history of previous hazard events for each identified hazard?
Section 4 Risk
Assessment
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
B1-e. Does the plan include the probability of future events for each identified hazard, including the type, location and range of anticipated intensities?
Section 4 Risk
Assessment
B1-f. For participating jurisdictions in a multi-jurisdictional plan, does the plan describe any hazards that are unique to and/or vary from those affecting the overall planning area?
Not applicable
B2. Does the plan include a summary of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability and the impacts on the community from the identified hazards? Does this summary also address NFIP-insured structures that have been repetitively damaged by floods? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(2)(ii)) B2-a. Does the plan provide an overall summary of each
jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the identified hazards? Section 4 Risk
Assessment
B2-b. For each participating jurisdiction, does the plan describe the potential impacts of each of the identified hazards on each participating jurisdiction?
Section 4 Risk
Assessment
B2-c. Does the plan address NFIP-insured structures within each jurisdiction that have been repetitively damaged by floods?
Section 4 Risk
Assessment, page 89
Element B Required Revisions
Required Revision:
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
Element C: Mitigation Strategy
Element C Requirements Location in Plan Met /
(section and/or page Not Met
number)
C1. Does the plan document each participant’s existing authorities, policies, programs and resources and its ability to expand on and improve these existing policies and programs? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3))
C1-a. Does the plan describe how the existing capabilities of each participant are available to support the mitigation strategy? Does this include a discussion of the existing building codes and land use and development ordinances or
regulations?
Section 5 Capability
Assessment, Planning and
Regulatory Capability -
Building Design and
Construction, page 145
C1-b. Does the plan describe each participant’s ability to expand and improve the identified capabilities to achieve mitigation?
Section 5 Capability
Assessment, Conclusion on
Campus Capability, page
145
C2. Does the plan address each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)(ii)) C2-a. Does the plan contain a narrative description or a table/list of their participation activities?
Not applicable
C3. Does the plan include goals to reduce/avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)(i))
C3-a. Does the plan include goals to reduce the risk from the hazards identified in the plan?
Section 6, Mitigation Strategy,
Developing the Plan’s
Mitigation Goals, pages 150-
151
C4. Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being considered to reduce the effects of hazards, with emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)(ii)) C4-a. Does the plan include an analysis of a comprehensive range of actions/projects that each jurisdiction considered to reduce the impacts of hazards identified in the risk
assessment?
Section 6, Mitigation Strategy,
2025 City of Maywood
Mitigation Action Plan, pages
158-160
C4-b. Does the plan include one or more action(s) per
jurisdiction for each of the hazards as identified within the plan’s risk assessment?
Section 6, Mitigation Strategy,
2025 City of Maywood
Mitigation Action Plan, pages
158-160
C5. Does the plan contain an action plan that describes how the actions identified will be prioritized (including a cost-benefit review), implemented, and administered by each jurisdiction? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)(iv)); (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii)) C5-a. Does the plan describe the criteria used for prioritizing actions?
Section 6, Mitigation Strategy,
Prioritization of Mitigation
Actions, page 157
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
Element C Requirements Location in Plan Met /
(section and/or page Not Met
number)
C5-b. Does the plan provide the position, office, department or agency responsible for implementing/administrating the
identified mitigation actions, as well as potential funding sources and expected time frame?
Section 6, Mitigation
Strategy, 2025 City of
Maywood Mitigation Action
Plan, pages 158-160
Element C Required Revisions
Required Revision:
Element D: Plan Maintenance
Element D Requirements Location in Plan Met /
(section and/or page Not Met
number)
D1. Is there discussion of how each community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(4)(iii)) D1-a. Does the plan describe how communities will continue to seek future public participation after the plan has been approved?
Section 7, Plan Maintenance,
Continued Public and
Stakeholder Involvement,
pages 7-5 to 7-6
D2. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the plan current (monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle)? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(4)(i))
D2-a. Does the plan describe the process that will be followed to track the progress/status of the mitigation actions identified within the Mitigation Strategy, along with when this process will occur and who will be responsible for the process?
Section 7, Plan Maintenance,
Monitoring, Evaluation, and
Enhancement, page 166
D2-b. Does the plan describe the process that will be followed to evaluate the plan for effectiveness? This process must identify the criteria that will be used to evaluate the information in the plan, along with when this process will occur and who will be responsible.
Section 7, Plan Maintenance,
Monitoring, Evaluation, and
Enhancement, pages 164-
165
D2-c. Does the plan describe the process that will be followed to update the plan, along with when this process will occur and who will be responsible for the process?
Section 7, Plan Maintenance,
Five Year Plan Review and
Update, page 164
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
Element D Requirements Location in Plan Met /
(section and/or page Not Met
number)
D3. Does the plan describe a process by which each community will integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(4)(ii)) D3-a. Does the plan describe the process the community will follow to integrate the ideas, information and strategy of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms?
Section 7, Plan Maintenance,
Integration, pages 7-3 to 7-4
D3-b. Does the plan identify the planning mechanisms for each plan participant into which the ideas, information and strategy from the mitigation plan may be integrated?
Section 7, Plan Maintenance,
Integration, pages 163-164
D3-c. For multi-jurisdictional plans, does the plan describe each participant's individual process for integrating information from the mitigation strategy into their identified planning
mechanisms?
Not applicable
Element D Required Revisions
Required Revision:
Element E: Plan Update
Element E Requirements Location in Plan Met /
(section and/or page Not Met
number)
E1. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(d)(3)) E1-a. Does the plan describe the changes in development that have occurred in hazard-prone areas that have increased or decreased each community’s vulnerability since the previous plan was approved?
Not applicable
E2. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities and progress in local mitigation efforts? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(d)(3))
E2-a. Does the plan describe how it was revised due to
changes in community priorities?
Not applicable
E2-b. Does the plan include a status update for all mitigation actions identified in the previous mitigation plan?
Not applicable
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
E2-c. Does the plan describe how jurisdictions integrated the mitigation plan, when appropriate, into other planning
mechanisms?
Not applicable
Element E Required Revisions
Required Revision:
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
Element F: Plan Adoption
Element F Requirements Location in Plan Met /
(section and/or page Not Met
number)
F1. For single-jurisdictional plans, has the governing body of the jurisdiction formally adopted the plan to be eligible for certain FEMA assistance? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(5)) F1-a. Does the participant include documentation of adoption? Appendix A F2. For multi-jurisdictional plans, has the governing body of each jurisdiction officially adopted the plan to be eligible for certain FEMA assistance? (Requirement 44 CFR § 201.6(c)(5)) F2-a. Did each participant adopt the plan and provide
documentation of that adoption?
Appendix A
Element F Required Revisions
Required Revision:
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
Element G: High Hazard Potential Dams (Optional)
HHPD Requirements Location in Plan Met /
(section and/or page Not Met
number)
HHPD1. Did the plan describe the incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports and technical information for HHPDs?
HHPD1-a. Does the plan describe how the local government worked with local dam owners and/or the state dam safety agency?
Not applicable
HHPD1-b. Does the plan incorporate information shared by the state and/or local dam owners?
Not applicable
HHPD2. Did the plan address HHPDs in the risk assessment? HHPD2-a. Does the plan describe the risks and vulnerabilities to and from HHPDs?
Not applicable
HHPD2-b. Does the plan document the limitations and describe how to address deficiencies?
Not applicable
HHPD3. Did the plan include mitigation goals to reduce long-term vulnerabilities from HHPDs? HHPD3-a. Does the plan address how to reduce vulnerabilities to and from HHPDs as part of its own goals or with other longterm strategies? Not applicable
HHPD3-b. Does the plan link proposed actions to reducing longterm vulnerabilities that are consistent with its goals? Not applicable
HHPD4-a. Did the plan include actions that address HHPDs and prioritize mitigation actions to reduce vulnerabilities from HHPDs?
HHPD4-a. Does the plan describe specific actions to address HHPDs?
Not applicable
HHPD4-b. Does the plan describe the criteria used to prioritize actions related to HHPDs?
Not applicable
HHPD4-c. Does the plan identify the position, office,
department or agency responsible for implementing and
administering the action to mitigate hazards to or from HHPDs? Not applicable
HHPD Required Revisions
Required Revision:
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
Element H: Additional State Requirements (Optional)
Element H Requirements Location in Plan Met /
(section and/or page Not Met
number)
This space is for the State to include additional requirements
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
Plan Assessment
These comments can be used to help guide your annual/regularly scheduled updates and the next plan update.
Element A. Planning Process
Strengths
■
Opportunities for Improvement
■
Element B. Risk Assessment
Strengths
■
Opportunities for Improvement
■
Element C. Mitigation Strategy
Strengths
■
Opportunities for Improvement
■
Element D. Plan Maintenance
Strengths
■
Opportunities for Improvement
■
Element E. Plan Update
Strengths
■
Opportunities for Improvement
■
Element G. HHPD Requirements (Optional)
Strengths
■
Opportunities for Improvement
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
■
Element H. Additional State Requirements (Optional)
Strengths
■
Opportunities for Improvement
■
Appendix F:
Survey Results
This appendix includes:
F1: Paper Survey Results
F2: Compiled Survey Results
F1: Paper Survey Results
F2: Compiled Survey Results
City of Maywood Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey – All
Answers Compiled
Question 1: Have you ever experienced or been impacted by any of the following hazards? Please Check all that apply.
Question 2: How concerned are you about the possibility of your community being impacted by a hazard? Select one for each hazard.
1 2
10 15
14 22
19 26
36 31
39 37
Tsunami
Dam and Levee Failure
Flood
Wildfire
Urban Fire
High Wind
Severe Storms
Drought
Hazardous Materials and Waste
Public Health Emergencies
Extreme Heat
Earthquake
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IMPACTED BY THE FOLLOWING HAZARDS?
41 39
39 27
20 21
16 17
18 12
8 11
11 15
14 28
32 32
31 29
29 34
22 3
3 3
6 7
6 9
14 13
12 28
20 Hazardous Materials and Waste
Earthquake
Extreme Heat
Public Health Emergencies
Urban Fire
Drought
Severe Storms
Wildfire
High Wind
Flood
Tsunami
Dam and Levee Failure
HOW CONCERNED ARE YOU ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF YOUR
COMMUNITY BEING IMPACTED BY THIS HAZARD?
Extremely Concerned Somewhat concerned Not concerned
Question 3: Is there another hazard not listed above that you think is a wide-scale threat to Maywood? If yes, please explain.
• Proximity to LAX Flight Path - Air disaster, mechanical failure/ birds • The industries next to Maywood
• Drinking water contamination, sewer spills, power outage • waste and poor air quality as a consequence of poor business practices • displacement by price gouging, drinking water, vapor intrusion • Toxins and pollutants from nearby industry.
• drinking water contamination, sewer spills, power outage • Yes – Air Pollution and Traffic Safety. Maywood faces a high concentration of industrial pollution and vehicle emissions, which disproportionately affect children's health and overall community well-being. The city is surrounded by freeways, industrial corridors, and high-traffic roads that contribute to poor air quality, respiratory issues (e.g., asthma in children), and unsafe streets for walking and biking. Additionally, traffic-related hazards pose a major risk, especially for children, older adults, and cyclists. The lack of safe pedestrian infrastructure, protected bike lanes, and traffic calming measures makes walking and biking unsafe, limiting children's freedom to play and move around the city independently.
• Neighboring factories release hazardous smells.
• Health of children
• Homelessness in bus stops
• Safety and security
• I’m concerned about rendering plants in Vernon, releasing airborne endotoxins and bioaerosols into the air, which may pose serious health risks. • La contaminacion por el Plomo que creo EXIDE
• Las pandillas ya que cada rato grafitti las paredes de casas privadas • Huele mucho a gas entre las calles Slauson Ave. y Heliotrope Ave • exceso de velocidad
Question 4: The City is planning for hazardous events and disasters. Please share how important you think each activity area is.
Question 5: What additional actions do you think are the most important for your community to take to increase resilience to hazards, including climate-related hazards? • Survey and plan should be shared with all community members. • One of the most important things Maywood can do to increase resilience to hazards, including climate-related ones, is to prioritize green infrastructure and safer streets.
Planting more trees and creating shaded areas, especially near schools and sidewalks, would help with extreme heat, while better stormwater management could reduce flooding risks. Another key step is ensuring public spaces and buildings are disaster-ready.
Schools, libraries, and community centers should be equipped as resilience hubs, providing cooling spaces, clean air shelters, and backup power for emergencies.
Retrofitting older buildings, especially homes and schools, would also make a big difference in earthquake and extreme weather safety. Traffic safety is another major issue.
Creating safer streets for walking and biking, adding crosswalks, and slowing down traffic near schools would protect children and families from everyday hazards, while also making the community more resilient in an emergency. Lastly, better air quality protections and emergency preparedness programs should be a priority. Maywood is already impacted by industrial pollution, so stronger regulations, air monitoring, and disaster response plans tailored for families and children would go a long way in keeping the community safe. By focusing on these areas, Maywood can build a city that is not just disaster-resilient, but also healthier, safer, and more livable for everyone.
• There needs to be more protections for hazardous sites to the community. We are constantly being polluted, climate change will only make this worse. Please protect community before industry.
1 1 2 2 1 2
7 6 7
12 9 9
47 48 46
41 43 44
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Structural
Projects
Emergency
Services
Property
Protection
Prevention Public
Education and
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
HOW IMPORTANT ARE THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITY AREAS FOR
HAZARD MITIGATION?*
Not Important Somewhat imporant Very Important
* Respondents were provided with example projects for each activity area
• improving physical, geographical, medical, and public infrastructure centered on people with disabilities (like funding trained staff to trained in helping and keeping them safe) • I don’t have any the factories in Vernon make our air pretty bad • finalize the HMP, share with the community, locate hazardous areas and have a preventative measures in place
• Maybe practice scenarios where you practice for actual disasters. Drills. • Cert training, public education, eoc training for staff, public mass notification systems • Community engagement - have regular hazard preparedness workshops (i.e., earthquake preparedness) and support plans to vulnerable populations (seniors, low-income familities)
• To take preventative measures to mitigate the chances of more damage • Abandoned building being used as shelter, leading to fires. The buildings near Maywood that leak chemicals into our community
• Probably when the lights went out, I feel like they could have gone around to help. • Communicating with residents more than usual
• We disagreed having warehouse in the city selling drugs • Eventos educativos en la comunidad, escuelas e iglesias • Que existen ancianos que viven solos, muchose se deshidration. "Apoyo" • arboles
• Mas talleres de información
• None, well being of future children
• More police activity, lack of neighborhood watch meetings • Smog, air quality
• Ensuring Maywood residents are housed and able to pay for basic necessities. • Build more parks and green zones within the communities Question 6: Please provide any feedback, comments, or suggestions • im excited about this initiative
• The dragon in the park; glass breaks often; Benito Juarez worn down • Thank you this information was useful.
• Operational area response & recovery system training for all city staff. • Including community awareness about hazardous waste disposal • By preparing carefully and making sure structures and things around are correct and up to date will minimize damage when a disaster occurs.
• This is a community that works and sometimes these gatherings happen during work hours.
Please consider times that are more to the capacity of the community. • They should plant more trees in city of Maywood, especially on 52nd St. since we’re close to factories the release all kinds of pollution and dust • Capacitor las familias para las emergencias
• Pine Park police activity
• Creo tenemos eficientes departmentos. Que siempre estan atentos a ayudar ala Communidad.
• Toda esta informacion resivida en muy importante. Muchas Gracias.
Appendix G:
Hazus Summary Results
This appendix includes:
G1: Hazus Loss Estimates for Earthquake
Hazus: Earthquake Global Risk Report
Region Name
Earthquake Scenario:
Print Date:
MaywoodCA_EQ
Northridge
February 18, 2025
Disclaimer:
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user’s study region.
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology software which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique. Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic losses following a specific earthquake. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory, geotechnical, and observed ground motion data.
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building and Lifeline Inventory 4
3 Building Inventory
Critical Facility Inventory
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Earthquake Scenario Parameters 7
Direct Earthquake Damage 8
Buildings Damage
Essential Facilities Damage
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage
Induced Earthquake Damage 14
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Casualties
Economic Loss
15 Building Related Losses
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data 17 Fire Following Earthquake
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 2 of 22
Hazus-MH is a regional earthquake loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide a methodology and software application to develop multi-hazard losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from multi-hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery.
The earthquake loss estimates provided in this report was based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the following state(s):
General Description of the Region
California
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region.
The geographical size of the region is 1.18 square miles and contains 7 census tracts. There are over 6 thousand households in the region which has a total population of 25,138 peopleF. The distribution of population by Total Region and County is provided in Appendix B.
There are an estimated 4 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of 1,834 (millions of dollars). Approximately 91.00 % of the buildings (and 59.00% of the building value) are associated with residential housing.
The replacement value of the transportation and utility lifeline systems is estimated to be 4,847 and 1 (millions of dollars) , respectively.
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 3 of 22
Hazus estimates that there are 4 thousand buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of 1,834 (millions of dollars) . Appendix B provides a general distribution of the building value by Total Region and County.
Building and Lifeline Inventory
Building Inventory
In terms of building construction types found in the region, wood frame construction makes up 91% of the building inventory. The remaining percentage is distributed between the other general building types.
Critical Facility Inventory
Hazus breaks critical facilities into two (2) groups: essential facilities and high potential loss facilities (HPL). Essential facilities include hospitals, medical clinics, schools, fire stations, police stations and emergency operations facilities. High potential loss facilities include dams, levees, military installations, nuclear power plants and hazardous material sites.
For essential facilities, there are 0 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of beds. There are 9 schools, 0 fire stations, 1 police stations and 0 emergency operation facilities. With respect to high potential loss facilities (HPL), there are no dams identified within the inventory. The inventory also includes no hazardous material sites, no military installations and no nuclear power plants.
Within Hazus, the lifeline inventory is divided between transportation and utility lifeline systems. There are seven (7) transportation systems that include highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports, ferry and airports. There are six (6) utility systems that include potable water, wastewater, natural gas, crude & refined oil, electric power and communications. The lifeline inventory data are provided in Tables 1 and 2.
The total value of the lifeline inventory is over 4,848.00 (millions of dollars). This inventory includes over 64.62 miles of highways, 0 bridges, 56.54 miles of pipes.
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 4 of 22
Table 1: Transportation System Lifeline Inventory
System Component # Locations/
# Segments
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
Highway Bridges 0 0.0000
Segments 118 826.3067
Tunnels 0 0.0000
Subtotal 826.3067
Railways Bridges 0 0.0000
Facilities 0 0.0000
Segments 77 4021.6265
Tunnels 0 0.0000
Subtotal 4021.6265
Light Rail Bridges 0 0.0000
Facilities 0 0.0000
Segments 0 0.0000
Tunnels 0 0.0000
Subtotal 0.0000
Bus Facilities 0 0.0000
Subtotal 0.0000
Ferry Facilities 0 0.0000
Subtotal 0.0000
Port Facilities 0 0.0000
Subtotal 0.0000
Airport Facilities 0 0.0000
Runways 0 0.0000
Subtotal 0.0000
Total 4,847.90
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 5 of 22
Table 2: Utility System Lifeline Inventory
System Component
# Locations /
Segments
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
Potable Water Distribution Lines NA 0.9157
Facilities 0 0.0000
Pipelines 0 0.0000
Subtotal 0.9157
Waste Water Distribution Lines NA 0.5494
Facilities 0 0.0000
Pipelines 0 0.0000
Subtotal 0.5494
Natural Gas Distribution Lines NA 0.3663
Facilities 0 0.0000
Pipelines 0 0.0000
Subtotal 0.3663
Oil Systems Facilities 0 0.0000
Pipelines 0 0.0000
Subtotal 0.0000
Electrical Power Facilities 0 0.0000
Subtotal 0.0000
Communication Facilities 0 0.0000
Subtotal 0.0000
Total 1.80
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 6 of 22
Hazus uses the following set of information to define the earthquake parameters used for the earthquake loss estimate provided in this report.
Earthquake Scenario
Scenario Name
Latitude of Epicenter
Earthquake Magnitude
Depth (km)
Attenuation Function
Type of Earthquake
Fault Name
Historical Epicenter ID #
Longitude of Epicenter
Probabilistic Return Period
Rupture Length (Km)
Rupture Orientation (degrees)
Northridge
Arbitrary
NA
5.81 0.00
West US, Extensional 2008 - Strike Slip
10.00 5.83
33.99 -118.19
NA
NA
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 7 of 22
Direct Earthquake Damage
Hazus estimates that about 1,029 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 22.00 % of the buildings in the region. There are an estimated 51 buildings that will be damaged beyond repair. The definition of the ‘damage states’ is provided in Volume 1: Chapter 5 of the Hazus technical manual. Table 3 below summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 4 below summarizes the expected damage by general building type.
Building Damage
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
Agriculture
Commercial
Education
Government
Industrial
Other
Residential
Religion
Single
Family
Damage Categories by General Occupancy Type
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy
None Slight
Count Count (%)
Moderate Extensive
Count (%)
Complete
(%) (%) Count Count (%)
Agriculture 0.42 0.02 0.39 0.02 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 Commercial 106.59 5.62 91.33 5.28 71.43 8.39 24.56 19.39 10.09 19.51 Education 5.24 0.28 2.40 0.14 1.85 0.22 0.42 0.33 0.09 0.17 Government 1.41 0.07 1.09 0.06 0.45 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.01 Industrial 21.39 1.13 17.53 1.01 17.65 2.07 8.23 6.49 3.21 6.20 Other Residential 1082.99 57.10 996.84 57.63 480.18 56.42 68.74 54.26 30.26 58.53 Religion 4.09 0.22 4.44 0.26 4.31 0.51 1.64 1.29 0.52 1.00 Single Family 674.69 35.57 615.72 35.60 275.03 32.32 23.04 18.19 7.53 14.56 Total 1,897 1,730 851 127 52
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 8 of 22
Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Building Type (All Design Levels) Extensive
Count
Complete
Count (%) Count (%)
Moderate
Count (%)
Slight
Count (%)
None
(%)
Wood 1783.50 94.03 1641.85 94.92 736.91 86.59 61.66 48.67 16.74 32.39 Steel 12.72 0.67 13.57 0.78 24.69 2.90 17.01 13.43 7.56 14.62 Concrete 17.78 0.94 19.28 1.11 23.22 2.73 15.82 12.49 9.33 18.05 Precast 2.34 0.12 2.54 0.15 2.83 0.33 0.96 0.76 0.43 0.82 RM 77.84 4.10 46.68 2.70 50.07 5.88 16.40 12.95 1.27 2.45 URM 2.64 0.14 5.81 0.34 13.36 1.57 14.83 11.71 16.37 31.67 MH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total
*Note:
RM Reinforced Masonry
URM Unreinforced Masonry
MH Manufactured Housing
1,897 1,730 851 127 52
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 9 of 22
Essential Facility Damage
Before the earthquake, the region had hospital beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates that only hospital beds (%) are available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by the earthquake.
After one week, % of the beds will be back in service. By 30 days, % will be operational.
Table 5: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Total
Damage > 50%
At Least Moderate
# Facilities
Complete
Damage > 50%
Classification With Functionality
> 50% on day 1
Hospitals 0 0 0 0
Schools 9 9 0 0
EOCs 0 0 0 0
PoliceStations 1 1 0 0
FireStations 0 0 0 0
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 10 of 22
Transportation Lifeline Damage
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 11 of 22
Table 6: Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems
Number of Locations
Locations/ With at Least
After Day 1 After Day 7
With Functionality > 50 %
Damage
With Complete
System Component
Segments Mod. Damage
Highway Segments 118 0 0 116 116
Bridges 0 0 0 0 0
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Railways Segments 77 0 0 6 6
Bridges 0 0 0 0 0
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Light Rail Segments 0 0 0 0 0
Bridges 0 0 0 0 0
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Bus Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Ferry Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Port Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Airport Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Runways 0 0 0 0 0
Tables 7-9 provide information on the damage to the utility lifeline systems. Table 7 provides damage to the utility system facilities. Table 8 provides estimates on the number of leaks and breaks by the pipelines of the utility systems. For electric power and potable water, Hazus performs a simplified system performance analysis. Table 9 provides a summary of the system performance information.
Note: Roadway segments, railroad tracks and light rail tracks are assumed to be damaged by ground failure only. If ground failure maps are not provided, damage estimates to these components will not be computed.
Table 6 provides damage estimates for the transportation system.
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 12 of 22
Table 7 : Expected Utility System Facility Damage
With at Least with Functionality > 50 %
After Day 1 After Day 7
With Complete
Damage
System
# of Locations
Moderate Damage
Total #
Potable Water 0 0 0 0 0
Waste Water 0 0 0 0 0
Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0
Oil Systems 0 0 0 0 0
Electrical Power 0 0 0 0 0
Communication 0 0 0 0 0
Table 8 : Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific) System
Breaks
Number of
Leaks
Number of
Length (miles)
Total Pipelines
Potable Water 28 11 3
Waste Water 17 5 1
Natural Gas 11 2 0
Oil 0 0 0
Potable Water
Electric Power
Total # of
Households At Day 3 At Day 7 At Day 30
Number of Households without Service
Table 9: Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance At Day 90
6,558
0 0 0 0 0
5,456 4,007 1,974 243 7
At Day 1
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 13 of 22
Debris Generation
Induced Earthquake Damage
Earthquake Debris (millions of tons)
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
Total Debris
Total Debris Wood
Total Debris Steel
Brick/ Wood Reinforced Concrete/Steel Total Debris Truck Load
0.01 0.02 0.03 1,320 (@25 tons/truck)
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the earthquake. The model breaks the debris into two general categories: a) Brick/Wood and b) Reinforced Concrete/Steel. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 33,000 tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Brick/Wood comprises
44.00% of the total, with the remainder being Reinforced Concrete/Steel. If the debris tonnage is converted to an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 1,320 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris generated by the earthquake.
Fire Following Earthquake
Fires often occur after an earthquake. Because of the number of fires and the lack of water to fight the fires, they can often burn out of control. Hazus uses a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the number of ignitions and the amount of burnt area. For this scenario, the model estimates that there will be 1 ignitions that will burn about 0.04 sq. mi 3.35 % of the region’s total area.) The model also estimates that the fires will displace about 832 people and burn about 54 (millions of dollars) of building value.
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 14 of 22
Shelter Requirement
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the earthquake and the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 167 households to be displaced due to the earthquake. Of these, 142 people (out of a total population of 25,138) will seek temporary shelter in public shelters.
Social Impact
Displaced Households/ Persons Seeking Short Term Public Shelter 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Displaced households
as a result of the
earthquake
Person seeking temporary public shelter
Persons seeking
temporary public shelter
Displaced households
as a result of the
earthquake
167 142
Hazus estimates the number of people that will be injured and killed by the earthquake. The casualties are broken down into four (4) severity levels that describe the extent of the injuries. The levels are described as follows; · Severity Level 1: Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed. · Severity Level 2: Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening · Severity Level 3: Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not promptly treated.
· Severity Level 4: Victims are killed by the earthquake.
The casualty estimates are provided for three (3) times of day: 2:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These times represent the periods of the day that different sectors of the community are at their peak occupancy loads. The 2:00 AM estimate considers that the residential occupancy load is maximum, the 2:00 PM estimate considers that the educational, commercial and industrial sector loads are maximum and 5:00 PM represents peak commute time.
Table 10 provides a summary of the casualties estimated for this earthquake Casualties
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 15 of 22
Table 10: Casualty Estimates
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
2 AM Commercial 0.25 0.06 0.01 0.02
Commuting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Educational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotels 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00
Industrial 0.34 0.09 0.01 0.02
Other-Residential 36.25 7.35 0.86 1.67
Single Family 8.79 1.33 0.09 0.17
Total 46 9 1 2
2 PM Commercial 25.39 6.38 0.89 1.72
Commuting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Educational 7.08 1.40 0.17 0.34
Hotels 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial 2.55 0.63 0.09 0.17
Other-Residential 10.94 2.27 0.28 0.51
Single Family 2.62 0.41 0.03 0.05
Total 49 11 1 3
5 PM Commercial 22.33 5.62 0.80 1.51
Commuting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Educational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotels 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial 1.59 0.40 0.06 0.11
Other-Residential 14.16 2.93 0.36 0.66
Single Family 3.41 0.53 0.04 0.07
Total 41 9 1 2
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 16 of 22
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the earthquake is 235.96 (millions of dollars), which includes building and lifeline related losses based on the region's available inventory. The following three sections provide more detailed information about these losses.
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 17 of 22
Building-Related Losses
The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The direct building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the earthquake. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the earthquake.
The total building-related losses were 235.87 (millions of dollars); 13 % of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 45 % of the total loss. Table 11 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage.
Capital-Related 2%
Content 23%
Inventory 2%
Non_Structural 51%
Relocation 5%
Rental 3%
Structural 10%
Wage 3%
Total: 100%
Earthquake Losses by Loss Type ($ millions)
0 20
40 60
80 100
Earthquake Losses by Occupancy Type ($
millions)
Single
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Others
Other
Residential
Table 11: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Millions of dollars)
Commercial Industrial Others Total
Other
Residential
Area Single
Family
Category
Income Losses
Wage 0.0000 5.3787 0.2734 0.6423 0.4384 6.7328
Capital-Related 0.0000 4.3107 0.1702 0.2732 0.1311 4.8852 Rental 0.4298 2.8089 0.1728 4.4428 0.1179 7.9722
Relocation 1.5963 4.3141 0.7623 3.2488 1.9225 11.8440
Subtotal 2.0261 8.6071 16.8124 1.3787 2.6099 31.4342
Capital Stock Losses
Structural 2.5430 10.3527 2.6296 6.1577 2.5826 24.2656
Non_Structural 13.8881 31.7956 12.1260 51.7940 11.2672 120.8709 Content 5.4577 18.9231 9.4706 15.3246 4.9130 54.0890
Inventory 0.0000 3.8435 1.3679 0.0000 0.0028 5.2142
Subtotal 21.8888 73.2763 64.9149 25.5941 18.7656 204.4397 Total 23.91 81.88 81.73 26.97 21.38 235.87
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 18 of 22
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
For the transportation and utility lifeline systems, Hazus computes the direct repair cost for each component only. There are no losses computed by Hazus for business interruption due to lifeline outages. Tables 12 & 13 provide a detailed breakdown in the expected lifeline losses.
Table 12: Transportation System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
System Component Inventory Value Economic Loss Loss Ratio (%) Highway Segments 826.3067 0.0000 0.00
Bridges 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Tunnels 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Subtotal 826.3067 0.0000
Railways Segments 4021.6265 0.0000 0.00
Bridges 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Tunnels 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Facilities 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Subtotal 4021.6265 0.0000
Light Rail Segments 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Bridges 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Tunnels 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Facilities 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Subtotal 0.0000 0.0000
Bus Facilities 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Subtotal 0.0000 0.0000
Ferry Facilities 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Subtotal 0.0000 0.0000
Port Facilities 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Subtotal 0.0000 0.0000
Airport Facilities 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Runways 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Subtotal 0.0000 0.0000
Total 4,847.93 0.00
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 19 of 22
Table 13: Utility System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
System Component Inventory Value Economic Loss Loss Ratio (%) Potable Water Pipelines 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Facilities 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Distribution Lines 0.9157 0.0485 5.30
Subtotal 0.9157 0.0485
Waste Water Pipelines 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Facilities 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Distribution Lines 0.5494 0.0244 4.44
Subtotal 0.5494 0.0244
Natural Gas Pipelines 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Facilities 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Distribution Lines 0.3663 0.0083 2.27
Subtotal 0.3663 0.0083
Oil Systems Pipelines 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Facilities 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Subtotal 0.0000 0.0000
Electrical Power Facilities 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Subtotal 0.0000 0.0000
Communication Facilities 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Subtotal 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.83 0.08
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 20 of 22
Los Angeles,CA
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 21 of 22
Residential Non-Residential Total
Building Value (millions of dollars)
State County Name Population
California
Los Angeles 25,138 1,084 749 1,834
Total Region 25,138 1,084 749 1,834
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 22 of 22