Montebello City Council
August 27, 2025

Adopted August 27, 2025

Public Works / Engineering Fee Schedule, APPROVED AUGUST 2025 # Fee Description
FY 25-26 Fee
Amount
FY 26-27 Fee
Amount
FY 27-28 Fee
Amount
1 Minor / Temporary Encroachment Permit (e.g. Dumpster or Rolloff Trash Bin, etc.) - per day $123.00 154.00$ 193.00$ 2 Dumpster Encroachment Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost 3 Copying:
4 Per 8" x 11" 2.00$ 2.00$ 2.00$ 5 Driveway Approach:
6 Residential - Permit & Inspection 391.00$ 430.00$ 473.00$ 7 Commercial - Permit & Inspection 391.00$ 430.00$ 473.00$ 8 Encroachment Permit 987.00$ 1,184.00$ 1,302.00$ 9 Commercial Plan check - Engineering Review - hourly 165.00$ 182.00$ 200.00$ 10 Residential Plan Check - hourly 123.00$ 135.00$ 149.00$ 11 Sewer:
12 Plan Check - Base 494.00$ 642.00$ 706.00$ 13 Plan Check - per l.f. 3.00$ 3.00$ 3.00$ 14 Permit & Inspection - Base 370.00$ 407.00$ 448.00$ 15 Permit & Inspection - per l.f. 0.39$ 0.39$ 0.39$ 16 Sewer Strucuture - Permit & Inspection (min 4 hrs) 494.00$ 642.00$ 706.00$ 17 Sewer Connection Fee - per l.f. 62.00$ 68.00$ 75.00$ 18 Storm Drain:
19 Plan Check - Base 494.00$ 642.00$ 706.00$ 20 Plan Check - per l.f. 4.00$ 4.00$ 4.00$ 21 Permit & Inspection - Base 617.00$ 679.00$ 747.00$ 22 Permit & Inspection - per l.f. 7.00$ 8.00$ 9.00$ 23 Storm Drain - per drain 1,172.00$ 1, 289.00$ 1,418.00$ 24 Storm Drain Structure - Plan Check (min 2 hrs) 247.00$ 321.00$ 417.00$ 25 Storm Drain Structure - Permit & Inspection (min 3 hrs) 370.00$ 481.00$ 625.00$ City of Montebello
Master Fee Schedule - DRAFT

Adopted August 27, 2025

Public Works / Engineering Fee Schedule, APPROVED AUGUST 2025 # Fee Description
FY 25-26 Fee
Amount
FY 26-27 Fee
Amount
FY 27-28 Fee
Amount
26 Streets:
27 Plan Check:
28 1-10,000 SF - base 494.00$ 741.00$ 1,112.00$ 29 Per Sq. Ft. 0.25$ 0.25$ 0.25$ 30 10,001+ SF - Base 1,974.00$ 2,171.00$ 2,388.00$ 31 Per Sq. Ft. 0.07$ 0.07$ 0.07$ 32 Permit & Inspection - Base 494.00$ 642.00$ 835.00$ 33 Per Sq. Ft. 0.19$ 0.19$ 0.19$ 34 Curb Drains - Permit & Inspection - per location 175.00$ 193.00$ 251.00$ 35 Curb or Curb and Gutter - per l.f. 175.00$ 193.00$ 212.00$ 36 Sidewalk - Plan Check 123.00$ 160.00$ 208.00$ 37 Sidewalk - Permit & Inspection - Base 123.00$ 160.00$ 176.00$ 38 Sidewalk - Permit & Inspection - per sq. ft. 1.00$ 1.00$ 1.00$ 39 Street Lighting - Plan Check 494.00$ 642.00$ 835.00$ 40 Street Lighting - Permit & Inspection 247.00$ 321.00$ 417.00$ 41 Time Extension 679.00$ 883.00$ 1,148.00$ 42 Lane / Street Closure - per day 360.00$ 432.00$ 518.00$ 43 Traffic Control - Plan Check - Initial 247.00$ 371.00$ 557.00$ 44 Traffic Control Plan Check - subsequent 123.00$ 185.00$ 278.00$ 45 Preferential Parking Application 987.00$ 1,184.00$ 1,421.00$ 46 On Street Blue Curb Application 247.00$ 432.00$ 756.00$ 47 O
n Street Blue Curb Installation Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost 48 Speed Hump Application 370.00$ 407.00$ 448.00$ 49 Utilities:
50 Plan Check - hourly 247.00$ 321.00$ 417.00$ City of Montebello
Master Fee Schedule - DRAFT

Adopted August 27, 2025

Public Works / Engineering Fee Schedule, APPROVED AUGUST 2025 # Fee Description
FY 25-26 Fee
Amount
FY 26-27 Fee
Amount
FY 27-28 Fee
Amount
51 Permit & Inspection Fee:
52 0-50 feet 247.00$ 346.00$ 484.00$ 53 51-250 feet 247.00$ 346.00$ 484.00$ 54 per l.f. 1.00$ 1.00$ 1.00$ 55 251-1,000 feet 534.00$ 748.00$ 1,047.00$ 56 per l.f. 1.00$ 1.00$ 1.00$ 57 1,000+ feet 1,110.00$ 1,332.00$ 1,598.00$ 58 per l.f. 1.00$ 1.00$ 1.00$ 59 Water:
60 Plan Check 247.00$ 321.00$ 417.00$ 61 Permit & Inspection:
62 0-50 feet 164.00$ 230.00$ 322.00$ 63 51-250 feet 287.00$ 402.00$ 563.00$ 64 per l.f. 1.00$ 1.00$ 1.00$ 65 251-1,000 feet 534.00$ 748.00$ 1,047.00$ 66 per l.f. 1.00$ 1.00$ 1.00$ 67 1,000+ feet 1,028.00$ 1,285.00$ 1,606.00$ 68 per l.f. 1.00$ 1.00$ 1.00$ City of Montebello
Master Fee Schedule - DRAFT

Adopted August 27, 2025

Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule, APPROVED AUGUST 2025 # Fee Description
FY 25-26 Fee
Amount
FY 26-27 Fee
Amount
FY 27-28 Fee
Amount
1 Adult Sports Leagues
2 Softball & Fast Pitch $360.00 $360.00 396.00$
3 Basketball $360.00 $360.00 396.00$
4 Football $360.00 $360.00 396.00$
5 Volleyball $360.00 $360.00 396.00$
6 Youth Sports Leagues
7 Flag Football $70.00 $70.00 77.00$
8 Soccer $70.00 $70.00 77.00$
9 Basketball $70.00 $70.00 77.00$
10 Cheerleading $70.00 $70.00 77.00$
11 Track & Field $70.00 $70.00 77.00$
12 Volleyball $70.00 $70.00 77.00$
13 Pickleball $70.00 $70.00 77.00$
14 Skateboarding $70.00 $70.00 77.00$
15 T-Ball / Baseball / Softball $70.00 $70.00 77.00$
16 Summer Aquatics
17 Rec Swim - Youth $1.00 $1.00 1.10$
18 Rec Swim - Adult $3.00 $3.00 3.30$
19 Lap Swim - Youth $1.00 $1.00 1.10$
20 Lap Swim - Adult $3.00 $3.00 3.30$
21 Swim Lessons $50.00 $50.00 55.00$
22 Camps
23 Winter Camp $100.00 $100.00 110.00$
24 Summer Camp $120.00 $120.00 132.00$
25 Spring Camp $100.00 $100.00 110.00$
26 Annual Registration Fee $25.00 $25.00 28.00$
27 Camp Extended Care - Morning (one hour early) $50.00 $50.00 55.00$ 28 Camp Extended Care - Afternoon (one hour late) $50.00 $50.00 55.00$ City of Montebello
Master Fee Schedule - DRAFT

Adopted August 27, 2025

Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule, APPROVED AUGUST 2025 # Fee Description
FY 25-26 Fee
Amount
FY 26-27 Fee
Amount
FY 27-28 Fee
Amount
29 Extended Child Care
30 Full Time Before & Afterschool $130.00 $130.00 143.00$ 31 Afterschool Only $110.00 $110.00 121.00$
32 Annual Registration Fee $25.00 $25.00 28.00$
33 Non-Instructional Day Care - per day $35.00 $35.00 39.00$ 34 Child Care Extended Care - Morning (one hour early) $50.00 $50.00 55.00$ 35 Child Care Extended Care - Afternoon (one hour late) $50.00 $50.00 55.00$ 36 Montebello Playschool Program
37 Session Fee $350.00 $350.00 385.00$
38 Material / Registration Fee $75.00 $75.00 83.00$
39 Playschool Extended Care - Morning (one hour early) $50.00 $50.00 55.00$ 40 Playschool Extended Care - Afternoon (one hour late) $50.00 $50.00 55.00$ 41 Refund Processing Fee
42 Playschool Refund Processing Fee $25.00 $25.00 28.00$ 43 Program Refund Processing Fee $25.00 $25.00 28.00$
City of Montebello
Master Fee Schedule - DRAFT

Adopted August 27, 2025

Facility Rental and Use Fee Schedule, APPROVED AUGUST 2025 # Fee Description Cat I Cat II Cat III Cat IV Cat I Cat II Cat III Cat IV Cat I Cat II Cat III Cat IV 1 Park Rentals
2 Open Space - per hour $0.00 $10.00 $30.00 $50.00 $0.00 $10.00 $30.00 $50.00 $0.00 $11.00 $33.00 $55.00 3 Open Space with Lights - per hour $0.00 $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $0.00 $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $0.00 $22.00 $44.00 $66.00 4 Picnic Areas - per day $0.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $0.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $0.00 $66.00 $88.00 $110.00 5 Bouncer Permit - per permit $0.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $0.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $0.00 $66.00 $66.00 $66.00 6 Bandshells - per hour $0.00 $40.00 $80.00 $100.00 $0.00 $40.00 $80.00 $100.00 $0.00 $44.00 $88.00 $110.00 7 Ballfields - per hour $0.00 $12.00 $40.00 $55.00 $0.00 $12.00 $40.00 $55.00 $0.00 $13.00 $44.00 $61.00 8 Ballfields with Lights - per hour $0.00 $15.00 $50.00 $70.00 $0.00 $15.00 $50.00 $70.00 $0.00 $17.00 $55.00 $77.00 9 Full Field Prep - per field prep $0.00 $40.00 $65.00 $75.00 $0.00 $40.00 $65.00 $75.00 $0.00 $44.00 $72.00 $83.00 10 Basketball Courts - per hour $0.00 $12.00 $40.00 $55.00 $0.00 $12.00 $40.00 $55.00 $0.00 $13.00 $44.00 $61.00 11 Basketball Courts with Lights - per hour $0.00 $15.00 $50.00 $65.00 $0.00 $15.00 $50.00 $65.00 $0.00 $17.00 $55.00 $72.00 12 Tennis Courts - per hour $0.00 $12.00 $40.00 $55.00 $0.00 $12.00 $40.00 $55.00 $0.00 $13.00 $44.00 $61.00 13 Tennis Courts with Lights - per hour $0.00 $20.00 $50.00 $65.00 $0.00 $20.00 $50.00 $65.00 $0.00 $22.00 $55.00 $72.00 14 Monuments - per hour $0.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $0.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $0.00 $99.00 $99.00 $99.00 15 Gazebo - per hour $0.00 $25.00 $60.00 $75.00 $0.00 $25.00 $60.00 $75.00 $0.00 $28.00 $66.00 $83.00 16 Hensel Gym Half Court - per hour $0.00 $20.00 $50.00 $100.00 $0.00 $20.00 $50.00 $100.00 $0.00 $22.00 $55.00 $110.00 17 Hensel Gym Full Court - per hour $0.00 $30.00 $100.00 $150.00 $0.00 $30.00 $100.00 $150.00 $0.00 $33.00 $110.00 $165.00 18 Pickleball/Sport Court - per court - per hour $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $0.00 $11.00 $22.00 $33.00 19 Pickleball/Sport Court with Lights - per court - per hour $0.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $0.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $0.00 $22.00 $33.00 $44.00 20 Skate Park - per hour $0.00 $40.00 $80.00 $100.00 $0.00 $40.00 $80.00 $100.00 $0.00 $44.00 $88.00 $110.00 21 Street Banner Hanging: $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $275.00 $275.00 $275.00 $275.00 22 Facility / Community Center Rentals
23 Meeting Rooms - per hour $0.00 $10.00 $70.00 $100.00 $0.00 $10.00 $70.00 $100.00 $0.00 $11.00 $77.00 $110.00 23 City-owned Parking Lot $0.00 $20.00 $50.00 $75.00 $0.00 $20.00 $50.00 $75.00 $0.00 $22.00 $55.00 $83.00 24 Pool Rentals
25 0-50 swimmers - per hour $0.00 $100.00 $120.00 $180.00 $0.00 $100.00 $120.00 $180.00 $0.00 $110.00 $132.00 $198.00 26 51-100 swimmers - per hour $0.00 $140.00 $180.00 $220.00 $0.00 $140.00 $180.00 $220.00 $0.00 $154.00 $198.00 $242.00 27 101-150 swimmers - per hour $0.00 $180.00 $220.00 $260.00 $0.00 $180.00 $220.00 $260.00 $0.00 $198.00 $242.00 $286.00 28 151-200 swimmers - per hour $0.00 $220.00 $260.00 $300.00 $0.00 $220.00 $260.00 $300.00 $0.00 $242.00 $286.00 $330.00 29 Senior Center:
30 Downstairs Hall - per hour $0.00 $40.00 $125.00 $145.00 $0.00 $40.00 $125.00 $145.00 $0.00 $44.00 $138.00 $160.00 31 Downstairs Hall with Alcohol - per hour $0.00 $70.00 $155.00 $175.00 $0.00 $70.00 $155.00 $175.00 $0.00 $77.00 $171.00 $193.00 32 South Wing Hall - per hour $0.00 $40.00 $150.00 $170.00 $0.00 $40.00 $150.00 $170.00 $0.00 $44.00 $165.00 $187.00 33 South Wing Hall with Alcohol - per hour $0.00 $70.00 $180.00 $200.00 $0.00 $70.00 $180.00 $200.00 $0.00 $77.00 $198.00 $220.00 34 Upstairs Hall - per hour $0.00 $40.00 $150.00 $170.00 $0.00 $40.00 $150.00 $170.00 $0.00 $44.00 $165.00 $187.00 35 Upstairs Hall - with Alcohol - per hour $0.00 $70.00 $180.00 $200.00 $0.00 $70.00 $180.00 $200.00 $0.00 $77.00 $198.00 $220.00 36 Patio Activity Area - per day $0.00 $120.00 $250.00 $350.00 $0.00 $120.00 $250.00 $350.00 $0.00 $132.00 $275.00 $385.00 FY 25-26 Fee Amount FY 26-27 fee Amount FY 27-28 Fee Amount City of Montebello
Master Fee Schedule - DRAFT

Adopted August 27, 2025

Facility Rental and Use Fee Schedule, APPROVED AUGUST 2025 # Fee Description Cat I Cat II Cat III Cat IV Cat I Cat II Cat III Cat IV Cat I Cat II Cat III Cat IV FY 25-26 Fee Amount FY 26-27 fee Amount FY 27-28 Fee Amount 37 Staff Hourly Rate
38 Recreation Leader $0.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $0.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $0.00 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 39 Security Guard $0.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $0.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $0.00 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 40 Facility Rental Refund Processing Fees
41 Facility Rental Refund Processing Fees $0.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $0.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $0.00 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 City of Montebello
Master Fee Schedule - DRAFT

Adopted August 27, 2025
Key for Category Codes for Fee Amounts:

Category 1: City Events/Programs, Civic Groups, and Government Agencies Category 2: Montebello-based Nonprofit Organizations
Category 3: Montebello Residents and Non-Montebello-based Nonprofit Organizations Category 4: Non-Residents and Commercial Entities

This space for filing stamp only
DC# :

(When required)
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:

D A I L Y C O M M E R C E
~ SINCE 1917 ~

915 E. First Street, Los Angeles, California 90012
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 54026, Los Angeles, California 90054-0026 Telephone (213) 229-5300 / Fax (213) 680-3682

PROOF OF PUBLICATIONPROOF OF PUBLICATIONPROOF OF PUBLICATIONPROOF OF PUBLICATION

(2015.5 C.C.P.)

State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
Notice Type:

Ad Description:

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the DAILY COMMERCE, a daily newspaper published in the English language in the City of Los Angeles, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under date of June 17, 1952, Case No. 599,760. That the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:

Executed on: 10/15/2004
At Los Angeles, California

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signature

D A I L Y C O M M E R C E
~ SINCE 1917 ~
915 E FIRST ST, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
(213) 229-5300 (213) 229-5481
DC 3958445

SAMANTHA NEVAREZ

CITY OF MONTEBELLO/CITY CLERK (LEAD)
1600 W. BEVERLY BLVD
MONTEBELLO, CA - 90640

HRG - NOTICE OF HEARING
PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 27, 2025
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the DAILY COMMERCE, a newspaper published in the English language in the city of LOS ANGELES, county of LOS ANGELES, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by the Superior Court of the County of LOS ANGELES, State of California, under date 10/30/1981, Case No. 599760. That the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
08/15/2025
08/15/2025
!A000007180282!
Email

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City
Council of the City of Montebello will hold
a Public Hearing in the Council Chamber
of the Montebello City Hall, 1600 West
Beverly Boulevard, Montebello, California,
on Wednesd ay, August 27, 2025 , at 6:00
p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter as
the matter can be heard, to consider the
following:

A revised and updated City master fee
schedule that encompasses fees for City
services including but not limited to
Building and Saf ety, Planning and Code
Enforcement, Fire Inspections, Public
Works Engineering, Police, Finance and
General Administration.

For those interested in making public
comments, you may address the City
Council in person during the public
comment period or publi c testimony
period for public hearings by attending the
Montebello Council Chambers at 1600 W.

Beverly Blvd., Montebello, California on
Wednesday, August 27, 2025 , at 6:00
p.m. In addition, the City has created an
email address
ccpubliccomment@montebelloca .gov
where the public can submit written public
comments no later than Wednesday
August 27, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. These
comments will not be read aloud but will
be entered into the record and submitted
to all members of the City Council. The
email address for City Council meetings
can be located on the City's webpage
under the City Clerk tab,
https://cityofmontebello.hosted2.civiclive.c
om/departments/administration/city_clerks
_office.

The proposed resolutions, master fee
schedule, fee study report and other
ma terial are available by contacting the
City Clerk's Office at 323 -887 -1359.

Dated: August 13, 2025
/S/: Kimberly Guillen, Senior Deputy Clerk
8/15/25
DC -3958445#

ITEM # 9

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members

FROM: Raul Alvarez, City Manager

BY: Fernando Pelaez, Fire Chief
Andrew Kim, Senior Management Analyst

SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 25-71 APPROVING THE 2025 LOCAL

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (LHMP) FOR THE CITY OF

MONTEBELLO

DATE: August 27, 2025

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-71 approving the 2025 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for the City of Montebello; and

2. Authorize staff to transmit proof of adoption to FEMA for final approval; and

3. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the 2025 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) (Attachment B). However, adoption of the Plan will ensure that the City of Montebello remains eligible to apply for and receive federal and state hazard mitigation funding through programs such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On October 30, 2000, President Clinton signed into law the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), which amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by adding “Section 322 – Mitigation Planning.” This section requires local governments to develop and adopt hazard mitigation plans as a condition for receiving

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025

certain types of federal mitigation grant funding. Regulations implementing Section 322 are codified in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 201 and 206.

The specific criteria for Local Hazard Mitigation Plans are found in 44 CFR § 201.6.

FEMA defines hazard mitigation as “sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long- term risk to people and their property from hazards and their effects.” Mitigation planning is a proactive process through which hazards affecting a community are identified, vulnerabilities are assessed, and strategies are developed to reduce risks. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) serves as a blueprint for Montebello to reduce adverse impacts from both natural and human-caused hazards.

The City of Montebello has partnered with Jacob Green and Associates, a Southern California-based local government consulting firm, to develop the City’s 2025 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update (Attachment B). The process included input from City staff, stakeholders representing key sectors such as utilities, housing, healthcare, small business, and community-based organizations, as well as the general public. Over the past year, the planning team conducted a hazard risk assessment, analyzed climate impacts and equity considerations, and identified priority mitigation actions aligned with FEMA’s updated guidance issued in April 2023.

The draft LHMP addresses twelve hazards of concern to the City: extreme heat, drought, earthquake, high wind/storms, fire, power outages, cyberattack/information technology disruption, flooding, dam failure, terrorism/active assailant and civil unrest, and infectious disease/pandemic. The Plan incorporates future climate risk, analyzes vulnerabilities of historically underserved populations, and outlines a prioritized mitigation strategy to reduce risk across public infrastructure, services, and neighborhoods.

The LHMP was submitted to Cal OES and FEMA for review in 2024. In June 2025, FEMA determined that the Plan is Approvable Pending Adoption, requiring only that the City submit proof of adoption to FEMA for final approval.

Once adopted, the LHMP will serve as the City’s official mitigation strategy for the next five years. The Plan will be maintained and updated annually by City staff, in coordination with internal departments, regional agencies, and community stakeholders. Adoption of the Plan will also allow the City to pursue federal mitigation grant opportunities, including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

N/A

ANALYSIS:

The 2025 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Attachment B) supports the City of Montebello’s commitment to public safety, sustainability, and equitable community resilience. It aligns with the City’s General Plan goals and reflects Montebello’s strategic focus on hazard

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025

risk reduction, climate adaptation, and community preparedness. This item is consistent with the City’s adopted policy priorities, including:
• Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: The LHMP outlines strategies to reduce risk to life, property, and infrastructure and supports coordinated emergency response planning.
• Climate Adaptation and Environmental Resilience: The Plan integrates projected climate impacts, including extreme heat, drought, and flooding, in accordance with FEMA’s 2023 planning guidance and supports long-term adaptation actions.
• Equity and Inclusion: The LHMP prioritizes actions that address the needs of historically underserved and vulnerable populations, including low-income households, seniors, people with disabilities, and unhoused residents.

Additionally, this Plan supports the goals outlined in the Montebello General Plan, including:
• Goal SN-1: Reduce the risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic disruption from natural and human-caused hazards.
• Goal SN-4: Increase community awareness of hazards and promote personal preparedness.
• Goal SN-5: Integrate climate resilience into emergency management and hazard mitigation planning.

The City of Montebello prioritized meaningful public and stakeholder engagement throughout the development of the 2025 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Community engagement was conducted in both English and Spanish to ensure broad accessibility. Key outreach activities included:
• Online Public Survey: A hazard awareness and preparedness survey was distributed online in both English and Spanish. Responses helped shape the prioritization of hazards and informed the development of mitigation strategies.

Survey results are included in the LHMP as Appendix D (English) and Appendix E (Spanish).
• Stakeholder Interviews and Planning Meetings: The City convened a diverse planning team including representatives from City departments, community-based organizations, utility providers, health and education sectors, and the private sector. Stakeholders were actively involved in identifying hazards, assessing risk, and developing mitigation actions.
• Public Review Period: A draft of the LHMP was posted for public comment prior to finalization. Feedback from residents and local stakeholders was reviewed and incorporated into the final draft submitted to Cal OES and FEMA.

The City’s approach emphasized equity, ensuring that input from vulnerable populations, including low-income residents, seniors, renters, and individuals with disabilities, was

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2025

considered in the planning process. This engagement strategy supports the City’s broader goals of building inclusive, climate-resilient communities and ensuring transparency in decision-making.

SUMMARY:

The 2025 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) outlines Montebello’s strategy to reduce risks from twelve identified hazards, including natural, technological, and human-caused threats, while integrating climate adaptation and equity considerations. Developed with input from City staff, community stakeholders, and the public, the Plan meets FEMA’s updated 2023 requirements and is “Approved Pending Adoption.” Adoption by the City Council will finalize FEMA approval, guide hazard mitigation actions for the next five years, and maintain the City’s eligibility for federal and state hazard mitigation funding.

Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 25-71 (Attachment A) approving the 2025 LHMP and authorize submission of proof of adoption to FEMA for final approval.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment A - Resolution 25-71

2. Attachment B - 2025 Montebello LHMP Update

RE
SOLUTION NO. 25-71
RE

SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO ADOPTING THE CITY’S HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM
RE
CITALS
WH ER EAS, the City of Montebello recognizes the threat that natural and manmade hazards pose to people and property within this community; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions will reduce the potential for harm to people and property from future hazard occurrences; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (“Disaster Mitigation Act”) emphasizing the need for pre-disaster mitigation of potential hazards; and
WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act made available hazard mitigation grants to state and local governments; and
WHEREAS, an adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is required as a condition of future funding for mitigation projects under multiple Federal Emergency Management Authority (“FEMA”) pre- and post-disaster mitigation grant programs; and WHEREAS, the City of Montebello fully participated in the FEMA -prescribed mitigation planning process to prepare this local hazard mitigation plan; and WHEREAS, the California Office of Emergency Services and FEMA, Region IX officials have reviewed the City of Montebello Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and approve it contingent upon this official adoption of the participating governing body; and WHEREAS, the City of Montebello desires to comply with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act and to augment its emergency planning efforts by formally adopting the City of Montebello Hazard Mitigation Plan by reference into the Safety Element of the General Plan in accordance with the requirements of AB 2140; and WHEREAS, adoption by the City Council demonstrates the jurisdiction’s commitment to fulfilling the mitigation goals and objectives outlined in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, legitimizes the plan and authorizes the responsible agencies to carry out their responsibilities under the plan.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

ATTACHMENT A

O
F MONTEBELLO AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

1. Adopts the Montebello Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan.

2. Adopts the Montebello Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by reference into the safety element of the City’s General Plan in accordance with the requirements of AB 2140.

SECTION 2. The City of Montebello will submit this adopted resolution to the California Office of Emergency Services and FEMA Region IX officials to enable the plan’s final approval in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and to establish conformance with the requirement of AB 2140.

SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

AP
PROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025.

Salvador Melendez, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

K
imberly Guillen, Senior Deputy City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF MONTEBELLO )
I, K
imberly Guillen, Senior Deputy City Clerk of the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25-71 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Montebello, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular m eeting of said Council held on

t
he 27th day of August 2025 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:

A
YES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

The undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of said City which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

DA
TE: _______________________________
Kimberly Guillen, S enior Deputy City Clerk

Prepared by:

ATTACHMENT B

2 (this page intentionally left blank)

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 7 PLANNING TEAM ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 9 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 Hazard Mitigation ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Purpose and Authority ..................................................................................................................................... 11 SECTION 2 – COMMUNITY PROFILE................................ ................................ .............. 15

2.1 Setting and Location .................................................................................................................................. 15

2.2 History ................................................................................................................................................................ 15

2.3 Climate .............................................................................................................................................................. 17

2.4 Climate Change ........................................................................................................................................... 19

2.5 Demographics............................................................................................................................................... 19

2.6 Housing and Development ................................................................................................................... 21

2.7 Economy ......................................................................................................................................................... 24

2.8 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................... 26

2.9 Historically Vulnerable Populations ................................................................................................ 30 SECTION 3 – HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ....................... 34

3.1 Historic Disaster Declarations .............................................................................................................. 34

3.1.1 Hazard Selection ....................................................................................................................................... 42

3.2 Hazard Scoring, Prioritization and Probability ......................................................................... 44

3.3 Global Climate Change .......................................................................................................................... 46

3.4 Hazard Profiles............................................................................................................................................. 50

3.4.1 Extreme Heat................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 50

3.4.2 Drought................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .54

3.4.3 Earthquake ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 60

3.4.4 High Wind/Storms ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 71

3.4.5 Fire ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 79

3.4.6 Power Outage ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 91

3.4.7 Cyberattack/IT Disruption ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 95

3.4.8 Flooding ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 100

3.4.9 Dam Failure ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 113

3.4.10 Terrorism/Active Assailant and Civil Unrest................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 119

3.4.11 Epidemic/Pandemic ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 121 SECTION 4 – VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................ ........................... 124

4.1 Lifelines and Critical Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 124

4.2 Individual Hazard Vulnerability Analysis .................................................................................... 126

4.3.1. Extreme Heat .......................................................................................................................................... 126

4.3.1.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 126

4 4.3.1.2 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 126

4.3.1.3 Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 127

4.3.1.4 Non-Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 127

4.3.1.5 Environment................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 127

4.3.1.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan ................................ ................................ ........................... 127

4.3.1.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 128

4.3.2 Drought ...................................................................................................................................................... 129

4.3.2.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 129

4.3.2.2 Population................................. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 129

4.3.2.3 Critical Facilities. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 129

4.3.2.4 Non-Critical Facilities. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 129

4.3.2.5 Environment ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 130

4.3.2.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan ................................ ................................ .......................... 130

4.3.2.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 130

4.3.3 Earthquake............................................................................................................................................... 132

4.3.3.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 132

4.3.3.2 Population................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 132

4.3.3.3 Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 133

4.3.3.4 Non-Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 133

4.3.3.5 Environment ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 133

4.3.3.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan ................................ ................................ .......................... 133

4.3.3.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 134

4.3.4 High Wind/Storms ............................................................................................................................... 135

4.3.4.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 135

4.3.4.2 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 135

4.3.4.3 Critical Facilities................................. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 135

4.3.4.4 Non-Critical Facilities. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 136

4.3.4.5 Environment ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 136

4.3.4.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan ................................ ................................ ......................... 136

4.3.4.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 136

4.3.5 Fire ................................................................................................................................................................ 138

4.3.5.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 138

4.3.5.2 Population................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 138

4.3.5.3 Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 138

4.3.5.4 Non-Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 138

4.3.5.5 Environment ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 138

4.3.5.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan ................................ ................................ .......................... 139

4.3.5.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 139

4.3.6 Power Outage ........................................................................................................................................ 140

4.3.6.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 140

4.3.6.2 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 140

4.3.6.3 Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 140

4.3.6.4 Non-Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 141

4.3.6.5 Environment ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 141

4.3.6.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan ................................ ................................ ........................... 141

4.3.6.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 141

4.3.7 Cyberattack/IT Disruption ............................................................................................................... 143

4.3.7.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 143

4.3.7.2 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 143

4.3.7.3 Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 143

4.3.7.4 Non-Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 144

4.3.7.5 Environment................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 144

4.3.7.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan ................................ ................................ ......................... 144

5 4.3.7.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 145

4.3.8 Floods .......................................................................................................................................................... 146

4.3.8.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 146

4.3.8.2 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 146

4.3.8.3 Critical Facilities................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 146

4.3.8.4 Non-Critical Facilities. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 146

4.3.8.5 Environment ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 147

4.3.8.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan................................ ................................ .......................... 147

4.3.8.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 147

4.3.9 Dam Failure ............................................................................................................................................. 148

4.3.9.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......148

4.3.9.2 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 148

4.3.9.3 Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........148

4.3.9.4 Non-Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 148

4.3.9.5 Environment ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 148

4.3.9.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan ................................ ................................ .......................... 148

4.3.9.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 149

4.3.10 Terrorism/Armed Assailant and Civil Unrest ........................................................................ 150

4.3.10.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 150

4.3.10.2 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 150

4.3.10.3 Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 150

4.3.10.4 Non-Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 150

4.3.10.5 Environment................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 150

4.3.10.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan ................................ ................................ ......................... 151

4.3.10.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 151

4.3.11 Infectious Disease ............................................................................................................................... 152

4.3.11.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 152

4.3.11.2 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 152

4.3.11.3 Critical Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 152

4.3.11.4 Non-Critical Facilities................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 152

4.3.11.5 Environment ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 152

4.3.11.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan ................................ ................................ ......................... 153

4.3.11.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 153

4.4 National Flood Insurance Program Participation ................................................................. 154 SECTION 5 – CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................ ................................ ... 158

5.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities .......................................................................................... 158

5.2 Technical and Fiscal Capabilities .................................................................................................... 162

5.3 Education/Outreach ............................................................................................................................... 163

5.4 Potential for Improvement ................................................................................................................ 164

5.4.1 Policy/Regulatory .................................................................................................................................. 164

5.4.2 Admin/Technical ................................................................................................................................... 164

5.4.3 Education/Outreach ........................................................................................................................... 165

5.4.4 Financial .................................................................................................................................................... 165 SECTION 6 – MITIGATION STRATEGY ................................ ................................ ........ 167

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 167

6 6.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives............................................................................................... 168

6.3 Mitigation Actions ............................................................................................................................. 170

6.4 Status of Prior Mitigation Actions ................................................................................................... 191

6.5 Actions Considered But Not Included ........................................................................................ 204

6.6 Mitigation Prioritization and Implementation ....................................................................... 209 SECTION 7 – PLANNING PROCESS ................................ ................................ .............. 211

7.1 Planning Process ........................................................................................................................................ 211

7.2 Plan Update ................................................................................................................................................. 215

7.3 Stakeholder Involvement .................................................................................................................... 215

7.4 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................................. 217

7.5 Plan Incorporation ................................................................................................................................... 218

7.6 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan .................................................................... 219

7.7 Plan Adoption ............................................................................................................................................222 Appendix A: Sample Adoption Resolution ........................................................................................223 Adopting the City of Montebello Hazard Mitigation Plan ........................................................223 Appendix B: LHMP Approval Process ..................................................................................................225 Appendix C: Public Notices ....................................................................................................................... 226 Appendix D: Survey Results (English) ................................................................................................. 230 Appendix E: Survey Results (Spanish) ................................................................................................ 246

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the City of Montebello’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update for 2025. Hazard mitigation plans are intended to serve as a guide for communities to reduce adverse impacts from natural and human-caused hazards. While not required under Federal law, preparation, adoption of an LHMP gives communities access to F ederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant programs to help pay for mitigation actions specified in the LHMP.

FEMA requires that LHMPs be updated every five (5) years to remain active and eligible for funding projects. The City ’s last update was completed in 2017. This present update of the LHMP has been thoroughly revised from earlier updates, with particular attention given to FEMA’s recent guidance requiring a focus on climate impacts and equity.

The LHMP consists of the following sections:

• An overview of the purpose of hazard mitigation planning. • A profile of Montebello, including its history, climate, demographics, infrastructure, and vulnerable communities.
• An examination of twelve hazards chosen in cooperation with the City:
o Extreme Heat
o Drought
o Earthquake
o High wind/storms
o Fire
o Power Outage
o Cyberattack/IT outage
o Flooding
o Dam failure
o Terrorism
o Infectious disease/pandemic
• An assessment of Montebello’s capabilities to mitigate these hazards. • A list of potential mitigation actions to address these hazards. • A description of the planning process and how the LHMP will be maintained and updated.

The update was submitted to California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services ( Cal OES) and the Federal Emergency Management Age ncy (FEMA) for plan approval on January 17, 2025. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was submitted to the Montebello City Council for formal approval on August 27, 2025.

8 (this page intentionally left blank)

9 PLANNING TEAM

Fire Department

Alfredo Estrada – Assistant Fire Chief
Angélica Palmeros – Assistant Director
Veronica Lara – Senior Administrative Assistant
Michelle Marquez – Senior Management Analyst

Stakeholder Group

John Loussararian – Executive Director, Westchester Family YMCA Sofia Mier – Project Manager, Cesar Chavez Foundation
Adriana Dugan – Executive Director, Montebello Chamber of Commerce Gary Clifford – Executive Vice President, Athens Services Nathan McCusker – Lead Brewer, Angry Horse Brewing
Robert Monzón – President, Montebello Housing Development Corporation Osvaldo Peña – Public Affairs Manager, SoCalGas

Jacob Green and Associates

Patrick Marchman, AICP, SCR, Project Manager

10 (this page intentionally left blank)

11 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

Hazard Mitigation

The goal of hazard mitigation is to reduce the frequency and severity of disasters, minimize their impact on communities, and promote resilience and sustainability in the face of future emergencies. This can include measures such as building codes and standards, zoning regulations, evacuation plans, early warning systems, and disaster -resistant infrastructure. By taking a proactive approach to disaster risk reduction, we can help to save lives, reduce the economic impact of disasters, and ensure that commun ities are better prepared to respond to and recover from emergencies.

Hazard mitigation planning improves a community's ability to effectively respond to natural disasters by establishing plans for maintaining continuity of operations for both government and community entities. The process involves identifying attainable goals to reduce the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage from hazardous events, and developing strategies and activities to mitigate their effects.

Hazard mitigation planning is intended to be a participatory process that involves government agencies, stakeholders, and the public. The planning process includes scheduled events that encourage participation and ensure that a comprehensive approach is taken to address current and future hazar ds. By incorporating a systematic and inclusive approach, the local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) helps to reduce the community's vulnerability to disasters and promote resilience.

As the impacts of global climate change have become increasingly apparent, explicitly integrating climate concerns into hazard mitigation planning has become necessary to most fully understanding a jurisdiction’s future risk and designing effective strategies to mitigate that risk. The most recent update of FEMA’s local hazard mitigation planning guidance, effective as of April 2023, includes a deeper focus on climate impacts and adaptation.

Purpose and Authority

The City of Montebello’s 202 5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) outlines the potential natural and human-caused hazards that pose a threat to the citizens, resources, and property in the City. The plan also outlines the city's objectives and commitment to reducing the risks associated with these hazards.

12 The focus of this LHMP is on the hazards that pose the greatest risk to the city, as determined through a comprehensive hazard risk assessment and input from local officials. Hazards of lesser concern may still be evaluated but may not be fully addressed in this plan update. The updated risk assessment will help the city prioritize and update mitigation actions based on the hazards that pose the greatest risk to lives and property.

The LHMP has been developed in compliance with current federal and state regulations governing local hazard mitigation plans and has been adopted in accordance with standard local procedures. The plan will be monitored regularly and revised as necessary to maintain compliance with the provisions, rules, and legislation outlined in Section 322 of the Robert T.

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, FEMA's Final Rule published in the Federal Register, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 and 2012, and the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.

The U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), which amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and emphasized the need for state and local governments to closely coordinate their mitigation planni ng activities. The development of a hazard mitigation plan is a specific eligibility requirement for any local government applying for federal mitigation grant funds. These funds include Building Resilient Infrastructure in Communities (BRIC), Hazard Mitig ation Grant Program (HMGP) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), all administered by FEMA.

• Building Resilient Infrastructure in Communities (BRIC): The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program prioritizes innovative projects that reduce risk and address climate change impacts, emphasizing the protection of critical infrastructure and public safety. Subapplicants must submit their proposals to their respective state, territory, or tribal government for review and submission to FEMA.

Project requirements mandate that projects align with the goals of BRIC, focusing on hazard mitigation, resilience building, and addressing climate change impacts.

Applicants and subapplicants must also have a FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan at the time of application and prior to receiving funding. The majority of BRIC funding is distributed through a national competition based on the merits of submitted projects, prioritizing innovative solutions, scalability, and significant risk reduction. BRIC funding typically requires a cost share from the applicant, with FEMA covering up to 75% of the project cost. The remaining 25% must be provided by the applicant, sourced from state, local, or tribal funds, or other non-federal sources.
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): To qualify for post-disaster mitigation funds, local jurisdictions must have an approved mitigation plan from FEMA. HMGP provides funds to states, territories, Indian tribal governments, local governments, and eligib le

13 private non -profit organizations (such as hospitals and special needs populations) following a presidential disaster declaration.
• Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA): A community must have an approved mitigation plan from FEMA to be eligible for FMA grants to implement flood mitigation, acquisition, or elevation of flood -prone homes. The community must also participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since one of the goals of FMA is to reduce or eliminate NFIP claims.
• Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM): PDM aids states, territories, Indian tribal governments, and local governments in implementing a sustained pre -disaster hazard mitigation program. To be eligible for PDM funding, communities must have an approved LHMP from FEMA. Although FEMA has discontinued the PDM program with the introduction of Building Resilient Infrastructure in Communities (BRIC), communities with projects currently funded by PDM through its most recent allocations must still be covered by a FEMA-approved LHMP.

14 (this page intentionally left blank)

15 SECTION 2 – COMMUNITY PROFILE

This is an overview of the City of Montebello with information about the community’s physical setting, history, economy and demographics, current and future land uses, and key infrastructure. The Community Profile establishes the baseline conditions that inform s the development of hazard mitigation actions.

2.1 Setting and Location

The City of Montebello has a total land area of 8.25 square miles. The City of Montebello is located approximately 7 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and is bounded by the cities of Monterey Park and Rosemead on the north, the City of Commerce and unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County on the west, the Whittier Narrows Recreation area on the east, the City of Commerce on the southwest and the City of Pico Rivera on the southeast. With easy access to major highways like the I -5 and I-710, Montebello is well -connected to the broader metropolitan region.

Montebello's topography is a mix of flatlands and gently rolling hills . The northern part of Montebello features more pronounced hills and elevated areas, offering scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains and the Greater Los Angeles basin. These hills are part of the Monterey Park Hills, which extend into neighboring cities. This hilly terrain includes residential neighborhoods with winding streets and hillside homes that take advantage of the picturesque vistas. The southern part of the city, in contrast, is relatively flatter, making it more suitable for commercial and industrial developments.

In addition to its hills and flatlands, Montebello is also home to the Rio Hondo River, which runs along its eastern boundary. The river and its accompanying greenbelt provide recreational opportunities and a natural habitat for local wildlife.

2.2 History

The land that would become the City of Montebello was originally named Tovaangar, inhabited by the Gabrielino-Tongva people. This area, characterized by flatlands and chaparral -studded hills, was a significant part of the indigenous world that stretched across what is now Southern California. The Gabrielino-Tongva were hunter-gatherers who lived in temporary villages near stable water sources.

16 The Spanish established Mission San Gabriel Arcangel in 1771 on what is now Montebello.

However, the mission was soon moved due to a flood, leaving the original site as a historical landmark. During the Spanish and Mexican periods, the land that would become Montebello was part of several large ranchos. The most notable of these is Rancho La Merced, home to the still-standing Sanchez Adobe, the oldest structure in Montebello, which also played a role in the Mexican-American War during the Battle of Rio San Gabriel in 1847.

Following the Mexican -American War, much of the land around Montebello passed through several owners. In 1885, a group of Los Angeles businessmen, including Isaias Hellman and Harris Newmark, purchased large tracts of this land. By 1900, the Montebello Lan d and Water Company had been incorporated, and with the help of hydraulic engineer William Mulholland, a water system was constructed, making the area suitable for development.

The city was officially founded on October 16, 1920, by early settlers and developers who saw the potential for a thriving community. Initially named Newmark, the town was soon renamed Montebello, meaning "beautiful mountain" in Italian, reflecting the area's picturesque hills and landscapes. Originally an agricultural community, Montebello had an ideal climate, productive soil, and an abundance of water for farming. From the turn of the century continuing through the 1920’s, the area was well known for its production of flowers, vegetables, berries, and fruits.

The discovery of oil by Standard Oil Company on the Anita Baldwin property in 1917, brought about a new era for the City. By 1920, Montebello Oil Fields accounted for one -eighth of total California crude oil production. On October 19, 1920, Montebello was incorporated as the 35th of the present cities in Los Angeles County. As of the time of writing (2025), there are no active wells remaining within city limits, and Montebello Gas Storage Facility (operated by Southern California Gas Company) is also no longer active.

The advent of the automobile and the construction of major roads, including Whittier Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard, shaped Montebello’s development in the 1920s. The area also became an industrial hub, with the establishment of the Simons Brick Company a nd other factories, which created demand for housing and spurred further residential development. By the mid - 20th century, the city’s landscape was transformed by suburbanization, with the construction of new residential subdivisions and public institutions, such as a new civic center.

In recent decades, Montebello has focused on redevelopment, particularly in the Montebello Hills, where new residential and commercial developments have been planned and constructed. The city’s population has become increasingly diverse, with a significant majority identifying as Hispanic or Latino, alongside a notable Armenian American community.

17 Today, Montebello is a vibrant city with a diverse economy that has evolved from its historical roots in oil production to a more varied economic base. The city's economy is now driven by retail, manufacturing, healthcare, and education sectors. The Montebello Town Center, a major shopping mall, serves as a significant retail destination in the area. Additionally, the city is home to several healthcare facilities, including the Beverly Hospital, which provides essential medical services to the community.

2.3 Climate

The City of Montebello is located 15 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Montebello experiences a Mediterranean climate characterized by mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers.

The city's climate is classified as Csa according to the Köppen climate classification system.

Average high temperatures in Montebello range from around 68°F (20°C ) in January to approximately 89°F (32°C) in August. During the summer months, temperatures can occasionally soar above 100°F (38°C), particularly during heatwaves. Winte rs are generally mild, with average low temperatures fluctuating between 46°F (8°C) in January to 63°F (17°C) in July.

Annual precipitation in Montebello averages about 15 inches (380 mm), with the majority of rainfall occurring between November and March. December, January, and February are typically the wettest months, with each month receiving approximately 3 inches (76 mm) of rain.

In contrast, the summer months are exceptionally dry, often exper iencing little to no rainfall.

Montebello enjoys approximately 284 sunny days per year, significantly higher than the national average of 205 sunny days, contributing to its warm and inviting climate.

Marine layer clouds are common early in the day, and the City’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean helps moderate temperatures and provides a cooling effect, particularly in the evenings. The coastal influence means that while daytime temperatures can be quite high during summer, the evenings are usually cooler and more comfortable. The region rarely ex periences extreme weather events such as heavy snowfall or severe storms.

18 Source:: https://www.weather-us.com/en/california-usa/montebello-climate (retrieved August 2024)

19 2.4 Climate Change

Like much of Southern California, Montebello faces rising temperatures and other significant climate impacts due to global climate change. According to the National Climate Assessment, California's average annual temperature could increase by 5 -8°F (2.8-4.4°C) by mid -century, intensifying heatwaves and posing severe risks to public health, infrastructure, and ecosystems.

Montebello's current average summer highs of approximately 89°F (32°C) are projected to rise, with a substantial increase in days exceeding 100°F (38°C). Vulnerable populations will face heightened risks from heat -related illnesses. Additionally, the urban heat island effect, exacerbated by extensive paved surfaces and limited green space, will compound local heat challenges.

While Montebello currently receives an average annual rainfall of about 15 inches (380 mm), climate models predict increased variability, with both prolonged droughts and intense rainfall events becoming more common. Such variability will strain water resources critical to landscaping, agriculture, and municipal use. When intense storms occur, low -lying areas and locations near the Rio Hondo River are particularly susceptible to flash flooding.

Higher temperatures are likely to increase ground -level ozone and worsen smog conditions, further aggravating respiratory issues such as asthma and bronchitis. While Montebello itself is not at high risk of wildfires, smoke and particulate matter from regional fires will affect air quality, with cascading health impacts.

The reduction of Sierra Nevada snowpack, coupled with rising evaporation rates, threatens California's water supply systems. Montebello, along with other Southern California cities, will face challenges in securing reliable water sources, potentially increasing the cost of water and impacting daily use.

The increased need for energy during heatwaves can drive up utility costs for residents and businesses. The costs associated with climate adaptation measures, such as upgrading infrastructure to withstand extreme weather or implementing water conservation programs, can strain municipal budgets.

2.5 Demographics

Montebello experienced steady population growth in its earlier days and a boom after the end of World War II. Population growth continued into the 1980’s though the rate of growth slowed in the decade following 2000 due to demographic trends and limited new housing development.

20 The average annual growth rate from 2000 to 2023 was minimal, around 0.17% per year, with more years of decline than growth, particularly following the COVID -19 pandemic. Between 2020 and 2023, Montebello's population decreased by about 2,418 people, a sig nificant drop of 3.87% during this period.

As of 2025, the city's population is estimated to be around 59,209, representing a decrease of approximately 5.16% since the 2020 census when the population was recorded at 62,433. This decline is part of a broader trend over the last decade, with the population peaking in 2015 at 63,641 before gradually decreasing.

Population and Racial/Ethnic Composition

Population Data Estimate
Total population (estimate as of July 1, 2024) 59,209
SEX
Male 48.74%
Female 51.26%
AGE
Under 18 years 21.72%
65 years and over 16.31%

RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN
Two or more races 10.41%
One race 89.59%
Caucasian 31.03%
Black or African American 0.88%
American Indian and Alaska Native 2.65%
Asian 13.64%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.07%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 84.36%

Education

Label Estimate
High school graduate or higher; percentage of persons age 25+

82.7%
Bachelor’s degree or higher; percentage of persons age 25+ 21.5%

21 Income

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the latest available statistics, the estimated median household income in Montebello, CA, as of 2025 is $72,317. The per capita income in Montebello as of 2025 is estimated to be $26,320.

2.6 Housing and Development

Montebello has a housing history that spans over a century. The city was incorporated in 1920, and its early housing stock primarily consisted of single -family homes built in the popular Craftsman and California Bungalow styles of the 1920s and 1930s. Following World War II, Montebello experienced a significant housing boom. By 1960, the population had grown to 32,097, spurring rapid expansion of the housing stock, with many ranch -style homes being constructed throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

The late 20th century saw a diversification of Montebello's housing types. More multi -family units were built in the 1970s and 1980s to accommodate the growing population. According to the 1990 census, Montebello had 19,000 housing units, with a median home value of $195,800.

By 2000, the number of housing units had increased to 19,800. The 2000 census also reported that 60.0% of housing units were owner-occupied, while 40.0% were renter-occupied.

As of the 2020 census, Montebello's housing stock had grown modestly to approximately 20,100 units. The city's housing mix includes single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, and apartment complexes. Like much of the Los Angeles area, Montebello has ex perienced significant home value appreciation over the past decades. As of early 2025, the median home value in Montebello was estimated to be around $710,000. However, this figure can fluctuate based on market conditions.

The rental market in Montebello remains strong. As of 2025, the average rent for a one - bedroom apartment was $1,879 per month, varying based on location and amenities. The city's proximity to downtown Los Angeles, about 8 miles east, makes it attractive to commuters, contributing to high demand and low inventory in recent years. Approximately 46.1% of housing units were owner -occupied, while 53.9% were renter -occupied, showing a continued shift towards renting compared to the 2000 census figures.

As of 2023 U.S. Census Bureau data:

• Owner-occupied housing rate: 46.1%

22 • Median value of owner-occupied housing units: $710,000 • Median selected monthly owner costs with a mortgage: $2,855 • Median gross rent: $1,879
• Number of households: 19,241
• Persons per household: 3.2

23 Source: 2024-2040 Montebello General Plan

24 2.7 Economy

Montebello, California, boasts a diverse and dynamic economy that has evolved significantly from its early roots in agriculture and oil production. Montebello's economy is now driven by various sectors, including retail, manufacturing, healthcare, education, and energy.

Retail

The Montebello Town Center, a major regional shopping mall, serves as a significant retail hub, attracting visitors from throughout the area. This retail center includes a variety of stores, restaurants, and entertainment options, contributing to local employment and economic activity.

Additionally, the city features numerous small businesses, restaurants, and service -oriented establishments that cater to the needs of residents and visitors alike. The retail sector not only provides jobs but also generates substantial sales tax revenue, which supports municipal services and infrastructure.

Manufacturing and Industrial

The city hosts several manufacturing companies that produce a wide range of goods, from consumer products to industrial components. These businesses benefit from Montebello’s strategic location near major transportation routes, including highways and railr oads, which facilitate the efficient movement of goods.

Healthcare

The city is home to several healthcare facilities, including Beverly Hospital, a key provider of medical services in the region. Beverly Hospital offers a range of healthcare services, from emergency care to specialized treatments, and employs a significan t number of healthcare professionals. In addition to Beverly Hospital, Montebello has various clinics, medical offices, and senior care facilities that collectively support the health and well -being of the community while contributing to the local economy.

Education

The Montebello Unified School District (MUSD) is the largest employer in the City, with multiple schools providing jobs for administrators, teachers, and custodians, as well jobs located at the central administration offices. MUSD operates numerous elementary, middle, and high schools, providing education to thousands of students. The district also offers adult education programs, vocational training, and special education services.

25 City of Montebello Industry
(Source: American Community Survey - 2024)

Industry 2024
Number Percent %
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and
mining 98 0.40%
Construction 1,457 5.70%
Manufacturing 2,830 11.00%
Wholesale Trade 1,350 5.20%
Retail Trade 2,940 11.40%
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities 1,900 7.40% Information 590 2.30%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and
rental and leasing 1,600 6.20%
Professional, scientific, and management, and
administrative and waste management services 2,520 9.80% Educational services, and health care and
social assistance 5,690 22.00%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and
accommodation and food services 2,340 9.10%
Other services, except public administration 1,740 6.70% Public administration 1,320 5.10%

26 Table: City of Montebello Occupation
(Source: American Community Survey - 2014)

Occupation 2014
Number Percent
Civilian employed population (16 years
and over) 27,040 100.00%
Management, business, science, and arts
occupations 7,950 29.40%
Service occupations 4,580 16.90%
Sales and office occupations 7,460 27.60%
Natural resources, construction, and
maintenance occupations 2,100 7.80%
Production, transportation, and material
moving 4,950 18.30%

2.8 Infrastructure

Electricity and Natural Gas: Montebello’s electricity infrastructure is a critical component of its urban framework, ensuring reliable power supply to its approximately 63,000 residents and numerous businesses. The city’s electricity needs are primarily served by Southern California Edison (SCE), which is one of the largest electric utilities in the United States. SCE’s extensive service area covers a large portion of Southern California, including Montebello, and serves millions of customers. The local electricity distribution network consists of several substations, transformers, and distribution lines that convert high -voltage electricity from transmission lines into lower voltages suitable for residential and commercial use.

The natural gas infrastructure in Montebello is managed by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), the largest natural gas distribution utility in the United States. SoCalGas provides natural gas services to Montebello and a vast area of Southern Calif ornia, serving millions of residential, commercial, and industrial customers. The natural gas infrastructure in Montebello includes an extensive network of high -pressure transmission pipelines and lower -pressure distribution pipelines that transport natural gas from processing facilities to end users.

Water Infrastructure: According to the City of Montebello General Plan, water service for the City is provided by five service providers in five different districts: California Water Service Company, Central Basin/Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Montebello Land and Water, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, and the South Montebello Irrigation District

27 The primary sources of water for Montebello are groundwater and imported water. Groundwater is drawn from the Central Basin and the San Gabriel Basin, which are significant aquifers in the region. These basins are managed to ensure sustainable water extrac tion and maintain water quality. The city operates several wells that extract groundwater, which is then treated to meet state and federal water quality standards. In addition to groundwater, Montebello imports water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which sources water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project. This imported water supplements the local supply, particularly during dry periods or when groundwater levels are low.

Montebello’s water distribution system comprises over 100 miles of pipelines, ensuring that water reaches every corner of the city. The system includes multiple reservoirs with a combined storage capacity of millions of gallons, providing a buffer to meet peak demand and emergency needs. For example, the city has several storage tanks and reservoirs, such as the Montebello Hills Reservoir, which has a capacity of approximately 5 million gallons. These storage facilities are strategically located to maintain consistent water pressure and supply throughout the city.

Wastewater Infrastructure: The wastewater system is managed by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, specifically the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 2, which oversees wastewater collection and treatment for Montebello and the surrounding areas.

The city’s wastewater collection system includes an extensive network of over 100 miles of sewer pipelines, ranging in diameter to accommodate varying volumes of wastewater. These pipelines transport wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial sources to regional treatment facilities. The system also includes several pumping stations that help move wastewater through the system, particularly in areas where gravity flow is insufficient.

Wastewater from Montebello is primarily treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, one of the largest wastewater treatment plants in the world. This facility, operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, treats an average of 330 million gallons of wastewater per day. The treatment process at JWPCP involves several stages, including primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment, to remove solids, organic matter, and other contaminants. Advanced treatment processes, such as biological nutrient removal and disinfection, ensure that the treated effluent meets stringent regulatory standards before being discharged into the Pacific Ocean or reused for various purposes.

In addition to centralized treatment at JWPCP, Montebello’s wastewater infrastructure includes local initiatives to manage stormwater and reduce inflow and infiltration (I&I) into the sewer system. I&I can significantly impact the capacity and efficiency o f the wastewater system, particularly during heavy rain events. The city implements regular maintenance programs, such

28 as sewer line cleaning, inspections, and repairs, to minimize I&I and ensure the system operates effectively.

Montebello is also involved in regional efforts to promote water recycling and reuse. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County operate several water reclamation plants that treat wastewater to a high standard, making it suitable for non -potable uses such as landscape irrigation, industrial processes, and groundwater recharge.

Road and Highway Network

Source: 2024-2040 Montebello General Plan

29 Montebello’s road network includes a mix of local streets, arterial roads, and major highways.

Key thoroughfares such as Beverly Boulevard, Whittier Boulevard, and Montebello Boulevard are critical for local traffic, providing direct routes to commercial, residential, and industrial areas. The city is bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (Highway 5) on the south and the Pomona Freeway (605 Freeway) on the east. These freeways are major north -south transportation routes. The city is also served by the Pomona Freeway (State Route 60) and the San Gabriel River Freeway (Interstate 605), which runs east-west through the southern part of Montebello, while the San Gabriel River Freeway provides north -south access, linking the city to other parts of Los Angeles County and beyond.

Public Transit

Source: 2024-2040 Montebello General Plan

Public transportation in Montebello is primarily provided by Montebello Bus Lines (MBL), the third-largest municipal bus system in Los Angeles County. MBL operates a fleet of over 66

30 buses that serve 8 local and express routes, covering approximately 1.2 million miles annually and providing over 8 million passenger trips each year. Key routes include the Line 10 and Line 20, which offer direct connections to downtown Los Angeles and ne ighboring cities.

Additionally, Montebello is served by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), which provides bus and rail services that connect the city to the wider Los Angeles metropolitan area. The Metro Gold Line, with a station in nearby East Los Angeles, offers light rail service to downtown Los Angeles and Pasadena.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure

The city has implemented several initiatives to enhance walkability and bikeability, including the construction of dedicated bike lanes, improved sidewalks, and pedestrian crossings. The Montebello Boulevard Bikeway and the Rio Hondo Bike Path are notable examples, providing safe and convenient routes for cyclists.

Rail and Freight Transportation

Montebello is also a key hub for freight transportation, with several rail lines operated by Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF Railway passing through the city. These rail lines are crucial for the movement of goods, connecting Montebello to major industrial and distribution centers across the region. South Montebello is home to 10 major trucking company terminals.

With Montebello’s status as a key railroad hub, there is the possibility of train derailment. While it was not prioritized in planning team decisions of hazards to address, there are homes close to the train tracks that could be impacted by a derailment, especially if hazardous materials are present. Future examination of this potentiality is recommended.

2.9 Historically Vulnerable Populations

Low-Income Residents (Major Hazards: Extreme Heat, Drought, Earthquake, High Wind/Storms)

Low-income residents in Montebello are particularly vulnerable to disasters due to limited financial resources, which restrict their ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies. Approximately 15% of Montebello’s population lives below the poverty line, which is higher than the national average. These residents often reside in older housing stock that may not meet current building codes for disaster resilience, making their homes more susceptible to damage from earthquakes, floods, and o ther hazards. Additionally, low -income

31 families may lack access to insurance, savings, and other financial resources necessary for recovery, prolonging their displacement and hardship following a disaster.

Elderly Individuals (Major Hazards, Earthquake, Power Outages, Infectious Disease/Pandemic)

Elderly individuals in Montebello, who make up about 13.6% of the city’s population, face unique challenges in disaster situations. Older adults are particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of natural disasters due to factors such as existing health c onditions (heart disease, diabetes, dementia), reliance on caregivers, decreased physical mobility, and dependence on medications and medical equipment. These conditions can complicate their ability to respond to emergencies, making them more susceptible to injury, illness, and even death during extreme weather events. Additionally, climate change can exacerbate air quality issues, increase exposure to heatwaves, and lead to the spread of infectious diseases, all of which pose significant risks to older populations .

Economically, the increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather events results in higher living costs, especially for insurance, potentially leaving many older adults uninsured or financially strained. Housing challenges also arise as the aging inf rastructure may not be resilient to the effects of climate change, and many older adults live in areas more susceptible to these events. Social isolation, which is more common in older age, further increases risk during disasters .

People with Disabilities (Major Hazards: Earthquake, Power Outages)

People with disabilities represent another vulnerable group in Montebello. Disabilities can affect mobility, communication, and the ability to perform daily activities, all of which are critical during emergencies. Approximately 10.3% of Montebello’s popul ation has a disability. These individuals may require special accommodations, such as accessible transportation and communication aids, to receive emergency notifications and evacuate safely. Emergency shelters and response plans must be inclusive to address the needs of individuals with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities, ensuring they receive adequate care and support during disasters.

Minority Communities (Major Hazards: Earthquake, Fire, Power Outage)

Montebello is a diverse city, with Hispanic or Latino residents comprising over 75% of the population. Minority communities often face systemic barriers that increase their vulnerability to disasters, including language barriers, lower income levels, and l imited access to healthcare and social services. Language barriers can hinder the ability to receive and understand

32 emergency communications, while economic disadvantages limit their capacity to prepare for and recover from disasters. Minority communities may also experience discrimination and social inequities that exacerbate the impacts of disasters.

Unhoused (Major Hazards: Extreme Heat, Drought, Fire, High Wind/Storms, Infectious Disease/Pandemic):

As of the latest data, Los Angeles County, which includes Montebello, has one of the highest numbers of unhoused individuals in the United States, with estimates suggesting that there are over 66,000 people experiencing homelessness countywide. While speci fic numbers for Montebello are not always readily available, the city, like many in the region, faces challenges related to homelessness.

Unhoused populations are uniquely vulnerable to many of the natural hazards mentioned in this Plan, most notably extreme heat and wildfire. The unhoused population in Montebello faces severe impacts from natural disasters due to their continuous exposure to the elements, limited access to information, and inadequate shelter. Extreme weather conditions, such as heatwaves and heavy rains, pose significant health risks, including heat exhaustion and the spread of diseases. These individuals often lack basic e mergency supplies and access to healthcare, exacerbating their vulnerability during emergencies. Communication barriers mean many are not promptly informed about impending disasters, while evacuation challenges arise from the lack of personal transportation and resources.

33 (this page intentionally left blank)

34 SECTION 3 – HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND

RISK ASSESSMENT

Element B: Risk Assessment Requirements
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))

This section discusses the types of hazards that might reasonably impact the City of Montebello. It describes how they are measured, a history of these hazards and the future risk they pose. This chapter also discusses how hazards in the plan were selected and prioritized.

3.1 Historic Disaster Declarations

Since 1969, Los Angeles County has received 81 total Federal disaster declarations. The following data comes from FEMA’s Disaster Declarations for States and Counties (https://www.fema.gov/data-visualization/disaster-declarations-states-and-counties)

Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Flood Los Angeles
County
DR-253-CA 1969 January 1/26/1969 SEVERE

STORMS &

FLOODING
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
DR-295-CA 1970 Septembe
r
9/29/1970 FOREST &

BRUSH FIRES
CA
Other Los Angeles
County
DR-299-CA 1971 February 2/9/1971 SAN

FERNANDO

EARTHQUAKE
CA
Flood Los Angeles
County
DR-547-CA 1978 February 2/15/1978 COASTAL

STORMS,

MUDSLIDES &

FLOODING
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
EM-3067-CA 1978 October 10/29/1978 BRUSH FIRES CA

35 Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Flood Los Angeles
County
DR-615-CA 1980 February 2/21/1980 SEVERE

STORMS,

MUDSLIDES &

FLOODING
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
DR-635-CA 1980 November 11/27/1980 BRUSH &

TIMBER FIRES
CA
Tropical Storm Los Angeles
County
DR-677-CA 1983 February 2/9/1983 COASTAL

STORMS,

FLOODS,

SLIDES &

TORNADOES
CA
Other Los Angeles
County
DR-799-CA 1987 October 10/7/1987 EARTHQUAKE
&

AFTERSHOCKS
CA
Flood Los Angeles
County
DR-812-CA 1988 February 2/5/1988 SEVERE

STORMS, HIGH

TIDES &

FLOODING
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
DR-872-CA 1990 June 6/30/1990 FIRES CA
Freezing
Temperature
Los Angeles
County
DR-894-CA 1991 February 2/11/1991 SEVERE
FREEZE
CA
Flood Los Angeles
County
DR-935-CA 1992 February 2/25/1992 RAIN/SNOW/WI

ND STORMS,

FLOODING,

MUDSLIDES
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
DR-942-CA 1992 May 5/2/1992 FIRE DURING A

PERIOD OF

CIVIL UNREST
CA
Flood Los Angeles
County
DR-979-CA 1993 February 2/3/1993 SEVERE
WINTER

STORM, MUD &

LAND SLIDES, &

FLOODING

CA

36 Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Fire Los Angeles
County
DR-1005-CA 1993 October 10/28/1993 FIRES,

MUD/LANDSLID

ES, FLOODING,

SOIL EROSION
CA
Other Los Angeles
County
DR-1008-CA 1994 January 1/17/1994 NORTHRIDGE

EARTHQUAKE
CA
Severe Storm Los Angeles
County
DR-1046-CA 1995 March 3/12/1995 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING

LANDSLIDES,

MUD FLOW
CA
Severe Storm Los Angeles
County
DR-1044-CA 1995 January 1/10/1995 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES,

MUD FLOWS
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
EM-3120-CA 1996 October 10/23/1996 SEVERE

FIRESTORMS
CA
Severe Storm Los Angeles
County
DR-1203-CA 1998 February 2/9/1998 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS AND

FLOODING
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2417-CA 2002 June 6/6/2002 CA - COPPER
FIRE - 06-06-
2002
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2464-CA 2002 Septembe
r
9/24/2002 WILLIAMS FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2462-CA 2002 Septembe
r
9/4/2002 LEONA FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
DR-1498-CA 2003 October 10/27/2003 WILDFIRES,

FLOODING,

MUDFLOW AND

DEBRIS FLOW

DIRECTLY

RELATED T
CA

37 Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2502-CA 2003 October 10/25/2003 CA-VERDALE
FIRE 10-25-2003
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2466-CA 2003 January 1/7/2003 CA - WILDFIRE
(PACIFIC FIRE) -
01-06-2003
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2534-CA 2004 July 7/18/2004 CA-FOOTHILL
WILDFIRE-07-
18-2004
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2535-CA 2004 July 7/21/2004 CA-CROWN
WILDFIRE-07-
21-2004
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2528-CA 2004 July 7/14/2004 CA - PINE FIRE -
7-13-2004
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2583-CA 2005 Septembe
r
9/28/2005 TOPANGA FIRE CA
Tropical Storm Los Angeles
County
EM-3248-CA 2005 Septembe
r
9/13/2005 HURRICANE

KATRINA

EVACUATION
CA
Severe Storm Los Angeles
County
DR-1577-CA 2005 February 2/4/2005 SEVERE

STORMS,

FLOODING,
DEBRIS

FLOWS, AND

MUDSLIDES
CA
Severe Storm Los Angeles
County
DR-1585-CA 2005 April 4/14/2005 SEVERE

STORMS,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES,

AND MUD AND

DEBRIS FLOWS
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
DR-1731-CA 2007 October 10/24/2007 WILDFIRES,

FLOODING,

MUD FLOWS,

AND DEBRIS
FLOWS
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2736-CA 2007 October 10/22/2007 RANCH FIRE CA

38 Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2732-CA 2007 October 10/21/2007 CANYON FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2733-CA 2007 October 10/21/2007 BUCKWEED
FIRE
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2708-CA 2007 July 7/8/2007 CANYON FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2694-CA 2007 May 5/10/2007 ISLAND FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2691-CA 2007 May 5/9/2007 GRIFFITH PARK
FIRE
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
EM-3279-CA 2007 October 10/23/2007 WILDFIRES CA
Freezing
Temperature
Los Angeles
County
DR-1689-CA 2007 March 3/13/2007 SEVERE
FREEZE
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
DR-1810-CA 2008 November 11/18/2008 WILDFIRES CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2788-CA 2008 October 10/12/2008 MAREK FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2792-CA 2008 November 11/15/2008 FREEWAY FIRE

COMPLEX
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2789-CA 2008 October 10/13/2008 SESNON FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2791-CA 2008 November 11/15/2008 SAYRE FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2763-CA 2008 April 4/27/2008 SANTA ANITA
FIRE
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2828-CA 2009 August 8/28/2009 PV FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2830-CA 2009 August 8/28/2009 STATION FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-2851-CA 2010 July 7/30/2010 CROWN FIRE CA
Severe Storm Los Angeles
County
DR-1884-CA 2010 March 3/8/2010 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING,

AND DEBRIS

AND MUD
FLOWS
CA

39 Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5025-CA 2013 June 6/2/2013 POWERHOUSE
FIRE
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5051-CA 2014 January 1/16/2014 COLBY FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5124-CA 2016 June 6/5/2016 OLD FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5129-CA 2016 June 6/21/2016 FISH FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5132-CA 2016 July 7/9/2016 SAGE FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5135-CA 2016 July 7/23/2016 SAND FIRE CA
Flood Los Angeles
County
DR-4305-CA 2017 March 3/16/2017 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING,
AND

MUDSLIDES
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
EM-3396-CA 2017 December 12/8/2017 WILDFIRES CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5201-CA 2017 Septembe
r
9/2/2017 LA TUNA FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5225-CA 2017 December 12/5/2017 CREEK FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5226-CA 2017 December 12/5/2017 RYE FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5227-CA 2017 December 12/6/2017 SKIRBALL FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
DR-4407-CA 2018 November 11/12/2018 WILDFIRES CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
DR-4353-CA 2018 January 1/2/2018 WILDFIRES,

FLOODING,

MUDFLOWS,

AND DEBRIS
FLOWS
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
EM-3409-CA 2018 November 11/9/2018 WILDFIRES CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5280-CA 2018 November 11/9/2018 WOOLSEY FIRE CA

40 Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5293-CA 2019 October 10/11/2019 SADDLE RIDGE
FIRE
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5296-CA 2019 October 10/24/2019 TICK FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5297-CA 2019 October 10/28/2019 GETTY FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
DR-4569-CA 2020 October 10/16/2020 WILDFIRES CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5374-CA 2020 Septembe
r
9/13/2020 BOBCAT FIRE CA
Other Los Angeles
County
DR-4482-CA 2020 March 3/22/2020 COVID-19

PANDEMIC
CA
Other Los Angeles
County
EM-3428-CA 2020 March 3/13/2020 COVID-19 CA
Flood Los Angeles
County
EM-3592-CA 2023 March 3/10/2023 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES,
AND

MUDSLIDES
CA
Flood Los Angeles
County
EM-3591-CA 2023 January 1/9/2023 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING,
AND

MUDSLIDES
CA
Flood Los Angeles
County
DR-4683-CA 2023 January 1/14/2023 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES,
AND

MUDSLIDES
CA

41 Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Severe Storm Los Angeles
County
DR-4699-CA 2023 April 4/3/2023 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

STRAIGHT-LINE
WINDS,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES,
AND

MUDSLIDES
CA
Severe Storm Los Angeles
County
DR-4769-CA 2024 April 4/13/2024 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

TORNADOES,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES
AND

MUDSLIDES

CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5537-CA 2024 Septembe
r
9/11/2024 BRIDGE FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5548-CA 2024 December 12/10/2024 FRANKLIN FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5549-CA 2025 January 1/7/2025 PALISADES
FIRE
CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5551-CA 2025 January 1/8/2025 HURST FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
FM-5550-CA 2025 January 1/8/2025 EATON FIRE CA
Fire Los Angeles
County
DR-4856-CA 2025 January 1/8/2025 WILDFIRES
AND

STRAIGHT-LINE
WINDS
CA

42 3.1.1 Hazard Selection
Hazards for the 2024 LHMP were determined by examining hazards previously analyzed in the most recent LHMP revision as well as additional hazards identified by the City through internal solicitation from participants in the internal interview process for the LHMP.

The National Risk Index identifies 18 specific hazards that may affect communities across the United States. Not all of these hazards were included in the 202 4 LHMP. Each hazard is addressed below along with justifications as to why they may not have been included.

Hazard Included Explanation
Avalanche No The City of Montebello does not experience significant snowfall; therefore, this hazard Is not applicable to the City.

Coastal
Flooding
No The City of Montebello does not have any coastline;
therefore, this hazard is not applicable to the City.

Cold Wave No Southern California is known for its temperate and warm climate; therefore, this hazard is not applicable to the City.

Drought Yes This hazard is included in the LHMP.

Earthquake Yes This hazard is included in the LHMP.

Hail No This hazard was not identified through any of the interviews with City staff; therefore, this hazard was not determined to be significant enough to include in the
LHMP. Related hazards are included as “High
wind/storms
Heat Wave Yes This hazard is included under “Extreme Heat”.

Hurricane No Hurricanes rarely impact Southern California; therefore, this hazard is not applicable to the City. Similar impacts are examined under “Heavy Rain” and “Extreme Wind”.

Ice Storm No Southern California is known for its temperate and warm climate; therefore, this hazard is not applicable to the City.

Landslide No Due to its topography, the City of Montebello does not face significant threats from landslide; therefore, this hazard is not applicable to the City.

43 Lightning No This hazard was not determined to be significant enough to include in the LHMP. Related hazards are included as “High wind/storms”.

Riverine
Flooding
Yes This hazard is included as “Flooding”
Strong Wind Yes This hazard is included as “High wind/storms”.

Tornado No Tornadoes are extremely rare in Southern California; therefore, this hazard is not applicable to the City.

Tsunami No The City of Montebello does not border a major body of water and is sufficiently inland to be insulated from
immediate tsunami impacts; therefore, this hazard is not applicable to the City.

Volcanic
Activity
No There are no active volcanos in Southern California; therefore, this hazard is not applicable to the City.

Wildfire Yes This hazard is included under “Fire”.

Winter Weather No Southern California is known for its temperate and warm climate; therefore, this hazard is not applicable to the City.

44 3.2 Hazard Scoring, Prioritization and Probability
On June 12, 2024, a hazards and vulnerability assessment workshop was conducted with the City of Montebello and with local stakeholders. During the workshop, attendees evaluated the risk of hazards included in previous LHMP documents as well as additional hazards suggested by attendees.

The following hazards were evaluated in Montebello’s local hazard mitigation plan update:

• Extreme Heat
• Drought
• Earthquake
• High wind/storms
• Fire
• Power outage
• Cyberattack/IT disruption
• Flooding
• Dam failure
• Terrorism
• Infectious disease

Based in part on elements of the Critical Priority Risk Index, modified for an increased emphasis on future risks using standard climate risk assessment categorization, participants were asked to give their opinion on the assigned scores for each hazard.

This information was used to calculate the Modified Calculated Probability Risk Index score.

The CPRI is a common methodology used in hazard mitigation plans to quantify risk. However, it does not give sufficient weight to risks from climate change or other future events.

The Modified CPRI is calculated in the following manner:
((Severity (Present)*0.3)+(Probability (Present)*0.45)+(Severity (Future)*0.3)+(Probability (Future)*0.45))

Score values assigned are listed below, and the highest possible score was 75:

• 1 – Negligible
• 2 – Minor
• 3 – Moderate
• 4 – Major

45 • 5 - Extreme

This LHMP will use the following definitions throughout Section 3 to allow policymakers and planners to use the LHMP to inform City priorities and planning decisions.

Probability Definition
Very Unlikely Less than 5% probability of occurrence
Unlikely Greater than 5% and less than 30% probability of occurrence Moderate Greater than 30% and less than 60% probability of occurrence Likely Greater than 60% and less than 95% probability of occurrence Very Likely Greater than 95% probability of occurrence

For the purposes of this LHMP, the timescale for probability, unless otherwise specified, will be 5 years, the current duration of an approved LHMP.

46 3.3 Global Climate Change
Global climate change is one of the defining phenomena of the 21st century and is emphasized in FEMA’s revised hazard mitigation planning guidance as of April 19, 2023. Climate change is caused by increasing emissions of specific gasses, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) and the feedback loops caused by those emissions incr easing overall global temperatures. Current concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are equivalent to those last seen in the Pliocene era between 2 and 5 million years ago before the Ice Ages, where global sea levels were on average 20 feet higher than today.

Climate change is not, by itself, a discrete hazard, and will not be considered as such in this LHMP. Instead, climate will be considered in each individual hazard description, as well as within individual mitigation actions. Climate change is best thought of as, in security parlance, a threat multiplier, or as “loading the dice”, amplifying the impacts of existing hazards, shifting the probability of extreme events, and extending new hazards to regions that previously have not experienced them.

National and intergovernmental efforts to establish consensus climate projections include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Assessment in the United States (the Fifth Assessment is currently in preparation). The IPCC u ses a representative concentration pathway (RCP) and associated shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP) to illustrate likely outcomes of varying emissions levels.

47 At the time of writing (202 5), given national pledges and observed trends in measurable emissions, the most probably emission scenario is the upper end of RCP4.5, which results in an increase of between 2.2 and 3.5 degrees Celsius over preindustrial temperatures. By 2100, a significant increase by any measure over the 1.5 degree Celsius boundary set by the 2015 Paris Accords. This outcome is subject to several significant caveats:

• This assumes that all national pledges are followed through upon, which is highly questionable given political realities.
• This also neglects the potential for feedback loops or unpredictable events such as major methane releases due to arctic thawing that may temporarily significantly increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
• Many projections assume the development and widespread use of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology to draw down carbon out of the atmosphere. As of yet,

48 CCS technology has not been proven to scale, and the extent of deployment required for CCS to impact projections will be extraordinarily broad and expensive. • Finally, a consensus is not a prediction – it is a product of a scientific process that is heavily impacted by political considerations. It can be thought of as a set of ranges, not as a hard number.

The industry standard of care for climate risk assessment is typically RCP8.5, or “business as usual” projections as their baseline . More recent projections have shifted to RCP4.5, but RCP8.5 is still completely in the realm of possibility and is more likely than the extremely optimistic projection of RCP1.9.

For the City of Montebello:

• Under RCP 4.5, future model -average temperature values in Montebello are projected to increase by 4.1°F by mid-century (2035-2064) and 5.2°F by end of century (2070-2099). • Under RCP 8.5, future model -average temperature values are projected to increase by

4.9°F by mid-century and 8.2°F by end of century.

Below are a few of the most relevant aspects of climate change for hazard mitigation planning:

Source: U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit Climate Explorer for Montebello, California

• Many of climate change’s impacts have resulted in greater unpredictability. For example, many regions are projected to experience both too little rain (increasing droughts) and too much rain (in severe events such as rain bombs or atmospheric rivers). Av erages tend to obscure these kinds of extremes. Over the past several years, these kinds of almost stochastic events have increased all over the world.

49 • Projections by their nature tend to assume steady, linear change. Given what has been observed above, this is unlikely on either a local scale or a macrolevel scale. Planners should assume that surprises are likely to occur and plan accordingly. • While overall climate projections have been remarkably accurate in terms of global temperature, many of the impacts of these temperature rises have been faster than expected, in some cases significantly so, with observed phenomena occurring today that researchers expected to see decades later. Planners should assume that impacts will occur on shorter time scales than anticipated – acting sooner will save money, time, and effort later.

This is important for planners and decision makers to keep in mind. Past conditions are no longer as reliable as guides to future conditions as they once might have been.

50 3.4 Hazard Profiles

3.4.1 Extreme Heat

Hazard Description

Extreme heat refers to a period of abnormally high temperatures in a specific location. As defined by CalAdapt (https://cal-adapt.org/tools/extreme-heat/), there are three major types of extreme heat events:

• Extreme heat days, which exceed 98% of all historic high temperatures for the area between April and October from 1961 to 1990.
• Warm nights, which exceed 98% of all historic minimum daytime temperatures observed between April and October from 1961 to 1990.
• Extreme heat waves, a successive series of extreme heat days and warm nights defined as a minimum of four successive extreme heat days and warm nights.

Different regions will experience extreme heat events differently due to variations in historic high temperatures. For example, an extreme heat day on the coast will feel distinct from an extreme heat day in the high desert due to the impact of humidity on people's perception of heat. Humid conditions make a day feel hotter than non -humid conditions, even if the temperature is the same, resulting in a difference known as the heat index. A 90 -degree day with 50 percent humidity feels like 95°F, whereas a 90°F day with 90 percent humidity feels like 122°F.

51 National Weather Service Extreme Heat Index

Prolonged exposure to extreme heat can be hazardous to public health, as the human body is less able to withstand high temperatures for extended periods of time. This can result in heat exhaustion and dehydration, which may progress to heat stroke and org an failure if internal body temperature surpasses 105 degrees Fahrenheit. Without intervention, this can be fatal.

While Montebello and the Los Angeles area experience moderate temperatures throughout the year, citizens are still vulnerable to unusually hot weather during the summer or early fall months.

Location and Extent

Extreme heat events occur with the same intensity and duration across all locations in Montebello and are not limited to any specific part of the City. Extreme heat does have disproportionate impacts depending on the type and age of building, however. Many older buildings may not have the same cooling capacity or may be more vulnerable to power outages and loss or air conditioning. Residential buildings of this age in Montebello are disproportionally occupied by lower income tenants.

Previous Occurrences

Extreme heat events are not unusual in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, which the City of Montebello is a part of. Some recent examples include:

52 • 2006 North American Heat Wave
• Date: July 2006
• Duration: Approximately two weeks
• Peak Temperatures: Temperatures soared above 100°F (38°C), with some days reaching 112°F (44°C).
• 2010 California Heat Wave
• Date: September 2010
• Duration: Several days
• Peak Temperatures: Temperatures reached up to 113°F (45°C) in parts of Los Angeles County.
• 2017 Western North America Heat Wave
• Date: June - September 2017
• Duration: Multiple heat waves throughout the summer
• Peak Temperatures : Temperatures consistently exceeded 100°F (38°C), with peaks around 108°F (42°C).
• 2018 Southern California Heat Wave
• Date: July 2018
• Duration: Several days
• Peak Temperatures: Temperatures peaked at 111°F (44°C). • 2020 Labor Day Weekend Heat Wave
• Date: September 2020
• Duration: Labor Day weekend
• Peak Temperatures: Temperatures soared to 121°F (49°C) in parts of Los Angeles County.
• 2021 Western North America Heat Wave
• Date: June 2021
• Duration: Several days
• Peak Temperatures: Temperatures reached up to 115°F (46°C).

Probability of Future Events and Impacts of Climate Change

Overall probability over next five years: Likely.

The following illustration from NOAA’s Climate Explorer details the probability of days in Montebello with high temperatures over 95 degrees Fahrenheit to 2100 under multiple emissions scenarios.

53 The frequency and intensity of extreme heat events is growing. According to California’s Fourth Climate Assessment for the Los Angeles Region:

The average hottest day of the year is expected to increase roughly 4-7°F under RCP4.5 and 7-10°F under RCP8.5 by the late 21st century. Similar to the spatial pattern in annual max temperature changes, the largest changes in extremes are found in the interior of the region, and particularly the valleys, while the smallest changes are generally confined to coastal regions.

The number of extremely hot days Is expected to Increase In the future. For instance, LA International Airport (LAX) historically experiences less than 15 days per year with temperatures equal to or greater than 90°F (Cayan et al. 2018). By the end of the century under RCP8.5, LAX is projected to experience 50 –90 such days per year (Pierce et al. 2018). Sun et al. (2015) similarly found that land locations are projected to experience 60–90 additional extremely hot days (greater than or equal to 95°F) per year by the end of the century, with the exception of the highest elevations and regions along the coast, where increases are only a few days.

54 3.4.2 Drought

Hazard Description

By one count, there are over 150 definitions for “drought”. The National Weather Service describes drought as “ a deficiency of moisture that results in adverse impacts on people, animals, or vegetation over a sizeable area.” For the purposes of this LHMP, drought will be defined as a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a season or more. This deficiency results in a water shortage,

Drought is a natural occurrence in all climates, both in regions with high and low average rainfall.

Droughts typically are declared when lasting for a calendar season or longer and can be categorized into five different types: meteorological, agricultura l, hydrologic, socioeconomic, and ecological.

• Meteorological: This type of drought refers to a decrease in rainfall that deviates from the normal precipitation pattern. It includes changes in the amount, intensity, or timing of rainfall, as well as changes in temperature, humidity, and wind patterns. The threshold for defining meteorological drought varies from country to country. In the United States, a meteorological drought is declared if there is less than 2.5mm of rainfall in 48 hours.

This type of drought is the first stage to be detected. Broad er multi-year precipitation patterns can give rise to drought conditions. In California, the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, a regional meteorological event in the Pacific Ocean, is important in the region’s hydrologic regime. The ENSO cycle consists of changes in ocean water and air temperature and results in two phases: El Niño, a warm and wet phase, and La Niña, a dry and cold phase. When La Niña is active, it can lead to below- normal precipitation levels in California and frequently lead to drought conditions. • Agricultural: This type of drought is characterized by insufficient moisture conditions that cause lasting damage to crops and other vegetation. It is dependent on factors such as rainfall, temperature, topography, soil permeability, evapotranspiration, vegetative demand, and more. Agricultural drought begins when the available soil moisture only supports a fraction of the actual evapotranspiration rate. • Hydrological: This type of drought is related to the effects of reduced precipitation on the surface or subsurface water supply. During the latter part of the hydrological cycle, water infiltrates into the groundwater. The subsurface water supply is the last component to return to normal when meteorological conditions and aquifer recharge return to normal.
• Socioeconomic: This type of drought occurs when the consequences of drought start to impact social and economic systems. It arises when the demand for an economic good is greater than the available supply due to drought -related weather conditions.

55 Examples of such goods include water, food grains, dairy products, hydroelectric power, and more. Socioeconomic drought affects both individuals and the population as a whole.
• Ecological: This type of drought is defined as a widespread and prolonged deficit in naturally available water supplies that leads to multiple stressors across ecosystems.

This includes changes in both natural and managed hydrology.

Determining the onset and end of a drought can be challenging compared to sudden and discrete weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunderstorms. Early signs of a drought can be difficult to detect, and it may take some time, perhaps even week s, or months, before it is recognized. The conclusion of a drought is also challenging to identify for the same reasons. Droughts can range in duration from a few weeks to several years and in some cases, even persist for a decade or more.

Drought primes the conditions for a variety of other hazards by drying soil out, which reduces its capacity to absorb water. Thus, when precipitation returns, the soil is less able to hold onto water, increasing runoff and the risk of floods. Due to the soil’s reduced ability to bond together, dry earth is more prone to erosion and landslides. In addition, the lack of participation effects plants and other vegetation in natural places as the lack of nutrients makes them more vulnerable to pests and diseases and the lack of internal water raises the possibility of wildfires.

Drought should not be viewed as merely a physical phenomenon or natural event. Its impacts on society result from the interplay between a natural event (less precipitation than expected resulting from natural climatic variability) and the demand people place on water supply. Human beings often exacerbate the impact of drought. Recent droughts in both developing and developed countries and the resulting economic and environmental impacts and personal hardships have underscored the vulnerability of all societies to this "natural" hazard.

California's extensive system of water supply infrastructure - its reservoirs, groundwater basins, and inter-regional conveyance facilities - mitigates the effect of short-term dry periods for most water users. Defining when a drought begins is a function of drought impacts to water users.

Hydrologic conditions constituting a drought for water users in one location may not constitute a drought for water users elsewhere, or for water users having a different water supply.

Individual water suppliers may use c riteria such as rainfall/runoff, amount of water in storage, or expected supply from a water wholesaler to define their water supply conditions.

56 Location and Extent

The entirety of the City of Montebello is susceptible to drought. The impact of drought is regional in nature, and typically would extend far beyond the city limits of Montebello to include the whole of southern California.

Of the many varied indexes used to measure drought, the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is the most commonly used drought index in the United States. Developed by meteorologist Wayne Palmer, the PDSI is used to measure dryness based on recent temperature compared to the amount of precipitation. It utilizes a number range, 0 as normal, drought shown in terms of minus numbers, and wetness shown in positive numbers. The PDSI is most effective at analyzing long -range drought forecasts or predications. Thus , the PDSI is very effective at evaluation trends in the severity and frequency of prolonged periods of drought, and conversely wet weather. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publish weekly Palmer maps, which are also used by other scientists to analyze the long-term trends associated with global warming and how this has affected drought conditions.

US Drought Monitor Classification Scheme.

Source: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/About/AbouttheData/DroughtClassification

Previous Occurrences

The region’s Mediterranean climate makes it especially susceptible to variations in rainfall.

Severe water shortages could have a bearing on the economic well -being of the community.

Comparison of climate (rainfall) records from Los Angeles with water well records beginning in 1930 from the San Gabriel Valley indicates the existence of wet and dry cycles on a 10-year scale as well as for much longer periods. The climate record for the Los Angeles region beginning in 1890 suggests drying conditions over the last century.

With respect to the present day, climate data also suggests that the last significant wet period was the 1940s. Well level data and other sources seem to indicate the historic high groundwater levels (reflecting recharge from rainfall) occurred in the same decade. Since that

57 time, rainfall (and groundwater level trends) appears to be in decline. This slight declining trend, however, is not believed to be significant. Climatologists compiled rainfall data from 96 stations in the State that spanned a 100-year period between 1890 and 1990. An interesting note is that during the first 50 years of the reporting period, there was only one year (1890) that had more than 35 inches of rainfall, whereas the second 50 -year period recording of 5 year intervals (1941, 1958, 1978, 1982, and 1983) that exceeded 35 inches of rainfall in a single year. The year of maximum rainfall was 1890 when the average annual rainfall was 43.11 inches. The second wettest year on record occurred in 1983 when the State’s average was

42.75 inches.

Montebello, like the rest of California, has experienced many drought events throughout its history. California was in some form of drought for 376 consecutive weeks from December 20, 2011, until March 14, 2017. By summer of 2014, almost all of California was experiencing level D2 (severe drought) conditions. By 2015, emergency water saving mandates were enacted, which required all jurisdictions to reduce water use by no less than 25 percent. In late 2016 and early 2017, consecutive occurrences of heavy rai n helped end the drought conditions in the state. The following winter, in late 2017 and early 2018, rains did not occur to the same level and slight drought conditions again affected the state. This moderate drought was again abated in the winter season of late 2018 and early 2019, when heavy rains ended any existing drought conditions. Drought conditions returned shortly thereafter, with water restrictions being eased after the intense precipitation events of early 2023.

Los Angeles County Percent Area in Drought Categories

Source: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/dmData/Timeseries.aspx

58 Probability of Future Events and Impacts of Climate Change

Overall probability over next five years: Likely.

Periodic drought has been a fact of life in California since before written records were kept.

However, global climate change has already had a significant impact, in part fueling the North American West’s “megadrought”, being the driest period in over 1, 200 years. October 2019 through September 2022 were California’s driest years on record.

Paradoxically, climate change has also brought historic rainstorms and flood events, as conditions whipsaw between drought and flooding. This increased variability and oscillation between too little rain and too much rain is a hallmark of climate projecti ons and is playing out in real time.

Atmospheric rivers (narrow corridors of concentrated moisture in the atmosphere) are largely responsible for precipitation patterns across the southern California region, and coupled with topographical influences, can create intense storms. Cal-Adapt climate projections predict that the likelihood and duration of atmospheric rivers will increase, leading to increased likelihoods of flood events.

Predictions for extreme weather events show that no major trend changes are expected under either scenario. However, as noted above for patterns in precipitation, whiplash events are expected to increase. When years with elevated numbers of extreme rain ev ents follow dry years, the likelihood and severity of mudslides and flooding increases. This is largely due to reductions in vegetation during dry years, which otherwise stabilize soil. Conversely, dry years that follow upticks in extreme rain events can lead to wildfires. This is due to increased presence of fuel sources for wildfire in the form of dry vegetation.

These whiplash events will increase vulnerability to both fire and floods. A tragic example the Hawai’i fires on the island of Maui that consumed the historic royal capital of Lahaina in August 2023, killing large numbers of people. The compounding nature of this disaster – high winds driving fires on an island experiencing extended drought conditions – illustrates that drought is not only an absence of water but can be an accelerant for devastating wildfires.

According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment’s Los Angeles Region survey, published in 2019:

Anthropogenic warming has increased the probability that low -precipitation years coincide with warm years, increasing the current risk and severity of droughts and low snowpack in California (Difenbaugh et al. 2015; Berg and Hall 2017; Williams et al. 2015). Atmospheric conditions conducive to California droughts, such as a persistent

59 region of high pressure in the northeastern Pacific Ocean, may have also become more frequent in recent decades (Swain et al. 2016). GCMs (global climate models) project significantly drier soils in the future over the Southwest (including California), wit h more than an 80% chance of a multidecadal drought during 2050–2099 under RCP8.5 (Cook et al. 2015).

The effects of climate change on drought are expected to be mixed. For Instance, in some years, climate change-enhanced weather patterns such as those during the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phase may bring more rainfall to California and Montebello, alleviating drought conditions. On the other hand, it may also extend the La Niña phase of ENSO, leading to longer periods without precipitation. Furthermore, climate change is projected to cause more frequent and prolonged heat waves in California, incr easing the average temperature. During such events, the water supply may be diverted for essential cooling needs, including those of the elderly and to maintain critical City operations, leading to greater water consumption. If a heat wave were to occur during a drought, it would place even more strain on the water supply.

60 3.4.3 Earthquake

Hazard Description

An earthquake is a sudden, violent movement of the earth's surface that is caused by volcanic activity or tectonic movement along fault lines and the subsequent release of energy in the form of seismic waves. The effects of an earthquake can be widespread and include surface faulting, shaking of the ground, landslides, soil liquefaction, changes in the earth's tectonic structure, tsunamis, and oscillations in large bodies of water.

The point where two tectonic plates meet is called a fault line, and earthquakes often occur along these lines. In California, the San Andreas Fault is the most well-known fault line, where the North American Plate and the Pacific Plate come together. Over time, the constant friction between these two plates has caused the intersection to break into smaller faults, making the area more prone to earthquakes. The Earth's surface may show visible signs of fault lines in the form of sudden changes or breaks in the landscape.

Earthquakes strike suddenly, without warning. Earthquakes can occur at any time of the year and at any time of the day or night. On a yearly basis, 70 to 75 damaging earthquakes occur throughout the world. To this point, a 5.1 earthquake occurred on Sunday , August 20, 2023 during the landfall of Hurricane Hilary, the first tropical storm to arrive in California in 84 years.

The two main types of earthquakes that can occur in each region are strike -slip and dip -slip earthquakes. Strike-slip earthquakes occur on vertical or nearly vertical faults, where the plates of the Earth's crust move mostly horizontally. The direction of movement across the fault determines if it is a right lateral fault or a left lateral fault. Dip-slip earthquakes occur on slanted faults where the blocks of the Earth's crust shift mostly vertically. If the Earth above the fault moves downward, it is call ed a normal fault, and if it moves upward, it is known as a reverse fault. If the reverse fault has a dip of 45 degrees or less, it is referred to as a thrust fault.

The region close to a fault line is vulnerable to damage due to the possibility of a fault rupture, resulting in the shifting and displacement of the land on either side of the fault, which may move a few inches to several feet in opposite directions. Buildings and infrastructure near, on top of, or crossing a fault line may be severely damaged or even destroyed. Some faults have only recently formed in geological history and are known as Quaternary faults. These faults, which have developed within the past 1.8 million years, are a concern as they are most likely to be active and cause future earthquakes. The Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act permits the California State Geologist to identify zones around active faults as Alquist -Priolo Special Study Zones, which are designated as special regulatory areas. These zones require further study to determine the location of the fault and the extent of the area prohibited from surface construction above the known location of an active fault.

61 Common effects of earthquakes are ground motion and shaking, surface fault ruptures, and ground failure. Ground motion is the vibration or shaking of the ground during an earthquake. When a fault ruptures, seismic waves radiate, causing the ground to vibrate.

The severity of the vibration increases with the amount of energy released and decreases with distance from the causative fault or epicenter. Soft soils can further amplify ground motions.

The severity of these effects is dependent on the amount of energy released from the fault or epicenter. One way to express an earthquake's severity is to compare its acceleration to the normal acceleration due to gravity. The acceleration due to gravity is often called "g". A ground motion with a peak ground acceleration of 100%g is very severe. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is a measure of the strength of ground motion. PGA is used to project the risk of damage from future earthquakes by showing earthquake ground motions that have a specified probability (10%, 5%, or 2%) of being exceeded in 50 years. These ground motion values are used for reference in construction design for earthquake resistance. The ground motion values can also be used to assess relative hazard between sites, when making economic and safety decisions.

An earthquake generates different types of seismic shock waves that travel outward from the focus or point of rupture on a fault. Seismic waves that travel through the earth's crust are called body waves and are divided into primary (P) and secondary (S) waves. Because P waves move faster (1.7 times) than S waves, they arrive at the seismograph first. By measuring the time delay between arrival of the P and S waves and knowing the distance to the epicenter, seismologists can compute the magnitude for the earthquake.

The Richter magnitude scale, named after seismologist Charles F. Richter, measures the amount of energy released by an earthquake at its source. The scale ranges from 0 to 10, with each increase of one representing an earthquake 10 times stronger than the previous one.

However, because it is a logarithmic scale, the energy released increases by a factor of 32 for each one-point increase in magnitude. For example, an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.0 releases 32 times more energy than an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.0. In terms of actual energy released, however, each one-point increase on the Richter scale corresponds to about a 32-fold increase in energy released. Therefore, a Magnitude 7 (M7) earthquake is 100 times (10 X 10) more powerful than a M5 earthquake and releases 1,024 times (32 X 32) the energy.

The Modified Mercalli Scale (MMI) is another means for rating earthquakes, but one that attempts to quantify intensity of ground shaking. Intensity under this scale is a function of distance from the epicenter (the closer to the epicenter the greater the intensity), ground acceleration, duration of ground shaking, and degree of structural damage. The Mercalli intensity scale measures the effects of an earthquake on people, structures, and the

62 environment. It is based on observations of damage and shaking intensity rather than on instrumental measurements. The scale ranges from I to XII, with each level representing a different level of damage and impact. For example, an earthquake with an inten sity of I would be felt only by a few people under very special circumstances, while an earthquake with an intensity of XII would cause total destruction of buildings and infrastructure.

The Richter Magnitude Scale

Richter
Magnitudes
Earthquake Effects
Less than 3.5 Generally, not felt but recorded.

3.5-5.4 Often felt, but rarely causes damage.

Under 6.0 At most slight damage to well-designed buildings. Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions.

6.1-6.9 Can be destructive in areas up to about 100 kilometers across where people live.

7.0-7.9 Major earthquake. Can cause serious damage over larger areas. 8 or greater Great earthquake. Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred kilometers across.

Source: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake

Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale for Earthquakes

Scale Intensity Description of Effects
Corresponding
Richter Scale
Magnitude
I Instrumental Detected only on seismographs
II Feeble Some people feel it <4.2
III Slight Felt by people resting; like a truck rumbling by IV Moderate Felt by people walking
V Slightly Strong Sleepers awake; church bells ring <4.8

63 Scale Intensity Description of Effects
Corresponding
Richter Scale
Magnitude
VI Strong Trees sway: suspended objects swing, objects fall off shelves <5.4
VII Very Strong Mild alarm: walls crack; plaster falls <6.1 VIII Destructive Moving cars uncontrollable; masonry fractures; poorly constructed buildings damaged.

IX Ruinous Some houses collapse; ground cracks; pipes break open <6.9
X Disastrous
Ground cracks profusely; many buildings
destroyed; liquefaction and landslides
widespread
<7.3
XI Very Disastrous Most buildings and bridges collapse; roads, railways, pipes, and cables destroyed

XII Catastrophic Total destruction: trees fall; ground rises and falls in waves >8.1

Source: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake

Earthquake Related Hazards

Ground shaking, landslides, liquefaction, and amplification are the specific hazards associated with earthquakes. The severity of these hazards depends on several factors, including soil and slope conditions, proximity to the fault, earthquake magnitude, and the type of earthquake.

Ground Shaking

Ground shaking is the motion felt on the earth's surface caused by seismic waves generated by the earthquake. It is the primary cause of earthquake damage.

While not all earthquakes are strong enough to cause noticeable shaking, the intensity of ground shaking is proportional to the amount of energy released from the earthquake, which is determined by the length and depth of the fault that caused it. Typically, areas closest to the fault rupture experience stronger ground shaking, while areas farther away experience weaker shaking. Buildings on poorly consolidated and thick soils will typically see more damage than buildings on consolidated soils and bedrock. Ground shaking can result in structural damage or

64 collapse, and it can also harm underground utilities or pipelines, leading to flooding if water lines are broken.

Earthquake-Induced Landslide Potential

Generally, these types of failures consist of rock falls, disrupted soil slides, rocks l i d e s, soil lateral spreads, soil slumps, soil block slides, and soil avalanches. Areas having the potential for earthquake -induced landslides generally occur in areas of previous landslide movement, or where local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements.

Liquefaction

Liquefaction occurs when ground shaking causes wet granular soils to change from a solid state to a liquid state. This results in the loss of soil strength and the soil's ability to support weight.

Buildings and their occupants are at risk when the ground can no longer support these structures. Liquefaction generally occurs during significant earthquake activity, and structures located on soils such as silt or sand may experience significant damage during an earthquake due to the instability of structural f oundations and the moving earth. Many communities in Southern California are built on ancient river bottoms and have sandy soil. In some cases, the soil may be subject to liquefaction, depending on the depth of the water table.

Although there is no standard method for measuring the scale of liquefaction, other factors can be used to gauge the extent of damage caused by it. These include the type of soil, the strength of the seismic shaking in the affected area, the size of the affected region, and the degree of destruction caused by the liquefaction.

65 Location and Extent

Source: State of California Department of Conservation (cited in 2017 Montebello LHMP)

Montebello

66 Landslide and Liquefaction Zones in Montebello

Source: California Geological Survey Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (EQZAPP). https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ Accessed March 11, 2025).

67 Earthquakes that could affect the City would most likely originate from the Newport-Inglewood, San Andreas, Whittier, Puente Hills, or Sierra Madre Faults. These faults are close enough in proximity or expected to generate strong enough shaking that could significantly impact the City.

• Newport-Inglewood: The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone lies approximately 14 miles southwest of Montebello. The Newport -Inglewood Fault System is a nearly linear alignment of faults extending 45 miles along the southwestern side of the Los Angeles basin. It can be traced as a series of topographic hills, ridges, and mesas from the Santa Monica Mountains to Newport Beach, where it trends offshore. Structures along the zone of deformation act as groundwater barriers and, at greater depths, as petroleum traps.

Continuing seismic activity has been evidenced most prominently in recent times by the 1920 Inglewood and 1933 Long Beach earthquakes.
• San Andreas The San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately 34 miles northeast of the City of Montebello. This fault zone extends from the Gulf of California northward to the Cape Mendocino area where it continues northward along the ocean floor. The total length of the San Andreas Fault Zone is approximately 750 miles. The activity of the fault has been recorded during historic events, including the 1906 (M8.0) event in San Francisco and the 1857 (M7.9) event between Cholame and San Bernardino, where at least 250 miles of surface rupture occurred. These seismic events are among the most significant earthquakes in California history. Geologic evidence suggests that the San Andreas Fault has a 50 percent chance of producing a magnitude 7.5 to 8.5 earthquake (comparable to the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906) within the next 30 years. • Whittier: The Whittier fault zone lies approximately 7 miles southeast of Montebello.

The Whittier Fault is a 25 mile right-lateral strike-slip fault that runs along the Chino Hills range between the cities of Chino Hills and Whittier. It is estimated that this fault could generate up to a magnitude 7.2 earthquake.
• Puente Hills: The Puente Hills Fault is located approximately 8 miles south of the City.

According to USGS, the Puente Hills Fault was most recently responsible for the M5.1 La Habra earthquake on March 28, 2014 which caused an estimated $2.6 million in damage. The USGS estimates that a future, larger M7.5 earthquake along the Puente Hills Fault could kill 3,000 to 18,000 people and cause up to $250 billion in Southern California region. In contrast, a larger M8.0 quake along the San Andreas would cause an estimated 1,800 deaths.
• Sierra Madre: The Sierra Madre Fault Zone lies approximately 12 miles northeast of Montebello. This fault zone is a series of moderate angle, north -dipping, reverse faults (thrust faults). Movement along these frontal faults has resulted in the uplift of the San Gabriel Mountains. According to the Southern California Earthquake Data Center, rupture on the Sierra Madre Fault Zone (theoretically) could be limited to one segment at a time, it has recently been suggested that a large event on the San Andreas Fault to

68 the north (like that of 1857) could cause simultaneous rupture on reverse faults south of the San Gabriel Mountains – the Sierra Madre Fault Zone being a prime example of such. Whether this could rupture multiple Sierra Madre Fault Zone segments simultaneously is unknown. Seismic activity on the Sierra Madre Fault is expected to have a maximum magnitude of 7.2.

Beyond these known faults, there are a potentially large number of “blind” faults that underlie the surface of Southern California. One such blind fault was involved in the Whittier Narrows earthquake in October 1987.

Although the most famous of the faults, the San Andreas, can produce an earthquake with a magnitude of 8+ on the Richter scale, some of the “lesser” faults have the potential to inflict greater damage on the urban core of the Los Angeles Basin. Seismologi sts believe that a 6.0 earthquake on the Newport -Inglewood would result in far more damage than a “great” quake on the San Andreas, because the San Andreas is relatively remote from the urban centers of Southern California.

Previous Occurrences

The following data comes from FEMA’s Disaster Declarations for States and Counties (https://www.fema.gov/data-visualization/disaster-declarations-states-and-counties).:

Incident
Subcategor
y
Count
y
FEMA
Declaratio
n String
Calendar
Year of
Declaratio
n
Date
Month
Declaratio
n Date
Declaration
Title
Stat
e
Other Los
Angeles
County
DR-299-CA 1971 Februar
y
2/9/1971 SAN

FERNANDO

EARTHQUAKE
CA
Other Los
Angeles
County
DR-799-CA 1987 October 10/7/1987 EARTHQUAKE
&

AFTERSHOCK
S
CA
Other Los
Angeles
County
DR-1008-CA 1994 January 1/17/1994 NORTHRIDGE

EARTHQUAKE
CA

Paleoseismological research indicates that large magnitude (8.0+) earthquakes occur on the San Andreas Fault at intervals between 45 and 332 years with an average interval of 140 years.

Other lesser faults have also caused very damaging earthquakes since 1857 . Notable earthquakes include the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake, the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, the 1987 Whittier Earthquake and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.

69 In the past several decades, earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater occurred in the Los Angeles Area, with the most recent being the La Habra earthquake (magnitude 5.1) March 28th, 2014. For the La Habra earthquake, the epicenter was one mile east of La Habra and four miles north of Fullerton. An aftershock (magnitude 4.1) centered near the Los Angeles County community of Rowland Heights the following day. The second most recent ea rthquake with a magnitude of 5.0 or greater in the Los Angeles Area was the July 29 th, 2008 Chino Hills earthquake, with the epicenter located 28 miles east-southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Earthquakes in southern California have been frequent, with many impacting the City of Montebello and surrounding communities. Among the more notable area:

• 1933 Long Beach Earthquake
• Date: March 10, 1933
• Magnitude: 6.4
• Epicenter: Near Long Beach, California
• Impact on Montebello: This earthquake caused extensive damage across the Los Angeles Basin. Montebello experienced structural damage to buildings, particularly older structures and unreinforced masonry buildings. • 1971 San Fernando Earthquake
• Date: February 9, 1971
• Magnitude: 6.6
• Epicenter: Near Sylmar in the San Fernando Valley, California • Impact on Montebello : Montebello felt strong shaking, leading to minor to moderate structural damage. The earthquake caused widespread damage in the greater Los Angeles area, including collapsed buildings, freeway overpasses, and utility disruptions.
• 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake
• Date: October 1, 1987
• Magnitude: 5.9
• Epicenter: Near Rosemead, California, approximately 10 miles from Montebello • Impact on Montebello : The close proximity of the epicenter to Montebello resulted in significant shaking and damage to buildings and infrastructure.

Several structures in Montebello suffered cracks and other structural issues, and there were reports of gas leaks and minor injuries.
• 1994 Northridge Earthquake
• Date: January 17, 1994
• Magnitude: 6.7
• Epicenter: Northridge, in the San Fernando Valley, California

70 • Impact on Montebello: Although the epicenter was farther from Montebello, the city still experienced strong shaking. The earthquake caused structural damage, including cracked walls and foundations. It also disrupted utilities and services. • 2014 La Habra Earthquake
• Date: March 28, 2014
• Magnitude: 5.1
• Epicenter: La Habra, California, approximately 15 miles from Montebello • Impact on Montebello : Montebello experienced noticeable shaking, which resulted in minor structural damage such as cracked walls and fallen items within buildings.
• 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquakes
• Dates: July 4 and July 5, 2019
• Magnitudes: 6.4 and 7.1
• Epicenters: Near Ridgecrest, California, approximately 150 miles from Montebello
• Impact on Montebello : Despite the distance, Montebello felt the shaking from these significant earthquakes. There was no major damage reported, but the events highlighted the widespread reach of seismic activity in Southern California and the necessity for ongoing preparedness.

Probability of Future Events and Impacts of Climate Change

Overall probability over next five years: Moderate.

There is a higher likelihood of large earthquakes occurring in the Los Angeles region compared to other parts of California, due to the presence of multiple faults that can cause multi -fault ruptures. On average, it is expected that a quake measuring 6.0 o r greater in magnitude will occur in Southern California every few years. It is not possible to predict when a major earthquake will occur, but the USGS has estimated that there is a 75% chance that one or more earthquakes with a magnitude of 7.5 or greater will occur within the next thirty years.

71 3.4.4 High Wind/Storms

Hazard Description

High wind

High winds can result from thunderstorm inflow and outflow or downburst winds when the storm cloud collapses, and can result from strong frontal systems, or gradient winds (high or low pressure systems) moving across the land. High winds are speeds reaching 50 mph or greater, either sustaining or gusting.

Windstorms can damage buildings, power lines, and other property and infrastructure due to falling trees and branches. For example, tree limbs breaking in winds of 45 mph can be thrown over 75 feet. During wet winters, saturated soils cause trees to beco me less stable and more vulnerable to uprooting from high winds. In addition, windstorm activity can negatively impact transportation routes and power outages.

Perhaps the greatest danger from windstorm activity in Southern California comes from the combination of the Santa Ana winds with the major fires that occur every few years in the urban/wildland interface. With the Santa Ana winds driving the flames, the speed and reach of the flames is even greater than in times of calm wind conditions. The higher fire hazard raised by a Santa Ana wind condition requires that even more care and attention be paid to proper brush clearances on property in the wildland/urban interface areas.

Storms
When heavy rain occurs, it can fall at a rate so high that the water is unable to drain away quickly enough. This can result in flooding, causing inundation and potential damage to buildings, road networks, public areas, utilities, critical infrastructure, and other assets. In California, heavy rainfall events are typically brief and intense bursts of rain, although in some instances, heavy rain can persist for several days.

Precipitation levels in California fluctuate from year to year, largely dependent on the amount of moisture the state receives from atmospheric rivers. These rivers are pathways along which moist air travels from the tropics to the continents, and when thi s moisture reaches California, it can fall as either rain or snow. One of the most well-known atmospheric rivers in California is the "Pineapple Express," which brings wet air from the ocean surrounding Hawaii to California.

In some years, a substantial am ount of moisture can be transported by atmospheric rivers, resulting in heavy rainfall events in California.

The weather pattern known as El Niño, or the Southern Oscillation, is another factor that can influence rainfall in southern California, especially during winter. El Niño occurs when the

72 surface of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean warms, causing warm, moist air to evaporate into the atmosphere. This moisture is then carried by winds to the eastern Pacific and the American continents, where it can result in increased rainfall. While El Ni ño doesn't always lead to increased rainfall, it generally increases the likelihood of a winter with above -average precipitation. Anomalous events such as Hurricane Hilary in 2023 are another example of extreme weather that could cause flooding
Location and Extent

The entirety of the City of Montebello is susceptible to severe wind and storm events.

The complex topography of Southern California combined with various atmospheric conditions creates numerous scenarios that may cause widespread or isolated Santa Ana events.

Commonly, Santa Ana winds develop when a region of high pressure builds over the Great Basin (the high plateau east of the Sierra Mountains and west of the Rocky Mountains including most of Nevada and Utah). Clockwise circulation around the center of this high pressure area forces air downslope from the high plateau. The air warms as it descends toward the California coast at the rate of 5 degrees Fahrenheit per 1000 feet due to compressional heating. Thus, compressional heating provides the primary source of warming. The air is dry since it originated in the desert, and it dries out even more as it is heated.

Santa Ana winds generally occur below the passes and canyons of the coastal ranges of Southern California and in the Los Angeles Basin. Santa Ana winds often blow with exceptional speed in the Santa Ana Canyon (the canyon from which it derives its name). Forecasters at the National Weather Service in Oxnard and San Diego usually place speed minimums on these winds and reserve the use of "Santa Ana" for winds greater than 25 knots.

Santa Ana winds commonly occur between October and February with December having the highest frequency of events. Summer events are rare. Wind speeds are typically north to east at 35 knots through and below passes and canyons with gusts to 50 knots. Str onger Santa Ana winds can have gusts greater than 60 knots over widespread areas and gusts greater than 100 knots in favored areas. Frequently, the strongest winds in the basin occur during the night and morning hours due to the absence of a sea breeze. The sea breeze which typically blows onshore daily, can moderate the Santa Ana winds during the late morning and afternoon hours.

The measurement of winds typically employs the Beaufort scale, which was created in 1805, and sorts wind occurrences based on their speed and effects on a force scale ranging from 0 to 12. Wind events classified as force 9 or higher are typically recognized as severe wind events.

73 Source:
https://www.icams-portal.gov/resources/ofcm/fmh/FMH1/fmh1_2019.pdf

74 Previous Occurrences

The following data comes from FEMA’s Disaster Declarations for States and Counties (https://www.fema.gov/data-visualization/disaster-declarations-states-and-counties; updated January 16, 2025).

Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration
Title
State
Severe Storm Los
Angeles
County
DR-1046-CA 1995 March 3/12/1995 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING

LANDSLIDES,

MUD FLOW
CA
Severe Storm Los
Angeles
County
DR-1044-CA 1995 January 1/10/1995 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES,

MUD FLOWS
CA
Severe Storm Los
Angeles
County
DR-1203-CA 1998 February 2/9/1998 SEVERE
WINTER
STORMS
AND

FLOODING
CA
Severe Storm Los
Angeles
County
DR-1577-CA 2005 February 2/4/2005 SEVERE

STORMS,

FLOODING,
DEBRIS

FLOWS, AND

MUDSLIDES
CA
Severe Storm Los
Angeles
County
DR-1585-CA 2005 April 4/14/2005 SEVERE

STORMS,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES,

AND MUD

AND DEBRIS
FLOWS
CA

75 Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration
Title
State
Severe Storm Los
Angeles
County
DR-1884-CA 2010 March 3/8/2010 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING,

AND DEBRIS

AND MUD
FLOWS
CA
Severe Storm Los
Angeles
County
DR-4699-CA 2023 April 4/3/2023 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

STRAIGHT-

LINE WINDS,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES,
AND

MUDSLIDES
CA
Tropical Storm Los
Angeles
County
DR-677-CA 1983 February 2/9/1983 COASTAL

STORMS,

FLOODS,

SLIDES &

TORNADOES
CA
Tropical Storm Los
Angeles
County
EM-3248-CA 2005 September 9/13/2005 HURRICANE

KATRINA

EVACUATION
CA
Severe Storm Los
Angeles
County
DR-1884-CA

2010 March 3/8/2010 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING,

AND DEBRIS
ANDMUD
FLOWS
CA
Severe Storm Los
Angeles
County
DR-4699-CA

2023 April 4/3/2023 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

STRAIGHT-

LINE WINDS,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES,
AND

MUDSLIDES
CA

76 Severe Storm Los
Angeles
County
DR-4769-CA

2024 April 4/13/2024 SEVERE
WINTER

STORMS,

TORNADOES,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES,
AND

MUDSLIDES
CA

Probability of Future Events and Impacts of Climate Change

Overall probability over next five years: Likely.

The probability of high wind events in Montebello and the surrounding areas depends on several factors, including atmospheric conditions, the location and topography of the region, and the season. The probability of high wind events is highest during the fall and winter months, when the Santa Ana winds a re most likely to occur. However, these events can occur at any time of year and can vary in intensity and duration.

It is difficult to predict exactly how climate change will impact high wind events in the Montebello area and surrounding region. Conflicting research points to possibilities of both decreasing or increasing frequencies of Santa Ana wind events overall. One 2019 study posits that Santa Ana winds will decrease in frequency during the fall, while a follow -up 2022 study finds that only the so-called “cold” winds that bring snow to mountains are likely to measurably decrease.

In either scenario, however, while the chronological distribution of severe winds may shrink overall, changes in precipitation patterns may result in increased danger from high winds. Due to increased periods of dryness between precipitation in summer and a shift in fall precipitation later in the year towards winter, there is a possibility that the window for wildfires will follow the Santa Ana winds. With increased dryness in vegetation, this has the potential for more damaging fires.

The following chart from NOAA’s Climate Explorer describes trends in the number of days with rainfall greater than 3 inches to 2100.

77 Montebello can expect to experience more frequent and intense heavy rainstorms due to the expected increase in the frequency and overall amount of rainfall in California. According to California’s Fourth Climate Assessment for the Los Angeles Region:

Atmospheric rivers are regions of high water vapor transport from the tropics to the Pacific Coast of the U.S. that can produce intense topographic -induced precipitation along southern California mountain ranges (Neiman et al. 2008; J. Kim et al. 2012; Harris and Carvalho 2017; Guan et al. 2013; Payne and Magnusdottir 2014). Such events have helped pull the region out of droughts, although they are also responsible for devastating floods and mudslides (Ralph et al. 2006; Guan et al. 2013; M. D. Dettinger 20 13).

Between 1979-2013, 72 atmospheric rivers were identified as landfalling along the coast of southern California, approximately 2 -3 events each year, though significant interannual variability exists. The frequency of at mospheric rivers over southern California has a potential connection to some natural climate variability patterns (Neiman et al. 2008; J. Kim et al. 2012; Harris and Carvalho 2017; Guan et al. 2013; Payne and Magnusdottir 2014).

Analysis of several previous -generation GCMs by (Dettinger 2011a) suggest that the frequency of atmospheric river events may increase in the future, and that the storms themselves will be associated with higher water vapor transport rates compared to historical conditions. Moreover, the peak season of atmospheric rivers may also lengthen, which could extend the food -hazard season in California. The current generation of GCMs project a nearly 40% increase in precipitation during atmospheric river events over southern California by the late-21st century under RCP8.5. The number of atmospheric river events is also projected to increase in the future, possibly around a doubling of days by the end of the century (Warner et al. 2015; Hagos et al. 2016; Gao et al. 2015). Understanding future characteristics of atmospheric rivers, particularly over local spatial scales in California, remains an active area of research.

78 Increased periods of little to no rainfall and associated drying out of soils could also contribute to reduced absorptive capacity and increased surface transport of water from heavy rainfall, intensifying localized flooding.

79 3.4.5 Fire

Hazard Description

A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels and exposing or possibly consuming structures. They often begin unnoticed and spread quickly. Naturally occurring and non-native species of grasses, brush, and trees fuel wildfires. A wildland fire is a wildfire in an area in which development is essentially nonexistent, except for roads, railroads, power lines and similar facilities. A wildland/urban interface fire is a wildfire in a geographical area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with wildland or vegetative fuels.

Wildfire behavior is based on three primary factors: fuel, topography, and weather. The type, and amount of fuel, as well as its burning qualities and level of moisture affect wildfire potential and behavior. The continuity of fuels, expressed in both hori zontal and vertical components is also a determinant of wildfire potential and behavior. Topography is important because it affects the movement of air (and thus the fire) over the ground surface. The slope and shape of terrain can change the speed at whic h the fire travels, and the ability of firefighters to reach and extinguish the fire. Weather affects the probability of wildfire and has a significant effect on its behavior. Temperature, humidity and wind (both short and long term) affect the severity and duration of wildfires.

Wildfires tend to occur most frequently in the summer when dry brush provides fuel for flames to spread rapidly. Ignition sources for wildfires can include campfires that were not properly extinguished, discarded cigarettes, burning debris, lightning strikes, or intentional acts of arson.

Wildfires can start as slow burns along the forest floor, damaging and killing trees. As they spread to the tops of trees, wind can carry the flames from one tree to another, causing the fire to spread more rapidly. Typica lly, the first indication of a wildfire is the presence of dense smoke.

For thousands of years, fires have been a natural part of the ecosystem in Southern California.

Wildfires can occur anywhere, with variation in size, intensity, location, and duration. People start more than 80 percent of wildfires, usually as debris burns, arson, or carelessness.

Lightning strikes are the next leading cause of wildfires.

The danger to people and property is particularly high in the wildland urban interface (WUI), where development meets undeveloped open grassland or fire-adapted forest ecosystems, and during conditions, when vegetation is especially susceptible to fire. Th e classic wildland/urban interface exists where well-defined urban and suburban development presses up against open expanses of wildland areas; the mixed wildland/urban interface is characterized by isolated homes, subdivisions, and small communities situa ted predominantly in wildland settings. The occluded wildland/urban interface exists where islands of wildland vegetation occur inside a largely urbanized area.

80 One challenge Southern California faces regarding the wildfire hazard is from the increasing number of houses being built on the urban/wildland interface. Every year the growing population expands further into the hills and mountains, including forest lands. The increased "interface" between urban/suburban areas, and the open spaces created by this expansion, produces a significant increase in threats to life and property from fires, and pushes existing fire protection systems beyond original or current design and capability.

Property owners in the interface are often not aware of the problems and fire hazards or risks on their own property. A house surrounded by brushy growth rather than cleared space allows for greater continuity of fuel and increases the fire’s ability to spread. After decades of fire suppression “dog-hair” thickets have accumulated, which enable high intensity fires to flare and spread rapidly.

Topography influences the movement of air, thereby directing a fire course. For example, if the percentage of uphill slope doubles, the rate of spread in wildfire will likely double. Gulches and canyons can funnel air and act as chimneys, which intensify fire behavior and cause the fire to spread faster. Solar heating of dry, south -facing slopes produces up slope drafts that can complicate fire behavior. Unfortunately, hillsides with hazardous topographic characteristics are also desirable residential areas in many communities. Owners often prefer homes that are private with scenic views, nestled in vegetation, and use natural materials. A private setting is usually far from public roads, or hidden behind a narrow, curving driveway. These conditions, however, make evacuation and firefighting difficult.

Areas where annual precipitation is less than 30 inches per year are extremely fire susceptible.

High-risk areas in Southern California share a hot, dry season in late summer and early fall when high temperatures and low humidity favor fire activity. The so-called “Santa Ana” winds, which are heated by compression as they flow down to Southern California from Utah, create a particularly high risk, as they can rapidly spread what might otherwise be a small fire.

(source: Cal Fire Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area, updated as of March 2025. Accessed June 2025)

82 Location and Extent
While the City of Montebello is not located within a Cal Fire–designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), adjacent jurisdictions —particularly to the north and east —contain zones classified as high and very high hazard under Local Responsibility Area (LRA) designations. These include areas along Montebello’s northeastern edge, near North Poplar Avenue and West Beverly Boulevard, which directly border mapped VHFHSZs in Monterey Park and South San Gabriel. As a result, Montebello may still be exposed to secondary wildfire risks, including ember transport during extreme wind events and sustained smoke impacts from nearby wildland-urban interface fires.

According to the vulnerability assessment (Section 4.2.5, page 138), the extent of potential fire- related impacts within Montebello ranges from low to moderate in most urbanized areas.

However, higher -risk conditions may exist in localized areas with older structures built with combustible materials, heavy ornamental vegetation, or limited defensible space. The City's industrial corridors, which contain flammable materials and expansive impervious surfaces, may also elevate fire spread risks if windborne embers enter from adjacent high-risk zones. In such scenarios, localized property damage, utility disruptions, smoke exposure, and evacuation operations could occur even in neighborhoods outside mapped VHFHSZ boundaries. The extent of these impacts is amplif ied during Santa Ana wind events and multi -day regional wildfire conditions, as demonstrated in recent Southern California fire seasons.

Fire Danger Rating System

Fire Danger
Rating Description
Low (L)
Fuels do not ignite readily from small firebrands, although a more intense heat source, such as lightning, may start fires in duff or punky wood. Fires in open cured grasslands may burn freely a few hours after rain, but woods fires spread slowly by creeping or smoldering and burn in irregular fingers.

There is little danger of spotting.

Moderate (M)
Fires can start from most accidental causes, but except for lightning fires in some areas, the number of starts is generally low. Fires in open cured grasslands will burn briskly and spread rapidly on windy days. Timber fires spread slowly to moderately fast. The average fire is of moderate intensity, although heavy concentrations of fuel, especially draped fuel, may burn hot.

Short-distance spotting may occur but is not persistent. Fires are not likely to become serious and control is relatively easy.

High (H)
All fine dead fuels ignite readily, and fires start easily from most causes.

Unattended brush and campfires are likely to escape. Fires spread rapidly and short-distance spotting is common. High intensity burning may develop on slopes or in concentrations of fine fuels. Fires may become serious and their control difficult unless they are attacked successfully while small.

83 Very High
(VH)
Fires start easily from all causes and, immediately after ignition, spread rapidly and increase quickly in intensity. Spot fires are a constant danger.

Fires burning in light fuels may quickly develop high intensity characteristics, such as long-distance spotting and fire whirlwinds when they burn into heavier fuels.

Extreme (E)
Fires start quickly, spread furiously, and burn intensely. All fires are potentially serious. Development into high intensity burning will usually be faster and occur from smaller fires than in the very high fire danger class.

Direct attack is rarely possible and may be dangerous except immediately after ignition. Fires that develop headway in heavy slash or in conifer stands may be unmanageable while the extreme burning condition lasts. Under these conditions the only effective and safe control action is on the flanks until the weather changes, or the fuel supply lessens.

Source: U.S. Forest Service’s Wildland Fire Assessment System (USFS WFAS)

Urban Fires due to Seismic Events

Urban fires are a constant threat in the City, given the seismic hazards of fault rupture, strong ground shaking, and liquefaction. In the United States, fires following earthquakes have caused the largest losses associated with earthquakes. Urban fires following earthquakes are driven by two key features: 1) the earthquake is likely to ignite multiple, nearly simultaneous fires; and 2) the earthquake is likely to damage and disrupt fire suppression by severing water pipelines and delaying the arrival of adequate fire-fighting equipment and personnel.

There have been no recent fires due to seismic events in the City of Montebello.

Previous Occurrences

The following data comes from FEMA’s Disaster Declarations for States and Counties (https://www.fema.gov/data-visualization/disaster-declarations-states-and-counties; updated January 16, 2025).

Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Fire Los
Angeles
County
DR-295-CA 1970 September 9/29/1970 FOREST & BRUSH
FIRES
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
EM-3067-
CA
1978 October 10/29/1978 BRUSH FIRES CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
DR-1005-
CA
1993 October 10/28/1993 FIRES,

MUD/LANDSLIDES,

FLOODING, SOIL

EROSION
CA

84 Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Fire Los
Angeles
County
DR-635-CA 1980 November 11/27/1980 BRUSH & TIMBER
FIRES
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
DR-872-CA 1990 June 6/30/1990 FIRES CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
DR-942-CA 1992 May 5/2/1992 FIRE DURING A

PERIOD OF CIVIL
UNREST
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
EM-3120-
CA
1996 October 10/23/1996 SEVERE

FIRESTORMS
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2417-
CA
2002 June 6/6/2002 CA - COPPER FIRE
- 06-06-2002
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2464-
CA
2002 September 9/24/2002 WILLIAMS FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2462-
CA
2002 September 9/4/2002 LEONA FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
DR-1498-
CA
2003 October 10/27/2003 WILDFIRES,

FLOODING,

MUDFLOW AND

DEBRIS FLOW

DIRECTLY

RELATED T
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2502-
CA
2003 October 10/25/2003 CA-VERDALE FIRE
10-25-2003
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2466-
CA
2003 January 1/7/2003 CA - WILDFIRE
(PACIFIC FIRE) -
01-06-2003
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2534-
CA
2004 July 7/18/2004 CA-FOOTHILL
WILDFIRE-07-18-
2004
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2535-
CA
2004 July 7/21/2004 CA-CROWN
WILDFIRE-07-21-
2004
CA

85 Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2528-
CA
2004 July 7/14/2004 CA - PINE FIRE - 7-
13-2004
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2583-
CA
2005 September 9/28/2005 TOPANGA FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
DR-1731-
CA
2007 October 10/24/2007 WILDFIRES,

FLOODING, MUD

FLOWS, AND

DEBRIS FLOWS
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2736-
CA
2007 October 10/22/2007 RANCH FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2732-
CA
2007 October 10/21/2007 CANYON FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2733-
CA
2007 October 10/21/2007 BUCKWEED FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2708-
CA
2007 July 7/8/2007 CANYON FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2694-
CA
2007 May 5/10/2007 ISLAND FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2691-
CA
2007 May 5/9/2007 GRIFFITH PARK
FIRE
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
EM-3279-
CA
2007 October 10/23/2007 WILDFIRES CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
DR-1810-
CA
2008 November 11/18/2008 WILDFIRES CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2788-
CA
2008 October 10/12/2008 MAREK FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2792-
CA
2008 November 11/15/2008 FREEWAY FIRE

COMPLEX
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2789-
CA
2008 October 10/13/2008 SESNON FIRE CA

86 Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2791-
CA
2008 November 11/15/2008 SAYRE FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2763-
CA
2008 April 4/27/2008 SANTA ANITA
FIRE
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2828-
CA
2009 August 8/28/2009 PV FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2830-
CA
2009 August 8/28/2009 STATION FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-2851-
CA
2010 July 7/30/2010 CROWN FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5025-
CA
2013 June 6/2/2013 POWERHOUSE
FIRE
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5051-
CA
2014 January 1/16/2014 COLBY FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5124-
CA
2016 June 6/5/2016 OLD FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5129-
CA
2016 June 6/21/2016 FISH FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5132-
CA
2016 July 7/9/2016 SAGE FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5135-
CA
2016 July 7/23/2016 SAND FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
EM-3396-
CA
2017 December 12/8/2017 WILDFIRES CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5201-
CA
2017 September 9/2/2017 LA TUNA FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5225-
CA
2017 December 12/5/2017 CREEK FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5226-
CA
2017 December 12/5/2017 RYE FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5227-
CA
2017 December 12/6/2017 SKIRBALL FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
DR-4407-
CA
2018 November 11/12/2018 WILDFIRES CA

87 Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Fire Los
Angeles
County
DR-4353-
CA
2018 January 1/2/2018 WILDFIRES,

FLOODING,

MUDFLOWS, AND

DEBRIS FLOWS
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
EM-3409-
CA
2018 November 11/9/2018 WILDFIRES CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5280-
CA

2018 November 11/9/2018 WOOLSEY FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5293-
CA
2019 October 10/11/2019 SADDLE RIDGE
FIRE
CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5296-
CA
2019 October 10/24/2019 TICK FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5297-
CA
2019 October 10/28/2019 GETTY FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
DR-4569-
CA
2020 October 10/16/2020 WILDFIRES CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5374-
CA
2020 September 9/13/2020 BOBCAT FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5537-
CA
2024 September 9/11/2024 BRIDGE FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5548-
CA
2024 December 12/10/2024 FRANKLIN FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5549-
CA
2025 January 1/7/2025 PALISADES FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5551-
CA
2025 January 1/8/2025 HURST FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
FM-5550-
CA
2025 January 1/8/2025 EATON FIRE CA
Fire Los
Angeles
County
DR-4856-
CA
2025 January 1/8/2025 WILDFIRES AND

STRAIGHT-LINE
WINDS
CA

Large fires have been part of the Southern California landscape for millennia. Indigenous communities used controlled fires to shape the landscape to their benefit. In the aftermath of Mexican and later American colonization, California’s fire regime was significantly altered. Early US forest management practices centered around the idea of fire suppression, which reduced

88 the frequency of fires in proximity to settlements but ultimately increased their intensity by allowing vegetation to build up and fuel more intense fires.

Notable f ires outside of Montebello that have nevertheless impacted the City’s air quality include:

• 1989 Montebello Hills Fire
• Date: October 3, 1989
• Location: Montebello Hills
• Impact: This wildfire burned approximately 300 acres in the Montebello Hills area. The fire threatened several homes and caused evacuations in nearby neighborhoods. Firefighters were able to contain the blaze within a day, but not before it caused significant damage to local vegetation and disrupted daily life for many residents. T
• 2008 Montebello Brush Fire
• Date: June 16, 2008
• Location: Montebello Hills
• Impact: The fire broke out in the brushy areas of the Montebello Hills, burning around 150 acres. It required a substantial firefighting effort, including ground crews and aerial support, to bring it under control. The fire threatened nearby homes, prompting tem porary evacuations and road closures. While no homes were lost, the fire underscored the ongoing risk posed by the dry, brush-covered hills in and around Montebello.
• 2016 Garfield Fire
• Date: October 19, 2016
• Location: South Garfield Avenue and Via San Clemente
• Impact: The Garfield Fire burned approximately 40 acres in a residential area of Montebello. The fire started in a vacant lot and quickly spread due to high winds and dry conditions. Several homes were threatened, and residents were evacuated as a precaution. The firefighting effort involved multiple agencies and was successful in preventing any structural damage to homes. • 2020 Whittier Narrows Fire
• Date: August 13, 2020
• Location: Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, near Montebello • Impact: Although the fire started in the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, its proximity to Montebello meant that the city was affected by smoke and air quality issues. The fire burned over 80 acres and required extensive firefighting efforts, including water-dropping helicopters and ground crews.
• 2021 Montebello Hills Fire
• Date: June 15, 2021
• Location: Montebello Hills

89 • Impact: A fire broke out in the Montebello Hills, burning approximately 50 acres of brush. The fire was driven by high winds and dry vegetation, making it challenging to contain. Firefighters from multiple agencies responded, utilizing both ground crews and aeri al support. Evacuations were ordered for homes in the immediate vicinity, and several roads were closed.
• 2022 Montebello Industrial Fire
• Date: April 10, 2022
• Location: Industrial area near Greenwood Avenue and Olympic Boulevard • Impact: This fire broke out in an industrial area of Montebello, affecting several warehouses and storage facilities. The blaze caused significant property damage and released large plumes of smoke, affecting air quality in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Also, in 2015, an unhoused man sparked a 384-acre wildfire in the Rio Hondo Riverbed while cooking food in the brush. Although no structures were damaged, four firefighters suffered minor injuries while fighting the fire.

Probability of Future Events and Impacts of Climate Change

Overall probability over next five years: Moderate.

Wildfires can occur at any time of the year, although over the past two decades, wildfire season has begun to extend into the cooler months. The frequency and severity of fires are increasing due to higher temperatures and drier climates. Climate change is projected to lead to increased temperatures and more frequent/intense droughts, resulting in more dry plant matter available and a higher risk of wildfires statewide.

In a low-emissions (conservative) scenario, burned acreage in Los Angeles County is expected to increase 16% by 2050. According to California’s Fourth Climate Assessment for the Los Angeles Region:

Future projections by Jin et al. (2015) using statistical models indicate that southern California may experience a larger number of wildfires and burned area by the mid-21st century under RCP8.5. Overall burned area is projected to increase over 60% for Santa Ana-based fires and over 75% for non -Santa Ana fires. New wildfire projections were developed for the Assessment (Westerling et al. 2018) using different statistical models than those used by Jin et al. (2015), which also incorporated new datasets of future climate data and land use. Compared to the observed 1950 - 2009 historical average area burned of 53,300 hectares (Jin et al. 2015), the modeled 1976 -2005 historical average area burned is roughly 16,000 hectares (Westerling et al. 2018). This discrepancy highlights that large uncertainties remain in current wildfire models and is

90 an area where further research is required. Based on the projections developed by Westerling et al. (2018), the annual burned area over the LA region may increase over 2000 hectares by the mid-21st century under RCP4.5 or RCP8.5 compared to simulated historical conditions. Similar, yet potentially slightly lower, increases are projected by the late-21st century, as continued warming (even with moderate precipitation increases) could lead to overall fuel declines necessary for wildfire.

And in August 2023, Nature published “Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California” ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06444-3.epdf) that further attempted to quantify future wildfire risk. Brown et al. conclude that as of the time of publication (August 2023), aggregate expected frequency of extreme wildfire events has grown by 25% over pre -industrial conditions. Under lower emission s scenarios, the aggregate expected frequency of extreme wildfire events more than doubles from today to 59% relative to pre - industrial conditions, and under very high-emissions scenarios increases by 172%.

91 3.4.6 Power Outage

Hazard Description

A power outage is a temporary loss of electricity to a home or business due to a disruption in the power supply. There are several causes of power outages, including severe weather conditions such as thunderstorms, high winds, and extreme heat. In Southern California, power outages can also be caused by wildfires, earthquakes, and equipment failures.

During times of extreme heat, power outages can be particularly hazardous to a city. High temperatures can cause increased demand for electricity as people turn up their air conditioning units, leading to strain on the power grid. This can result in blacko uts or brownouts, which can lead to several hazards.

Location and Extent

The entirety of the City of Montebello is vulnerable to power outages.

The location and duration of power outages can vary depending on the cause of the outage.

For example, power outages caused by weather events such as thunderstorms or wildfires may be localized, affecting only a few neighborhoods or communities. On the oth er hand, power outages caused by equipment failures or grid overloads may be more widespread and impact larger areas or even entire regions.

Previous Occurrences

Minor power outages are a not -infrequent occurrence in any grid system. Several major incidents that impacted Los Angeles County include:

• 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake Power Outage
• Date: October 1, 1987
• Cause: Earthquake
• Impact: The Whittier Narrows Earthquake caused widespread power outages across the Los Angeles area, including Montebello. The shaking damaged power lines and transformers, leading to prolonged outages.

Many residents were without electricity for hours to days a s utility crews worked to repair the damage and restore service.
• 2006 Heat Wave Power Outage
o Date: July 2006
o Cause: Extreme heat and high electricity demand

92 o Impact: During the 2006 heat wave, record -high temperatures led to a surge in electricity usage as residents and businesses relied heavily on air conditioning. The increased demand overwhelmed the power grid, causing rolling blackouts and localized power outages throughout Southern California, including Montebello. Thousands of residents experienced power cuts, which in some cases lasted for several hours. • 2011 Windstorm Power Outage
o Date: November 30 - December 1, 2011
o Cause: High winds
o Impact: A powerful windstorm with gusts up to 100 mph caused extensive damage to the power infrastructure in Montebello and surrounding areas.

Downed trees and power lines led to widespread outages affecting thousands of residents. Some areas were without power for several days as crews worked to clear debris and repair the damaged lines. • 2014 Santa Ana Winds Power Outage
o Date: October 2014
o Cause: Santa Ana winds
o Impact: Strong Santa Ana winds brought gusts of up to 60 mph to Montebello, causing trees to fall and power lines to snap. The high winds led to power outages affecting thousands of households and businesses.

Restoration efforts were complicated by the widesprea d nature of the damage and the continuing high winds.
• 2016 Pineapple Express Storms Power Outage
o Date: January 2016
o Cause: Heavy rain and high winds
o Impact: The Pineapple Express weather pattern brought heavy rainfall and strong winds to Montebello, leading to significant power outages.

Flooding and wind damage caused power lines to fail, leaving many residents without electricity. The outages lasted from se veral hours to days, depending on the severity of the damage in different areas. • 2017 Heat Wave Power Outage
o Date: September 2017
o Cause: Extreme heat and high electricity demand
o Impact: A severe heat wave in September 2017 led to record temperatures in Montebello and the surrounding areas. The increased demand for air conditioning put immense pressure on the power grid, resulting in rolling blackouts and power outages. Thousands of resi dents were affected, experiencing disruptions that lasted several hours. • 2020 Labor Day Weekend Heat Wave Power Outage
o Date: September 2020
o Cause: Extreme heat and high electricity demand

93 o Impact: Over the Labor Day weekend, Montebello and much of Southern California faced an intense heat wave, with temperatures soaring above 100°F. The excessive heat led to a spike in electricity use, causing strain on the power grid and resulting in rolling blac kouts and power outages.

Many residents experienced interruptions in their electricity supply, lasting from a few hours to more than a day in some areas.
• 2021 Wind Event Power Outage
o Date: January 2021
o Cause: High winds
o Impact: A severe wind event in January 2021 brought gusts up to 60 mph, causing extensive damage to the power infrastructure in Montebello. The high winds knocked down trees and power lines, leading to widespread outages. Thousands of residents and businesses we re affected, with some areas experiencing power cuts lasting several days.

One particularly dangerous scenario, exemplified by the 2006 summer heat wave, is a power outage amid a severe heat wave. This scenario, which is likely to result in fatalities, is unfortunately becoming more probable as climate impacts grow.

Probability of Future Events and Impacts of Climate Change

Overall probability over next five years: Moderate.

The likelihood of future power outages impacting the City of Montebello may increase because of climate change and the associated risks of wildfires and extreme heat events.

Wildfires have become increasingly common and severe in California beyond the traditional fire season in recent years, with record-breaking fires causing widespread damage and disruption to power infrastructure. Power lines and equipment damaged by wildfir es can lead to power outages and disruptions to essential services, such as hospitals and emergency response systems. Los Angeles County, with its dry climate and high wildfire risk, may be particularly vulnerable to these types of power outages.

In addition to the risk of wildfires, extreme heat events associated with climate change can also increase the likelihood of power outages. High temperatures can put strain on the power grid, leading to equipment failures and blackouts. In Los Angeles County, which experiences hot and dry summers, this risk is particularly acute.

To mitigate the risks of future power outages, Los Angeles County, and utility providers such as Southern California Edison (SCE) have implemented measures such as grid upgrades, equipment maintenance, and emergency response plans. SCE has also implemented Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) to reduce the risk of wildfire -related power outages. PSPS is a

94 proactive measure in which SCE intentionally shuts off power to certain areas during periods of high fire risk to reduce the risk of equipment -related fires. While these measures can help reduce the risk of power outages, they may not eliminate the risk, e specially during extreme weather events.

95 3.4.7 Cyberattack/IT Disruption

Hazard Description

A cyberattack is a malicious attempt to damage, disrupt, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system, network, or device. These attacks can take many forms and can be launched from anywhere in the world. However, IT disruptions can also occur due to non -malicious reasons such as software failures, hardware malfunctions, power outages, and natural disasters. Regardless of their origin, an IT disruption can be extremely problematic for a modern community.

Cyberattacks on local governments and businesses are becoming increasingly common as more services move online and more data is stored in digital formats. These attacks can include phishing scams, ransomware attacks, and distributed denial -of-service (DDoS) attacks. In a phishing scam, an attacker sends a legitimate-looking email or message to trick the target into revealing sensitive information like usernames and passwords. In a ransomware attack, malware encrypts a victim's data, with attackers demanding payment for the decryption key. A DDoS attack involves flooding a website or server with traffic, making it unavailable to legitimate users.

Cyberattacks on local governments can be particularly damaging, disrupting critical services such as emergency response systems, public utilities, and transportation networks. They can also result in the theft of sensitive data, including personal informat ion, financial data, and intellectual property. Similarly, businesses are vulnerable to cyberattacks, which can lead to significant financial losses, reputational damage, and legal liability. On the other hand, IT disruptions not resulting from malicious attacks can still cause severe impacts. For example, a software glitch could disable critical systems, a hardware failure could lead to data loss, and a power outage could interrupt services.

Location and Extent

The threat of cyberattacks and IT disruptions is ever-changing and growing as work processes become increasingly digitized. The vulnerability of cloud-based systems may lead to attempts to segregate parts of the cloud or create “mini-clouds.” Additionally, the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) may increase susceptibility to cyberattacks as AI becomes more pervasive and supplements or replaces human-based knowledge.

Cyberattacks and IT disruptions are generally not geographically confined to a single location.

They can target specific organizations, departments, or entire municipal IT networks. For example, cloud storage used by a city may be physically distributed am ong many servers in various locations, some potentially far from the city itself. This distributed nature means that an

96 attack or disruption in one location can have widespread impacts, affecting services and operations across multiple areas.

Previous Occurrences

Cyberattacks are often not publicized, and as such, there is not a detailed record of cyberattacks potentially available to the public against Montebello city government or local businesses.

However, there have been several high -profile cyberattacks and IT disruptions that illustrate the nature of the threat:

• 2013 City of Detroit Cyberattack
• Date: April 2013
• Type: Ransomware
• Impact: Detroit experienced a ransomware attack where hackers demanded approximately $800,000 to unlock the city's data. The attack was discovered before any payment was made, highlighting the city's vulnerability. Detroit chose not to pay the ransom and instead focused on enhancing its cybersecurity defenses.
• 2018 City of Atlanta Cyberattack
• Date: March 2018
• Type: Ransomware (SamSam)
• Impact: Atlanta was hit by a SamSam ransomware attack that encrypted a significant portion of the city's data and disrupted various municipal services, including bill payments and court records. The attackers demanded a ransom of approximately $51,000 in Bitcoin . The attack caused major operational disruptions and led to a recovery cost estimated at $17 million, underscoring the severe financial and operational impact of such attacks.
• 2019 Baltimore Cyberattack
• Date: May 2019
• Type: Ransomware (RobbinHood)
• Impact: Baltimore was targeted by the RobbinHood ransomware, which paralyzed the city's computer systems and disrupted various services, including water billing, property transactions, and email systems. The attackers demanded a ransom of 13 Bitcoin (about $76,000 at the time), which the city refused to pay. The recovery efforts took months and cost the city an estimated $18 million, including system restoration and lost revenue.

97 • 2019 New Orleans Cyberattack
• Date: December 2019
• Type: Ransomware
• Impact: New Orleans experienced a ransomware attack that forced the shutdown of its IT systems to prevent the spread of the malware. The attack led to the declaration of a state of emergency and disrupted municipal operations, including email systems and public safety services.

The city incurred significant costs related to recovery and system upgrades, estimated at several million dollars.
• 2020 Durham, North Carolina Cyberattack
• Date: March 2020
• Type: Ransomware (Ryuk)
• Impact: Durham's IT systems were compromised by the Ryuk ransomware, affecting various municipal services and operations. The attack disrupted the city's phone systems, email, and other critical services.

The city worked with cybersecurity experts to restore sys tems and enhance security measures, incurring substantial recovery costs. • 2020 Knoxville, Tennessee Cyberattack
• Date: June 2020
• Type: Ransomware
• Impact: Knoxville's computer systems were targeted by a ransomware attack that encrypted data and disrupted city operations. The attack affected internal services, including email and payment processing systems. The city worked with external consultants to resto re systems and improve cybersecurity protocols.
• 2021 Oldsmar, Florida Water Treatment Plant Cyberattack • Date: February 2021
• Type: Unauthorized Access
• Impact: Hackers gained access to the water treatment plant's control systems in Oldsmar, Florida, and attempted to increase the amount of sodium hydroxide (lye) in the water supply to dangerous levels. The attack was detected and halted before any harm could occur, highlighting the vulnerabilities in municipal infrastructure and the potential for cyberattacks to pose public safety risks.
• 2021 City of Tulsa Cyberattack
• Date: May 2021
• Type: Ransomware
• Impact: Tulsa's IT systems were affected by a ransomware attack that disrupted various municipal services, including online billing and utility payment systems. The city worked to contain the attack and restore services, implementing additional security measures to prevent future incidents.

98 • 2022 City of Quincy, Massachusetts Cyberattack
• Date: January 2022
• Type: Ransomware
• Impact: Quincy experienced a ransomware attack that affected several city departments, including the police department. The attack disrupted email systems and access to important records. The city collaborated with cybersecurity experts to recover data and enhan ce its cybersecurity infrastructure.
• 2022 City of Alexandria, Louisiana Cyberattack
• Date: March 2022
• Type: Ransomware
• Impact: Alexandria's computer systems were hit by a ransomware attack that encrypted data and disrupted city operations, including utility billing and emergency services. The city declared a state of emergency and worked with external consultants to recover data and secure its systems. • 2024 CrowdStrike Update Incident
• Date: July 2024
• Type: Software update problem
• Impact: CrowdStrike, a prominent cybersecurity company, experienced a significant incident involving a faulty update to its Falcon Sensor security software. The update, part of their Rapid Response Content, was intended to enhance security by incorporating new d ata on hacking tactics. However, it inadvertently caused widespread crashes on Microsoft Windows systems running the software. This resulted in approximately 8.5 million systems worldwide being affected, causing significant disruptions for businesses and government entities alike. The faulty update triggered an "out -of-bounds memory read" error, leading to the infamous "blue screen of death" on affected systems. The incident was not caused by a cyberattack but rather by a defect that went undetected during CrowdStrike's validation process.

Probability of Future Events

Overall probability over next five years: Very Likely.

The future probability of cyberattacks and IT disruptions impacting city governments is increasingly high, driven by the expanding digitalization of public services and the growing sophistication of cyber threats. According to a 2022 report by Cybersecurity Ventures, global cybercrime costs are expected to reach $10.5 trillion annually by 202 5, up from $3 trillion in 2015. This significant rise underscores the escalating threat landscape facing city governments.

99 City governments are particularly vulnerable due to their reliance on digital infrastructure to manage critical services such as emergency response, public utilities, transportation, and healthcare. A survey by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) in 2020 found that 44% of local governments experienced a cyberattack within the previous year.

Ransomware attacks, in particular, pose a significant threat to city governments. In 2020, the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) received nearly 2,500 ransomware complaints, with adjusted losses totaling over $29.1 million. The actual figures are likely higher, as many incidents go unreported. Moreover, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reported that ransomware attacks on state and local governments increased by 50% from 2019 to 2020.

IT disruptions, whether due to cyberattacks, system failures, or other causes, are also a growing concern. The Uptime Institute's 2021 Global Data Center Survey revealed that 69% of data center operators experienced an outage in the past three years, with 10% of those being classified as severe or serious. Given the increasing complexity and interconnectivity of city government IT systems, the likelihood of significant disruptions is expected to rise.

100

3.4.8 Flooding

Hazard Description

Floods are among the most common and most widespread of all natural disasters. Almost every community in the United States has, at some point, experienced flooding.

Floods are typically caused by excessive precipitation and can be influenced by various factors such as topography, weather patterns, soil moisture, vegetation, and impervious surfaces.

Drainages and streams can overflow if their capacity is surpassed by rainwater. In urban areas, the presence of pavement and other impermeable surfaces reduces the ground's ability to absorb excess water, necessitating the use of storm channels or waterways.

Floods can cause secondary hazards such as erosion or scouring of stream banks, roadway embankments, foundations, footings for bridge piers, and other features. High-velocity flow and debris carried by floodwaters can also cause impact damage to structures , roads, bridges, culverts, and other features, with debris accumulating on bridge piers and in culverts. In addition, floods can lead to the release of sewage and hazardous or toxic materials when wastewater treatment plants are inundated, storage tanks a re damaged, and pipelines are severed.

The standard for flooding is the so -called "100-year flood," a benchmark used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to establish a standard of flood control in communities throughout the country. Thus, the 100-year flood is also referred to as the "regulatory" or "base" flood.

It is important to note that it does not mean that only one flood of that size will occur every 100 years. What it means is that there is a one percent chance of a flood of that intensity and elevation happening in any given year. In other words, it is the flood elevation that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. And it could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. (By comparison, the 10 -year flood means that there is a ten percent chance for a flood of its intensity and elevation to happen in any given year.) The three most prevalent categories described on FIRMs are:

• Special Flood Hazard Area: The area within a 100-year floodplain. • Moderate Flood Hazard Area: The area outside of the 100 -year floodplain but within the 500-year floodplain.
• Minimum Flood Hazard Area: The area outside of the 500-year floodplain.

101
Category Description
A Within a 100-year flood plain, but the water height of the 100-year flood is not known.

A1-30 or AE Within a 100-year flood plain and the water height of the 100-year flood is known.

AO Within a 100-year flood plain, and the water height of the 100-year flood is between one and three feet but not specifically known.

A99 Within a 100-year flood plain, protected by flood protection infrastructure such as dams or levees.

AH Within a 100-year flood plain, and the water height of the 100-year flood is between one and three feet and is specifically known.

AR Within a 100-year flood plain, protected by flood protection infrastructure that is not currently effective, but is being rebuilt to provide protection.

V Within a 100-year flood plain for coastal floods, but the water height of the flood is not known.

V1-30 or VE Within a 100-year flood plain for coastal floods and the water height of the flood is known.

VO Within a 100-year flood plain for shallow coastal floods with a height between one and three feet.

B Within a 500-year flood plain, or within a 100-year flood plain with a water height less than one foot
(found on older maps)
C Outside of the 500-year flood plain (found on older maps) X Outside of the 500-year flood plain (found on newer maps) X500 Within a 500-year flood plain, or within a 100-year flood plain with a water height less than one foot (found on newer maps)
D Within an area with a potential and undetermined flood hazard.

M Within an area at risk of mudslides from a 100-year flood event.

N Within an area at risk of mudslides from a 500-year flood event.

P Within an area at risk of mudslides from a potential and undetermined flood event.

E Within an area at risk of erosion from a 100-year flood event.

Flash floods typically occur during the rainy seasons of fall and winter. The region’s dry soil makes matters worse since water has little chance to absorb the rainfall only adding to the problem. Flash floods occur suddenly, usually within 6 hours of the rain event, and result from heavy localized rainfall or levee failures. Flash floods can begin before the rain stops. Water level on small streams may rise quickly in heavy rainstorms, especially near the headwaters of river basins. Heavy rains can also cause flash flooding in areas where the floodplain has been urbanized.

Many people are killed by flash floods when driving or walking on roads and bridges that are covered by water. In fact, flash floods are the number one weather -related killer in the United States. Even six inches of fast-moving flood water can knock a person off their feet, and a depth of only two feet of water will float many of today's automobiles.

102
Source: Southern California Association of Governments Data/Map Book – Montebello (2019)

103

FIRM Panel 06037C1830F (Effective September 2008)

104

FIRM Panel 06037C1664F (Effective September 2008)

105

FIRM Panel 06037C1665F (Effective September 2008)

106

FIRM Panel 06037C1645F(Effective September 2008)

107

FIRM Panel 06037C1663F (Effective September 2008)

108
Location and Extent

There are four major areas of the City that are susceptible to flash flooding:

• West side of Grant Rea Park along the Rio Hondo Channel • Garfield Avenue between Via Paseo and Beverly Boulevard • East side of Rio Hondo Channel from Beverly Terrace to Mines Avenue • Mines Avenue from Maple Avenue to Greenwood Avenue

Additional low-lying portions of the city are susceptible to urban flooding, due to a combination of factors including debris accumulating in storm drains, aged drainage systems, and high concentrations of surface impermeability.

The vast majority of Montebello does not lie within a 100- or 500- year floodplain, as delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However, the potential for a localized flood event still exists within Montebello.

Two types of flooding primarily affect the City of Montebello: slow -rise or flash flooding. Slow - rise floods in Montebello may be preceded by a warning period of hours or days. Evacuation and sandbagging for slow -rise floods have often effectively lessene d flood related damage.

Conversely, flash floods are most difficult to prepare for, due to extremely limited, if any, advance warning and preparation time. Unlike most of California, the areas of Los Angeles County that are subject to slow -rise flooding ar e not associated with overflowing rivers, aqueducts, canals or lakes. Slow -rise flooding in Montebello is usually the result of one or a combination of the following factors: extremely heavy rainfall, saturated soil, area recently burned in wildfires with inadequate new ground cover growth, or heavy rainfall with runoff from melting mountain snow.

Portions of the City of Montebello are prone to urban flooding, also sometimes referred to as ponding, due to debris accumulation on storm drains and in flood control channels and basins, overburdened pumping stations and aged drainage systems. Low -lying areas of the City are particularly susceptible to urban flooding.

Urban Flooding

As land is converted from fields or woodlands to roads and parking lots, it loses its ability to absorb rainfall. Urbanization of a watershed changes the hydrologic systems of the basin.

Heavy rainfall collects and flows faster on impervious concrete and asphalt surfaces. The water moves from the clouds, to the ground, and into streams at a much faster rate in urban areas.

Adding these elements to the hydrological systems can result in flood waters that rise very rapidly and peak with violent force.

109
The City of Montebello has a high concentration of impermeable surfaces that either collect water or concentrate the flow of water in unnatural channels. During periods of urban flooding, streets can become swift moving rivers and basements can fill with water. Storm drains often back up with vegetative debris causing additional, localized flooding.

Riverine Flooding

Riverine flooding is the overbank flooding of rivers and streams. The natural processes of riverine flooding add sediment and nutrients to fertile floodplain areas. Flooding in large river systems typically results from large-scale weather systems that generate prolonged rainfall over a wide geographic area, causing flooding in hundreds of smaller streams, which then drain into the major rivers. Shallow area flooding is a special type of riverine flooding. FEMA defines shallow flood hazards as areas that are inundated by the 100 -year flood with flood depths of only one to three feet. These areas are generally flooded by low velocity sheet flows of water.

Flood control channels and basins are at risk of overflowing their banks during times of heavy rainfall and reservoir water release, specifically the Rio Hondo Flood Control Channel which runs north to south through the length of City and the San Gabriel River basin, which runs along the east side of the City. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the Army Corp of Engineers are responsible for notifying the jurisdiction at the onset of planned water releases.

Previous Occurrences

The following data comes from FEMA’s Disaster Declarations for States and Counties (https://www.fema.gov/data-visualization/disaster-declarations-states-and-counties; updated January 16, 2025).

Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Flood Los
Angeles
County
DR-253-CA 1969 January 1/26/1969 SEVERE STORMS
& FLOODING
CA
Flood Los
Angeles
County
DR-547-CA 1978 February 2/15/1978 COASTAL

STORMS,

MUDSLIDES &

FLOODING

CA
Flood Los
Angeles
County
DR-615-CA 1980 February 2/21/1980 SEVERE

STORMS,

MUDSLIDES &

FLOODING
CA

110
Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration Title State
Flood Los
Angeles
County
DR-812-CA 1988 February 2/5/1988 SEVERE

STORMS, HIGH

TIDES &

FLOODING
CA
Flood Los
Angeles
County
DR-935-CA 1992 February 2/25/1992 RAIN/SNOW/WIND

STORMS,

FLOODING,

MUDSLIDES
CA
Flood Los
Angeles
County
DR-979-CA 1993 February 2/3/1993 SEVERE WINTER

STORM, MUD &

LAND SLIDES, &

FLOODING
CA
Flood Los
Angeles
County
DR-4305-
CA
2017 March 3/16/2017 SEVERE WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING, AND

MUDSLIDES
CA
Flood Los
Angeles
County
EM-3592-
CA
2023 March 3/10/2023 SEVERE WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES,

AND MUDSLIDES
CA
Flood Los
Angeles
County
EM-3591-
CA
2023 January 1/9/2023 SEVERE WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING, AND

MUDSLIDES
CA
Flood Los
Angeles
County
DR-4683-
CA
2023 January 1/14/2023 SEVERE WINTER

STORMS,

FLOODING,

LANDSLIDES,

AND MUDSLIDES
CA

Average annual precipitation in Los Angeles County ranges from 13 inches on the coast to approximately 40 inches on the highest point of the Peninsular Mountain Range that transects the County. Several factors determine the severity of floods, including rainfall intensity and duration. A large amount of rainfall over a short time span can result in flash flood conditions. A sudden thunderstorm or heavy rain, dam failure, or sudden spills can cause flash flooding. The

111
National Weather Service’s definition of a flash flood is a flood occurring in a watershed where the time of travel of the peak of flow from one end of the watershed to the other is less than six hours.

The towering mountains that give the Los Angeles region its spectacular views also wring a great deal of rain out of the storm clouds that pass through. Because the mountains are so steep, the rainwater moves rapidly down the slopes and across the coastal plains on its way to the ocean.

Naturally, this rainfall moves rapidly downstream, often with severe consequences for anything in its path. In extreme cases, flood -generated debris flows will roar down a canyon at speeds near 40 miles per hour with a wall of mud, debris and water, tens of feet high. Flooding occurs when climate, geology, and hydrology combine to create conditions where water flows outside of its usual course.

Probability of Future Events and Impact of Climate Change

Overall probability over next five years: Unlikely.

The probability of future flooding events in and around Montebello is difficult to predict with certainty, but climate change is expected to increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, including heavy rainfall and flooding. The topography of the City and the neighborhoods surrounding it make the potential damage from a future flood event more possible at some point.

According to the F ifth National Climate Assessment, Southern California is expected to experience more frequent and intense precipitation events, which can increase the risk of flash flooding and mudslides. Paradoxically, an increased likelihood of drought is likely to intensify flood events as ground absorptive capacity for water decreases.

In Science in August 2022, (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq0995), Huang and Swain conclude that both regular and extreme flood events affecting California are becoming more likely:

Meanwhile, a growing body of research suggests that climate change is likely increasing the risk of extreme precipitation events along the Pacific coast of North America, including California ,, and of subsequent severe flood events. The primary physical mechanism responsible for this projected regional intensification of extreme precipitation is an increase in the strength of cool -season atmospheric river (AR) events. Previous analyses have sug gested that the thermodynamically driven increase in atmospheric water vapor with warming is directly responsible for most of this projected AR

112
intensification, with the remainder contributed by shifts in regional atmospheric circulation. There is also evidence that increased radiative forcing may result in an eastward shifted expression of atmospheric circulation anomalies associated with both the Madden -Julian Oscillation and the El Niño –Southern Oscillation (ENSO) –forced component of the Pacific North American pattern —both of which would increase the subseasonal variability of cool season precipitation over and near California.

Compounding the increase in extreme precipitation associated with AR events are warming temperatures themselves —which raise the mean elevation of snow accumulation in mountainous areas, increase instantaneous runoff rates as rain falls at the expense of snow, and raise the risk of “rain on snow” events. Collectively, these previous research findings motivate the question of whether climate change may substantially affect the odds of “low probability but high consequence” flood events.

113

3.4.9 Dam Failure

Hazard Description

Dam failure refers to the catastrophic breach or collapse of a dam, resulting in the uncontrolled release of the reservoir's water downstream. This can occur due to various reasons, including structural deficiencies, design flaws, natural disasters, lack of maintenance, overtopping, and seismic activities. Dam failures can be sudden, with little to no warning, or the y can develop gradually as issues within the dam structure worsen over time. Structural deficiencies, weaknesses in the design, construction, or materials used in the dam, can lead to structural failure. Overtopping, excessive water flow over the top of th e dam, often due to heavy rainfall or inadequate spillway capacity, can erode the dam structure. Uncontrolled seepage through the dam or its foundation can weaken the structure, leading to failure. Natural disasters, such as earthquakes, landslides, or ext reme weather events, can compromise the integrity of the dam. Poor maintenance and lack of regular inspections can allow small issues to grow into major problems. Operational errors, such as mistakes in the management and operation of the dam, including improper water level management, can also lead to failure.

The failure of a dam can have devastating impacts on neighboring communities, causing loss of life, extensive property damage, and long -term environmental consequences. The uncontrolled release of water can lead to rapid and widespread flooding downstream, inundating homes, businesses, infrastructure, and agricultural lands. The floodwaters can be deep and fast-moving, increasing the potential for destruction and making escape difficult for residents. The extent of flooding can vary depending on the volume of water in the reservoir, the geography of the downstream area, and the nature of the breach. The rapid onset of flooding can trap people in their homes or vehicles, leading to drowning and injuries. The suddenness of a dam failure can complicate evacuati on efforts, increasing the risk to human life. The destruction of buildings, including homes, businesses, and public buildings in the path of the floodwaters, can be severe. Roads, bridges, power lines, and communication networks can be washed away or dama ged, disrupting transportation and utilities, leading to significant economic losses both immediate and long-term.

Environmental consequences can include severe erosion, altering landscapes and depositing large amounts of sediment downstream. The flood can contaminate water sources with debris, chemicals, and sewage, leading to water quality issues that can affect huma n health and aquatic life. Natural habitats for wildlife can be destroyed, leading to loss of biodiversity and long-term ecological impacts. Residents affected by the flooding may be displaced for extended periods, facing challenges in finding temporary sh elter and eventually rebuilding their homes.

The trauma and stress associated with the disaster can have long-lasting effects on the mental health of survivors. Recovery and rebuilding can take years, requiring significant financial resources and coordinated efforts from local, state, and federal agencies.

114
The Oroville Dam Spillway Incident in February 2017 serves as a case study. Heavy rainfall led to the damage of both the main and emergency spillways of the Oroville Dam, prompting concerns of a potential dam failure. Nearly 188,000 people were evacuated a s a precaution.

While the dam itself did not fail, the incident highlighted the potential risks and led to significant repairs and safety improvements. The Oroville incident underscored the importance of regular maintenance, infrastructure investment, and emergency preparedness to prevent and mitigate the impacts of potential dam failures.

Location and Extent

Whittier Narrows Dam

Whittier Narrows Dam is a flood risk management and water conservation project constructed in 1957 and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. The project is located, as its name implies, at the "Whittier Narrows,” a natural gap in the hills that form the southern boundary of the San Gabriel Valley. The Rio Hondo and the San Gabriel rivers flow through this gap and are impounded by the reservoir. The communities of Montebello and Pico Rivera are located immediately downstream

Whittier Narrows Dam, a typically dry flood risk management structure located 11 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, has been reclassified from Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC) 2 to DSAC 1. The DSAC 1 rating indicates that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considers the incremental risk – the combination of life or economic consequences with the likelihood of failure – to be very high. The reclassification as DSAC 1 identifies the dam as one of the highest priority dam safety projects in the Corps’ p ortfolio of dams. In a May 25, 2016, memorandum to Col. Kirk Gibbs, commander of the Corps’ Los Angeles District, Mr. James Dalton, chief of Engineering and Construction at Corps headquarters, emphasized that new findings with respect to the anticipated performance of the spillway gates drove the reclassification.

Garvey Reservoir

Garvey Reservoir, owned by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), stores municipal water supplies for MWD customers. The reservoir lies impounded behind a north dam and a south dam. MWD completed a substantial overhaul of the facilit y in 1999 to address seepage and ensure overall reservoir integrity. The state Department of Conservation, Division of Dam Safety conducts periodic dam inspections to verify the dams' ability to withstand seismic stresses. A major seismic event has the pot ential to cause significant damage and potential failure at this facility.

According to the City of Monterey Park’s website, in the unlikely event of a conjectured catastrophic failure at Garvey Reservoir, properties to the north and south of the reservoir could be flooded. If the south dam failed, flood waters of average depth s ix to seven feet would

115
cascade down the slope bank and into the residential neighborhoods below. At the Pomona Freeway, the water would spread laterally along the north side of the freeway before flowing through freeway under crossings into the City of Montebello.

Previous Occurrences s

St. Francis Dam Failure (1928)
• Date: March 12, 1928
• Location: Near Santa Clarita, California
• Cause: Structural failure due to poor geological understanding and design flaws • Impact: The failure of the St. Francis Dam resulted in one of the worst civil engineering disasters in American history. The collapse unleashed a massive wall of water, estimated at 12.4 billion gallons, that swept through the San Francisquito Canyon and into th e Santa Clara River Valley, eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean. The flood killed approximately 431 people and caused extensive damage to homes, infrastructure, and farmland.

Baldwin Hills Dam Failure (1963)
• Date: December 14, 1963
• Location: Los Angeles, California
• Cause: Structural failure due to subsidence and leakage • Impact: The Baldwin Hills Dam, a reservoir for urban water supply, failed suddenly, releasing approximately 250 million gallons of water into the surrounding residential area. The flood resulted in five fatalities and destroyed or damaged numerous homes and prop erties. The dam's failure was attributed to ground subsidence and internal erosion caused by leakage.

Lower San Fernando Dam Failure (1971)
• Date: February 9, 1971
• Location: San Fernando Valley, California
• Cause: Earthquake-induced liquefaction
• Impact: The Lower San Fernando Dam was severely damaged during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (magnitude 6.6). The seismic activity caused liquefaction of the dam's foundation materials, leading to a near -collapse. Although the dam did not fail completely, it suffered significant structural damage, and the reservoir was rapidly drained to prevent a catastrophic breach.

Lower Jones Tract Levee Breach (2004)
• Date: June 3, 2004
• Location: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California
• Cause: Levee breach due to unknown causes, possibly rodent burrows or structural weakness

116
• Impact: The levee breach in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta flooded the entire Lower Jones Tract, an area of about 12,000 acres, with water from the delta. The flooding caused extensive agricultural damage, impacted local communities, and necessitated a large-scale emergency response to repair the levee and pump out the water. This event highlighted the vulnerability of the Delta's levee system and the need for ongoing maintenance and reinforcement.

Oroville Dam Spillway Incident (2017)
• Date: February 2017
• Location: Oroville, California
• Cause: Damage to main and emergency spillways due to heavy rainfall and inadequate maintenance
• Impact: The Oroville Dam, the tallest dam in the United States, faced a critical situation when the main spillway was severely damaged during heavy rainfall. The emergency spillway, used for the first time in the dam's history, also showed signs of failure. Nearly 188,000 people were evacuated as a precautionary measure. Although the dam itself did not fail, the incident underscored the need for vigilant maintenance and robust emergency response plans. The repairs and upgrades following the incident cost hundreds of millions of dollars and led to a comprehensive review of dam safety protocols.

Probability of Future Events and Impacts of Climate Change

Overall probability over next five years: Unlikely.

Whittier Narrows Dam serves primarily for flood control, water conservation, and recreation.

The future risks associated with this dam include seismic activity, as it is situated in a seismically active region near major fault lines like the San Andreas Fault and the Whittier Fault. A strong earthquake could potentially damage the dam’s structure or induce liquefaction in the foundation materials, leading to partial or total failure. Another concern is aging infrastructure, given that the dam was completed in 1957. Over time, materials degrade, and components may become less reliable without regular maintenance and upgrades, increasing the risk of structural failure. Additionally, changes in hydrological patterns due to climate change could lead to increased hydraulic load on the dam. Intense and frequent storms could result in higher inflows, putting additional stress on the dam’s spillway and structural integrity. Human error, such as mismanagement of water levels or delayed response to structural issues, could also contribute to dam failure. Should Whittier Narrows Dam fail, it would result in catastrophic flooding downstream, affecting densely populated areas including parts of Los Angeles, Montebello, Pico Rivera, and other neighboring communities. This would cause extensive property damage, economic losses, potential casualties, and long-term environmental impacts due to erosion, habitat destruction, and water contamination.

117
Garvey Reservoir is primarily used for water storage for municipal use and flood control. The future risks for Garvey Reservoir include seismic activity, as it is also in a seismically active area. A major earthquake could damage the dam or its foundation, potentially leading to failure.

Increased frequency and intensity of storms due to climate change could result in higher water inflows, overwhelming the reservoir’s capacity and spillway design. Structural integrity may be compromised over time due to aging materials, increasing the likelihood of leaks or breaches if not properly maintained. Human error in managing water levels and structural integrity checks could also contribute to the risk of failure. Failure of Garvey Reservoir would release a significant volume of water into the surrounding area, causing flooding in Monterey Park and potentially impacting nearby communities including Montebello. This would result in property damage, infrastructure disruptions, potential casualties, and environmental effects such as soil erosion, habitat destruction, and water contamination.

Climate change poses several additional risks that can exacerbate the likelihood of dam failure.

Increased precipitation and storm intensity are expected due to climate change, leading to greater inflows into reservoirs. This increased hydraulic load can s tress dam structures and spillways beyond their design capacity, leading to overtopping or structural damage. Alternating periods of severe drought and heavy rainfall can weaken dam structures, with drought causing soil desiccation and cracks, and subseque nt heavy rains exploiting these weaknesses, increasing the risk of structural failure. Elevated temperatures can accelerate the degradation of construction materials used in dams, reducing their lifespan and structural integrity. Some studies suggest that climate change could influence seismic activity indirectly by altering groundwater levels and distribution. Changes in water pressure and weight can affect fault lines, potentially increasing the frequency of earthquakes in certain regions.

118

Dam Failure Inundation – Whittier Narrows Dam (HAZUS) Source: 2018 Montebello Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Emergency Planning Consultants)

119

3.4.10 Terrorism/Active Assailant and Civil Unrest

Hazard Description

Terrorism/Active Assailant: Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political, ideological, or religious aims. Terrorism can take many forms, but generally involves attacks or threats that are intended to cause harm, fear, or disruption to the community. Examples of the types of terrorism that could impact an American city include:

• Domestic Terrorism: Domestic terrorism refers to acts of violence committed by individuals or groups based in the United States who seek to promote a political or social agenda.
• International Terrorism: International terrorism refers to acts of violence committed by individuals or groups who are based outside of the United States and seek to cause harm to American interests.
• Biological Terrorism: Biological terrorism refers to the intentional release of biological agents, such as viruses or bacteria, with the intention of causing harm to the public. • Chemical Terrorism: Chemical terrorism refers to the intentional release of chemical agents with the intention of causing harm to the public.

An active assailant is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area, often using firearms or other weapons. Active assailant situations are characterized by the assailant’s intention to harm as many pe ople as possible in a short period, often with no discernible method or pattern in selecting victims. These incidents typically occur in public spaces such as schools, workplaces, shopping centers, or events, creating a significant challenge for law e nforcement and emergency response teams. Active assailants often act alone, and their attacks are usually over within minutes, requiring rapid response and preparedness from both the public and authorities.

Civil Unrest: Civil unrest may have a wide range of causes, including controversial criminal trials, sporting events, or political issues, among others. It involves greater numbers of people, and can manifest in various forms, including large-scale demonstrations, sit-ins, riots, and other acts of civil disobedience or crime. Potential targets during include government buildings, private commercial or retail establishments, and critical infrastructure. Additionally, jurisdictional response to civil unrest can overwhelm emergency services, compromising the city's ability to effectively serve the wider community during such events.

Location and Extent

While Montebello itself has not been a known target of past terrorist activities, its proximity to Los Angeles, a major urban center, can potentially increase its vulnerability due to the

120
interconnected nature of urban areas. Factors influencing the probability of an attack include Montebello’s location within Los Angeles County, near a major metropolis, which can indirectly influence its risk. Major cities often present more attractive targets due to their symbolic value, population density, and economic importance. Additionally, any city with critical infrastructure, such as transportation hubs, power grids, or water supplies, can be seen as a potential target.

While Montebello does not ho st nationally significant infrastructure, it does have local and regional assets that could be targeted to cause disruption.

A prime example of a terrorist incident is the a ttacks on electrical transformers in the United States that have highlighted significant vulnerabilities in the nation's power grid. Notable incidents include the 2013 Metcalf sniper attack in San Jose, California, where unknown assailants fired over 100 rounds of ammunition into the Metcalf substation, severely damaging 17 transformers and causing $15 million in damage. The 2016 Utah substation attack saw an unknown individual or group damaging critical equipment at the Monument Substation, resulting in localized power outages and demonstrating the need for enhanced physical security. In December 2022, multiple substations in Moore County, North Carolina, were targeted by gunfire, leading to widespread power o utages for tens of thousands of residents and underscoring the urgent need for improved security measures. Additionally, a series of coordinated attacks in 2023 targeted multiple substations in the Pacific Northwest, causing significant disruptions and pro mpting calls for increased security and advanced surveillance technologies.

Previous Occurrences

There have been no major instances of terrorism or civil unrest directly impacting the City of Montebello in recent history.

Probability of Future Events

Overall probability over next five years: Unlikely.

It is very difficult to predict the probability of future terrorist or active assailant-related events.

While there is no way to eliminate the risk of such events, law enforcement and emergency services can take proactive measures to prevent and respond to potential threats.

The same holds true for civil unrest. If political divides in the United States as a whole increase or if economic conditions markedly worsen, the probability of unrest may grow , but civil unrest may also take place for wholly-unrelated reasons such as sports championships. The city can proactively reduce that probability by working to build relationships among communities in the city and support institutions that promote social capital.

121

3.4.11 Epidemic/Pandemic

Hazard Description

An infectious disease is a disease caused by pathogenic microorganisms, characterized by clinical symptoms. Infectious diseases pose a major threat worldwide and cause millions of deaths annually. Transmission of infectious diseases can occur through various modes such as direct physical contact with infected i ndividuals, exposure to contaminated food or water, exposure to bodily fluids, contact with contaminated objects, airborne inhalation, or vector - borne dissemination.

An infectious disease can be classified based on its impact as endemic, epidemic, or pandemic.

Endemic diseases are consistently present but at low levels (e.g., chicken pox in the United States). Epidemic diseases are sudden severe outbreaks (e.g., the bu bonic plague during Medieval times). A pandemic disease is an epidemic that spreads widely across a region, continent, or the world (e.g., the 1957 flu pandemic caused millions of deaths globally). With global travel and trade, fears of pandemics have increased in recent years due to the potential for rapid spread.

A pandemic is defined by the CDC as a worldwide epidemic that affects many people and crosses international borders, creating a public health emergency that impacts all sectors of society. It occurs when a virus undergoes significant antigenic drift or shi ft, resulting in a new and efficient strain that spreads from person -to-person without pre -existing immunity. The severity of the outbreak is generally unpredictable.

A high number of infectious disease cases can strain healthcare infrastructure. The impact on morbidity and mortality may differ depending on the disease; it can disproportionately affect either younger and healthier people, as seen in the 1918 influenza p andemic, or older and medically-at-risk people, as happened with the recent COVID -19 outbreak. This can lead to worker shortages due to illness, isolation/quarantine, or caring for sick family members. It may also disrupt daily life and lead to shortages o f goods and services. Strategies like "stay -at- home" orders and closing non-essential businesses can limit disease transmission but may also create additional burdens on productivity and essential services.

Location and Extent

A pandemic of a human infectious disease has the potential to impact the entire country . Due to the integration of business and social activities both nationally and internationally, it is unreasonable to assume that any location would be exempt from the threat of a pandemic.

Locations with high population concentration, such as schools, retai l areas, and special event venues, are at the greatest risk.

122
Recent data on the COVID -19 outbreak indicates that individuals living in densely populated urban areas were more prone to contracting the virus, potentially due to close contact with other residents or visitors from other places. The ease of global transp ortation makes it increasingly challenging to contain local outbreaks, as infected or exposed individuals travel for business and leisure, possibly disseminating the disease worldwide within hours.

Previous Occurrences

The following data comes from FEMA’s Disaster Declarations for States and Counties (https://www.fema.gov/data-visualization/disaster-declarations-states-and-counties; retrieved November 18, 2024).

Incident
Subcategory
County FEMA
Declaration
String
Calendar
Year of
Declaration
Date
Month
Declaration
Date
Declaration
Title
State
Other Los
Angeles
County
DR-4482-
CA
2020 March 3/22/2020 COVID-19

PANDEMIC
CA
Other Los
Angeles
County
EM-3428-
CA
2020 March 3/13/2020 COVID-19 CA

• Typhoid (19th and early 20th centuries): Before the advent of modern sanitation and water treatment systems, California, like many other places, faced occasional outbreaks of typhoid fever.
• Spanish Flu (1918 Influenza Pandemic): The Spanish flu was a devastating influenza pandemic that swept across the globe between 1918 and 2020. • HIV/AIDS Epidemic (1980s - Present): The HIV/AIDS epidemic has had a profound impact on California, particularly in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles. • H1N1 Influenza (2009 Pandemic): In 2009, a novel strain of influenza A (H1N1) emerged and caused a global pandemic.
• Hepatitis A Outbreak (2017 -2018): California experienced a hepatitis A outbreak primarily affecting unhoused populations in 2017-2018.
• COVID-19 Pandemic (2020 - 2022): The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, had a significant impact on California. • Tuberculosis Epidemics (Various Periods): Tuberculosis (TB) has been a recurring public health concern in California, particularly in densely populated urban areas. • West Nile Virus Outbreaks (Various Periods): West Nile virus, transmitted by mosquitoes, has caused outbreaks in California over the years. • Measles Outbreaks (Multiple Occurrences): Measles, a highly contagious viral disease, has had sporadic outbreaks in California over the years. These outbreaks have been attributed to low vaccination rates in some communities,

123

Probability of Future Occurrences and Impacts of Climate Change

Overall probability over next five years: Very unlikely.

Pandemics are relatively rare when compared to the frequency of natural disasters. When they do occur, however, they can have far-reaching effects. Even suppressed outbreaks of disease can have significant impacts to the localities they affect.

It is difficult to accurately predict the likelihood of future pandemics. However, human encroachment into formerly natural areas worldwide increase the risk of hitherto unknown animal diseases making the jump into human populations. Public health system s should be aware of the potential for new diseases that may pose a threat to the populations they serve, and they should expect future pandemics to appear, some potentially more deadly than COVID-

19. Climate change may impact the emergence and transmissi on of viruses by extending the habitat range of animals that carry them. Already, viruses such as West Nile or Zika have appeared in areas previously not hosting these viruses. It is likely that future diseases from warmer climates will spread along with those climates

124
SECTION 4 – VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

Element B: Risk Assessment Requirements
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))

4.1 Lifelines and Critical Infrastructure

FEMA-Defined Community Lifelines

FEMA's Lifelines are a framework for identifying and prioritizing critical infrastructure and services that are essential to the functioning of communities during and after a disaster. The Lifelines framework was developed by the Federal Emergency Manageme nt Agency (FEMA) to help emergency managers and first responders prioritize their response efforts and allocate resources during a disaster.

The concept of Lifelines emerged from the realization that disasters can have wide -ranging impacts on a community's infrastructure and services, and that disruptions to these critical systems can significantly hinder response and recovery efforts. The Life lines framework was developed to identify these critical systems and services and prioritize them based on their importance to overall community functioning and resilience.

There are eight FEMA Lifelines, each of which represents a critical area of infrastructure or service. Critical facilities are categorized under the following lifelines:

• Safety and Security: This includes law enforcement/security, search and rescue, fire services, government service, and responder safety.
• Food, Water, and Shelter: This encompasses evacuations, schools, food/potable water, shelter, durable goods, water infrastructure, and agriculture. • Health and Medical: This lifeline involves medical care (hospitals), patient movement, public health, fatality management, health care, and supply chain. • Energy: Power (grid), temporary power, and fuel.

125
• Communications: This includes infrastructure, alerts, warnings, messages, 911 and dispatch, responder communications, and financial services. • Transportation: This encompasses highway/roadway, mass transit, railway, aviation, and pipeline.
• Hazardous Materials: This includes facilities, hazardous debris, pollutants, and contaminants.
• Water Systems: This includes potable water infrastructure and wastewater management.

The Lifelines framework is designed to help emergency managers and first responders prioritize their response efforts and allocate resources based on the criticality of each Lifeline. By prioritizing the most critical Lifelines, emergency responders can work to restore essential services and infrastructure more quick ly, which can help to speed up the overall recovery process and reduce the impact of the disaster on the community.

City of Montebello Critical Facilities List

Name Address Lifeline Critical
Rank
City Hall 1600 W. Beverly Boulevard Safety and Security High Montebello Fire
Department (Station
No. 56)
600 N. Montebello Boulevard Safety and Security High
Montebello Fire
Station No. 56 1166 S. Greenwood Avenue Safety and Security High Montebello Fire
Station No. 57 2950 Via Acosta Street Safety and Security High Montebello Police
Department 1600 W. Beverly Boulevard Safety and Security High Beverly Hospital 309 W. Beverly Boulevard Health and Medical Critical Whittier Narrows Dam 909 N. Lincoln Avenue Water Systems Critical Hazardous Materials
Sites
This information is maintained by the
City of Montebello Fire Department
and is available upon request.

Hazardous Materials Critical

126

4.2 Individual Hazard Vulnerability Analysis
A vulnerability assessment in its simplest form is a simultaneous look at the geographical location of hazards and an inventory of the underlying land uses (populations, structures, etc.).

Facilities that provide critical and essential services following a major emergency are of particular concern because these locations house staff and equipment necessary to provide important public safety, emergency response, and/or disaster recovery functions.

This section serves to identify each hazard confronting the community and its vulnerabilities to that hazard.

4.3.1. Extreme Heat

4.3.1.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact

The City of Montebello, along with the rest of Southern California, is increasingly vulnerable to extreme heat. Extreme heat includes heatwaves and sustained heat events.

4.3.1.2 Population

Extreme heat can have serious consequences for human health, including headaches, dizziness, weakness, cramping, nausea, vomiting, confusion, dehydration, and even death.

Vulnerable populations such as the very young, elderly, the unhoused and those with s pecial needs or disabilities are particularly at risk, especially during prolonged heat waves.

The following demographic groups may be especially susceptible to the effects of extreme heat:

• Women who are pregnant
• Persons with medical conditions (e.g., heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, insulin-dependent, dialysis)
• Persons with mental illness/disabilities or cognitive disorders • Persons who use medical equipment (e.g., ventilators, oxygen, G-tubes) • Individuals with drug or alcohol dependencies
• Persons with mobility devices (e.g., wheelchairs, walkers, canes) • Persons who are non-ambulatory
• Persons who are socially isolated
• Persons who do not speak English with minimal access to current weather information in their own language.

127

4.3.1.3 Critical Facilities

Extreme heat can affect critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, power lines, and water supply systems. Heat stress on metal and road materials, as well as increased use, can cause system breakdowns and outages as well as outright damage, as seen du ring the “heat dome” event in the Pacific Northwest in 2021. Additionally, the high demand for energy due to the increased use of air conditioning during heat events can cause utility “brownouts” and “blackouts.”

Power outages by themselves are a significant enough hazard in Montebello to be mentioned separately later in this section.

4.3.1.4 Non-Critical Facilities

Sustained extreme heat can have impacts on physical infrastructure such as overhead and transmission wires. By encouraging residences and businesses to use air conditioning, it can also put pressure on the power grid, increasing the possibility of power loss.

4.3.1.5 Environment

Prolonged extreme heat can cause severe damage to the natural environment, particularly the water supply, which can affect drinking water as well as other uses. The combination of extreme heat and drought can result in significant crop loss and increase t he risk of wildfire. While Montebello has no predominately-agricultural land, this will affect plant growth and survival from personal gardens to shade trees and recreational landscapes.

4.3.1.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan

Development: There have been no significant changes in development since the last approved plan. However, as extreme heat events become more likely and more intense due to climate change, the vulnerability of the City will only grow. Therefore, vulnerability to extreme heat has increased since the last approved plan.

Land Use: There have been no significant changes in land use since the last approved plan.

Vulnerability to extreme heat due to land use has remained the same since the last approved plan.

Population shifts: Population has increased but not significantly so since the last approved plan.

However, as extreme heat events become more likely and more intense due to climate change, the vulnerability of the City will only grow. Therefore, vulnerability to extreme heat due to population shifts has increased since the last approved plan.

128

4.3.1.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations

Low-Income Residents: Low-income residents are vulnerable to extreme heat due to financial constraints limiting access to air conditioning, energy costs, and cooling centers, often residing in older buildings that lack proper insulation.

Elderly Individuals: The elderly are highly susceptible to extreme heat due to pre -existing health conditions, reduced mobility, and reliance on temperature-sensitive medical equipment.

People with Disabilities : People with disabilities face elevated risks during extreme heat events due to mobility challenges, limited access to adaptive cooling measures, and reliance on supportive infrastructure and healthcare services.

Minority Communities: Minority communities, particularly those with language or economic barriers, often have reduced access to cooling resources and public health messaging, exacerbating risks during heatwaves.

Unhoused: Unhoused individuals are acutely vulnerable to extreme heat due to continuous exposure to high temperatures, dehydration risks, and a lack of access to safe cooling environments or healthcare.

129

4.3.2 Drought

4.3.2.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact

The City of Montebello, like its surrounding communities, are vulnerable to drought and secondary impacts of decreasing availability of water. R ising temperatures in California are expected to impact and reduce water supplies across the state. Much of California's water comes from snowmelt in the High Sierra, a part of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. As temperatures rise due to climate change, t he precipitation that would have fallen as snow is expected to become rainfall, leading to less snowfall and th erefore, less meltwater from the Sierra Nevada snowpack, reducing the water that would have flowed into Southern California's reservoirs and aqueducts. This could lead to a strain on the City's imported water supply, resulting in a greater reliance on local groundwater in Los Angeles County.

4.3.2.2 Population.

The entire population of the City of Montebello is vulnerable to drought. Drought impacts the entire city through reductions in water supply and related impacts. A shortage of water in individuals can cause dehydration, which can lead to symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, weakness, cramping, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and, in extreme cases, death. Drought also often coincides with high temperatures, exacerbating the effects and putting vulnerable populations, such as young children, the elderly, and those with disabilities, at greater risk.

4.3.2.3 Critical Facilities.

Drought does not have significant direct physical impacts on critical infrastructure with the exception of water utility lines and facilities and plants at recreational facilities.

During droughts, water customers are instructed to use less water, which in turn leads to decreased revenue for local water utilities with no reduction in fixed costs. As a result, water utilities often raise rates to make up for lost revenue. The reductio n in water flow also leads to decreased sewage flows, causing an increase in contaminants in the water supply.

4.3.2.4 Non-Critical Facilities.

Drought does not have major structural impacts on non -critical facilities but can impact residential water availability. Increased prices may result in lower -income populations using less water, increasing the likelihood of dehydration or other negative health impacts.

130

4.3.2.5 Environment

The environmental effects of drought are widespread and reach beyond geographic boundaries. Drought conditions result in decreased water availability for plant and animal habitat from sources such as lakes, streams, aquifers, soil, wetlands, springs, and other surface and subsurface sources. This reduction in water quality can alter the levels of salinity, bacteria, turbidity, pH, and temperature, potentially affecting the aquatic habitat of plants and animals.

4.3.2.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan

Development: There have been no significant changes in development since the last approved plan. Increased water use efficiency has decreased overall water use by many metrics.

However, increasing temperatures and changing precipitation patterns have increased uncertainty around planning for drought. Overall, vulnerability to drought from development has remained the same since the last approved plan.

Land Use: There have been no significant changes in land use since the last approved plan.

Vulnerability to drought from land use has remained the same since the last approved plan.

Population shifts: Population has increased but not significantly so since the last approved plan.

Vulnerability from drought due to population shifts has remained the same since the last approved plan.

4.3.2.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations

Low-Income Residents: These residents may face significant challenges during droughts due to increased water costs and reliance on older infrastructure prone to failure. Limited resources can impede their ability to access alternative water sources or implement water -saving measures.

Elderly Individuals: Elderly populations are vulnerable due to health issues exacerbated by limited water availability and potential dehydration risks. Additionally, they may have reduced mobility or fixed incomes that limit their ability to mitigate impacts, such as install ing water- efficient systems.

People with Disabilities: Individuals with disabilities may face heightened vulnerabilities due to specific medical needs requiring water or equipment reliant on consistent water supply.

Transportation limitations could also hinder access to distribution centers during water shortages.

131
Minority Communities: Minority populations may experience disproportionate impacts due to systemic inequities in access to water resources and infrastructure improvements.

Unhoused: Unhoused individuals face critical risks as drought can exacerbate limited access to clean water for drinking, hygiene, and cooling.

132

4.3.3 Earthquake

4.3.3.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact

The City of Montebello, along with surrounding communities, is historically vulnerable to earthquakes. Earthquakes are traditionally one of the major hazards impacting California, and significant attention has been paid to understanding and mitigating against earthquake impacts.

Earthquakes can cause significant damage to the built environment, including collapsed structures that may trap or bury individuals, resulting in loss of life and expensive cleanup efforts. Many buildings in California, including Montebello, were constructed before 1993, when building codes were less stringent, and retrofitting is not mandatory except in certain circumstances, leading to a high number of vulnerable structures. After an earthquake, significant time is devoted to the removal o f debris from va rious structures, including brick, glass, wood, steel, concrete building components, and office or home contents following damage.

Seismic activity poses a significant threat to businesses, from large corporations to small retail shops. Even a single day of production downtime can result in tremendous economic loss, particularly for businesses with national or global markets. These losses can be a burden for owners who may struggle to recover. According to FEMA, forty percent of businesses fail to reopen after a disaster, and another twenty-five percent fail within one year. Similarly, statistics from the United States Small Business Administration show that over ninety percent of businesses fail within two years after being hit by a disaster.

Fires are frequently triggered by downed power lines or broken gas mains during earthquakes.

If fire stations sustain damage, there is a reduced chance of responders being able to promptly put out fires. Additionally, major incidents require a greater allo cation of resources, leaving smaller fires and issues with little or inadequate attention in the initial hours following a significant earthquake event. The associated loss of electricity can also lower water pressure, further impeding firefighting efforts.

4.3.3.2 Population

The entire population of Montebello is vulnerable to an earthquake. Both indoor and outdoor environments can be hazardous during earthquakes, with collapsed buildings, falling equipment, and moving debris causing death and injury. Additionally, downed power lines, as well as broken water and gas lines, pose threats to human life.

133

4.3.3.3 Critical Facilities

Every structure in the City is potentially at risk during an earthquake.

An earthquake can cause damage to structures, utilities, transportation routes, and communication resulting in loss of revenue and ability to provide emergency, essential, and non-essential services. In addition, recovery includes substantial debris remov al issues and multiple building inspections.

4.3.3.4 Non-Critical Facilities

Specific non-critical facilities vulnerable in the City of Montebello include various residential and commercial properties, social service agencies, and government resources. Older residential structures constructed before the introduction of stringent earthquake -related construction codes are particularly vulnerable to earthquakes. A severe earthquake could result in many of these buildings sustaining serious damage or even collapsing, leading to injury or loss of life.

Any substantial damage to housing stock in the City would result in additional constraints on housing supply, potentially leading to strain on many sectors of the City’s population.

4.3.3.5 Environment

There are no major discrete environmental impacts from earthquakes. The ecology of California is well-adapted to them.

4.3.3.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan

Development: There have been no significant changes in development since the last approved plan. However, housing prices, as in many other markets in the United States , have increased far in excess of wages. This has greatly increased the difficulty of purchasing housing and, in the case of lower -income renters, has increased the chance of becoming unhoused. Any earthquake and the resulting damage to housing stock would greatly increase these strains.

Therefore, vulnerability to earthquake due to devel opment has increased since the last approved plan.

Land Use: There have been no significant changes in land use since the last approved plan.

Vulnerability to earthquake has remained the same since the last approved plan.

Population shifts: Population has increased but not significantly so since the last approved plan.

Overall population vulnerability to earthquakes has increased since the last approved plan.

134

4.3.3.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations

Low-Income Residents: Low-income populations in Montebello may face challenges during earthquakes due to limited resources for structural retrofitting and emergency preparedness.

Housing instability, including older or poorly constructed buildings, increases their vulnerability to damage and displacement.

Elderly Individuals: Elderly residents are vulnerable due to mobility challenges and potential difficulty accessing emergency services or evacuation centers during an earthquake. They may also face barriers in repairing damages to their homes post-disaster.

People with Disabilities : Individuals with disabilities may encounter obstacles in receiving timely warnings or evacuating safely during an earthquake. Accessibility issues at shelters and recovery services can further exacerbate their risk.

Minority Communities: Minority populations may experience heightened vulnerability due to language barriers and lower levels of trust in authorities.

Unhoused: The unhoused population is at significant risk during earthquakes due to the lack of structural protection and access to resources. Recovery efforts may overlook this group, delaying their return to stability.
.

135

4.3.4 High Wind/Storms

4.3.4.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact

The City of Montebello seasonally experiences severe wind. Windstorms can cause damage to buildings, block roads and bridges, and damage traffic signals, streetlights, and parks, among other things. The inability to access emergency services due to blocked roads can limit the response operations during a windstorm, while industry and commerce can suffer losses from interrupted electric services and extended road closures. Such losses to buildings, personnel, and equipment, as well as service interruptions, may impact the local economy following a windstorm event.

4.3.4.2 Population

Population vulnerability to severe wind in the City of Montebello varies by incident. Very few injuries to people are recorded during the types of high winds that Southern California experiences. Most damage is to property, but roads blocked by fallen trees during a windstorm may have severe consequences to people who need access to emergency services. Unhoused people may be more vulnerable than others to the effects of severe wind including of flying objects.

In the event of a windstorm or microburst, emergency personnel may be required to respond to damage sustained by both residential and commercial structures, especially those with weak reinforcement. The debris carried by extreme winds can contribute to los s of life and failure of protective building elements. Downed trees, power lines, and damaged property can hinder emergency response and disaster recovery efforts.

4.3.4.3 Critical Facilities.

All critical facilities are at risk for damage from severe winds which can damage structures, roads, traffic signals, and streetlights.

Above-ground utility infrastructure is at special risk from severe wind. Falling trees have been a leading cause of power outages. Windstorms, including strong microbursts and Santa Ana winds, can result in flying debris and downed utility lines. Even in minor windstorm events, tree limbs can break in winds as low as 45 mph and be thrown over 75 feet, causing damage to overhead power lines. This can result in electric power lines falling to the ground, posing a potential risk of fatal electric shock.

136

4.3.4.4 Non-Critical Facilities.

All above-ground non-critical facilities in the City of Montebello are at risk for damage from severe winds.

Residential and commercial structures with weak reinforcement are vulnerable to windstorm damage. Wind pressure can push walls, doors, and windows inward, while passing currents create suction forces that pull building components and surfaces outward. Extreme wind forces can cause a building or its roof to fail, resulting in significant damage. In addition, even winds of 45 mph can cause tree limbs to become flying debris and damage structures. Overhead power lines can also be damaged and falling trees can bring electric power lines down to the pavement, creating a risk of electric shock.

Strong windstorms can affect local transportation by causing trees and electrical wires to fall onto streets and highways, leading to road closures. During periods of very strong winds, major highways may also be temporarily closed to trucks and recreation al vehicles. However, these disruptions are usually short-lived and do not have a significant long-term economic impact on the region.

4.3.4.5 Environment

Strong winds may down trees, including those in City parks or street trees that provide shade for pedestrians.

4.3.4.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan

Development: There have been no significant changes in development since the last approved plan. Vulnerability to severe wind has remained the same since the last approved plan.

Land Use: There have been no significant changes in land use since the last approved plan.

Vulnerability to severe wind has remained the same since the last approved plan.

Population shifts: Population has increased but not significantly so since the last approved plan.

Overall population vulnerability to cyberattack has remained the same since the last approved plan.

4.3.4.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations

Low-Income Residents: Low-income residents are vulnerable to high winds due to their higher likelihood of residing in older or poorly maintained housing, which may be less resistant to wind damage. Limited financial resources also impede their ability to repair or reinforce structures.

137
Elderly Individuals: Older adults may experience mobility challenges during high wind events, making it difficult for them to evacuate or access emergency services. Extended power outages caused by high winds can also jeopardize their health, especially for those dependent o n medical devices.

People with Disabilities : Individuals with disabilities face increased risks during windstorms due to potential barriers in receiving timely warnings, evacuating, or accessing shelters. Wind damage to infrastructure can further restrict their mobility and access to essential services.

Minority Communities: Vulnerabilities among minority communities may be exacerbated by language barriers, potentially limiting access to critical information and resources during and after high wind events.

Unhoused: The unhoused population faces extreme risks during high wind events due to their lack of permanent shelter, exposing them directly to falling debris and flying objects. Access to emergency shelters may be limited, further compounding their vulnerability.

138

4.3.5 Fire

4.3.5.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact

Montebello is vulnerable to fire in several significant ways. Neighborhoods in the northern hills of Montebello are vulnerable to potential wildfire directly, while areas in the flatter portions of the city may be susceptible to urban fires, although to a lesser degree. Wildfire smoke presents additional challenges, including respiratory health risks for vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, and those with pre-existing conditions like asthma.

4.3.5.2 Population

More recently developed commercial and residential areas in the northern hills of Montebello are more vulnerable to potential fires than more urbanized lower parts of the City. Curvier access roads that are not As discussed above, smoke from wildfires in other areas can directly and adversely impact human health due to reductions in air quality.

4.3.5.3 Critical Facilities

There are no identified critical facilities at direct risk of fire in Montebello. However, fire also has several secondary effects, such as overburdened public utilities, reduced water supplies, disrupted communication systems due to downed utility lines and damaged transformers and road closures, that may have secondary impacts on critical facilities.

Wildfires can cause damage to structures, utilities, transportation routes, and communication resulting in loss of revenue and ability to provide emergency, essential, and non -essential services. The total area affected is less than one square mile.

4.3.5.4 Non-Critical Facilities

The specific non-critical facilities vulnerable in the City of Montebello include commercial and residential properties in the north of Montebello.

4.3.5.5 Environment

Southern California's brush plants are largely composed of chaparral, which grows quickly and leaves behind dead vegetation that is nutrient -rich and released into the soil through burning.

Some chaparral plants, like Ceanothus, have flammable resin coatings on their leaves, while others, such as chamise (greasewood), produce volatile gases when burned and leave a water- resistant residue in the soil that can cause erosion on denuded slopes, increasing the risk of post-fire flash flooding and mudslides in nearby communities.

139

4.3.5.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan

Development: There have been no significant changes in development since the last approved plan. Vulnerability to wildfire has remained the same since the last approved plan.

Land Use: There have been no significant changes in land use since the last approved plan.

Vulnerability to wildfire has remained the same since the last approved plan.

Population shifts: Population has increased but not significantly so since the last approved plan.

There has been a statistically significant increase in the unhoused population. Therefore, overall population vulnerability to wildfire has increased since the last approved plan.

4.3.5.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations

Low-Income Residents: Low-income residents are at risk from fires due to limited resources for preventive measures like fire-resistant retrofitting or clearing vegetation around homes. They are more likely to live in older or poorly maintained structures that are less resista nt to fire damage.

Elderly Individuals : Older adults face heightened vulnerability during fires due to limited mobility, which can hinder timely evacuation. Smoke exposure from fires poses additional health risks, especially for those with pre-existing respiratory conditions.

People with Disabilities : Individuals with disabilities may encounter significant barriers to evacuation during fires, especially in areas with limited accessible emergency infrastructure.

Communication gaps in disaster warnings also contribute to their risk.

Minority Communities: Minority groups may face challenges such as language barriers or limited access to resource s. These factors can delay their access to timely warnings and emergency assistance during fires.

Unhoused: The unhoused population is at risk during fires due to their exposure to the elements and lack of protective shelter.

140

4.3.6 Power Outage

4.3.6.1 Overall Vulnerability and Impact

The City of Montebello is vulnerable to power outages impacting part of all of the City.

Compounding issues such as the growing age of the electrical grid, increased demands due to growing IT applications such as the cloud and artificial intelligence and increasing high temperatures due to climate change combine to greatly increase the likelihood of power outages impacting the City.

4.3.6.2 Population
While vulnerable populations such as older adults and the unhoused may be impacted first, extended power outages could impact all of the inhabitants of the City without regard to income.

One of the most significant hazards of pow er outages during extreme heat is the risk of heat - related illnesses. When power goes out, air conditioning units and fans stop working, which can lead to indoor temperatures rising quickly. This can lead to dehydration, heat exhaustion, and even heatstroke, especially among vulnerable populations such as the elderly, young children, and those with preexisting medical conditions.

Historically, sustained extreme heat events have resulted in significant deaths among vulnerable populations without air conditioning or working fans, such as the 1995 Chicago heat wave.

4.3.6.3 Critical Facilities
All government facilities can be affected by rolling blackouts and power failures. It is predicted that the State of California will experience more rolling blackouts in the future.

In addition to homes and businesses, power outages can also impact essential services such as hospitals, emergency response systems, and water treatment facilities. Emergency response systems such as 911 call centers and police and fire departments also re ly on electricity to function, and a power outage can hinder their ability to respond to emergencies quickly.

Water treatment facilities are another critical service that can be impacted by power outages.

These facilities rely on electricity to pump and treat water, and a loss of power can result in a disruption in the water supply or a decrease in water quality.

141

4.3.6.4 Non-Critical Facilities
All neighborhoods in Montebello are vulnerable to rolling blackouts and power outages. The most immediate impact of a power outage is typically felt in homes and businesses. When the power goes out, residents and employees may experience a loss of lighting, heating, or cooling, and access to electronic devices. This can result in inconvenience, discomfort, and potential safety hazards, especially if the outage occurs at night or during extreme weather conditions.

Power outages also affect traffic signals. In the event of other major disasters that cause power outages, this can be a compounding hazard that affects the ability of people to evacuate and the ability of responders to enter the City.

4.3.6.5 Environment
There are relatively few impacts on the natural environment due to power outages.

4.3.6.6 Changes in Development Since Last Approved Plan Development: There have been no significant changes in development since the last approved plan. However, increasing power demands from a variety of sources and vulnerability to extreme weather events increase the strain on the power grid. Vulnerability t o power outages due to development has increased since the last approved plan.

Land Use: There have been no significant changes in land use since the last approved plan.

Vulnerability to power outages due to land use remained the same since the last approved plan.

Population shifts: Population has decreased but not significantly so since the last approved plan. However, increasing demands and vulnerabilities impacting the power grid as well as increasing high temperatures increase the vulnerability from power outage s to various populations in the City. Therefore, overall population vulnerability to power outages has increased since the last approved plan.

4.3.6.7 Impacts on Vulnerable Populations

Low-Income Residents: Low-income individuals are more likely to live in housing that lacks backup power, leaving them vulnerable during power outages, especially in extreme weather conditions.

Elderly Individuals : Older adults face heightened risks during power outages, particularly those who rely on electrically powered medical devices. Prolonged outages during extreme heat or cold can also exacerbate health issues such as dehydration.