Attachment A
Attachment A
2026 – 2031 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
CITY OF OAKLAND
LOCAL HAZARD
MITIGATION
PLAN
2026
AGENCY SUBMITTAL DRAFT
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Hazard Mitigation Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1 Planning Process................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 Building the Planning Teams ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3 Outreach Strategy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 3 Risk Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 Community Capabilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 5 Mitigation Strategy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 5 Goals, Objectives, and Actions................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5 Implementing, Adopting, and Maintaining the Plan ................................ ................................ .................. 17 Part 1 - Introduction & Planning Process .......................................................................................... 18
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Why Prepare This Plan? ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1-1
1.1.1 Federal and State Eligibility ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1-2
1.2 Purposes for Planning ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1-2
1.3 Who Will Benefit From this Plan? ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1-3
1.4 Focus on Equity ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 1-3
1.4.1 City of Oakland’s Equity History and Goals ................................ ................................ .................... 1-3
1.4.2 Addressing Equity in Hazard Mitigation ................................ ................................ .................... 1-4
1.5 Navigating the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ................................ ................................ ................... 1-7
2. Plan Update – What Has Changed ............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 The 2021 Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 2-1
2.1.1 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 2-1
2.1.2 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan Objectives ................................ ................................ ...................... 2-1
2.2 Why Update? ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 2-3
2.2.1 Federal Eligibility ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2-3
2.2.2 Changes in Development ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2-3
2.2.3 Changes in Risk ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 2-4
2.3 The Updated Plan – What is Different? ................................ ................................ ................................ 2-5
3. Planning Process .............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 3-1
3.2 Defining the Planning Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3-2 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch ii
3.3 Funding ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3-4
3.3.1 Contract Consultant ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 3-4
3.4 Formation of the Planning Teams ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3-4
3.5 Planning Activities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 3-6
3.6 Stakeholder Outreach and Involvement ................................ ................................ ............................ 3-11
3.6.1 Types of Stakeholders ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 3-11
3.6.2 Stakeholder and Neighboring Community Participation................................ .............. 3-11
3.6.3 Stakeholder Draft Plan Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3-14
3.7 Public Participation and Involvement ................................ ................................ ................................ 3-15
3.7.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Webpage and StoryMap ................................ .............................. 3-15
3.7.2 Social Media ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3-16
3.7.3 Print and Digital Postcard ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 3-17
3.7.4 Public Meetings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3-19
3.7.5 Public Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 3-21
3.7.6 Public Comment Period ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 3-22
3.8 Identification and Outreach to Equity Priority Communities ................................ ............. 3-22
3.9 Review and Incorporation of Existing Programs ................................ ................................ ........ 3-23
4. City of Oakland Profile ................................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-1
4.1.1 Geographic Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-1
4.1.2 Historical Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-1
4.1.3 Government ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 4-3
4.1.4 Major Past Hazard Events ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 4-5
4.2 Physical Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 4-7
4.2.1 Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 4-7
4.2.2 Climate ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 4-7
4.2.3 Topography ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 4-7
4.2.4 Watersheds and Surface Waters ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4-8
4.2.5 Soils ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4-10
4.2.6 Geology ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 4-10
4.3 Sensitive Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4-11
4.3.1 Historical and Cultural Resources................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-11
4.3.2 Scenic Resources................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4-13
4.3.3 Natural Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-13
4.4 Population and Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4-14 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch iii
4.4.1 General Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 4-14
4.4.2 Equity Priority Communities ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4-15
4.5 Development Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-17
4.5.1 Land Use ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 4-17
4.5.2 General Building Stock ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 4-20
4.5.3 Development Trends ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 4-20
4.6 Community Lifelines ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-21
4.6.1 Safety and Security ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-24
4.6.2 Food, Hydration, Shelter ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4-25
4.6.3 Health and Medical ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 4-28
4.6.4 Energy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-28
4.6.5 Communication ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-32
4.6.6 Transportation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4-33
4.6.7 Hazardous Materials ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 4-36
4.6.8 Water Systems ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4-36
4.7 Economy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-40
4.7.1 Industry, Businesses, and Institutions ................................ ................................ ...................... 4-40
4.7.2 Employment Trends ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 4-41 Part 2 - Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 42
5. Hazards of Concern .......................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 What Is a Hazard of Concern? ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 5-1
5.2 Federal Disaster Declarations ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 5-1
5.1 National Risk Index................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 5-3
5.2 Hazards of Concern ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 5-3
6. Risk Assessment Methodology and Tools ............................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Assessing Risk ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 6-1
6.2 Risk Assessment Tools ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6-1
6.2.1 Mapping ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 6-1
6.2.2 Modeling ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 6-1
6.3 Risk Assessment Approach ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 6-3
6.4 Sources of Data Used in Risk Assessment ................................ ................................ ......................... 6-4
6.4.1 Building and Cost Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 6-4
6.4.2 Community Lifelines ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 6-4
6.4.3 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 6-4
6.4.4 Hazus Data Inputs ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6-5 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch iv
6.4.5 Other Local Hazard Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 6-5
6.4.6 Data Source Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 6-6
6.1 Data Limitations................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 6-8
7. Dam Failure ......................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Hazard Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 7-1
7.1.1 Description of the Hazard ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 7-1
7.1.2 Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 7-4
7.1.3 Extent ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 7-5
7.1.4 Previous Occurrences ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 7-7
7.1.5 Future Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 7-9
7.2 Vulnerability Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 7-10
7.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 7-10
7.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................ ................................ ............................... 7-10
7.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock ................................ ................................ ............................... 7-12
7.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7-13
7.2.5 Impact on the Economy ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 7-13
7.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ............ 7-14
7.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources ................................ ................................ ... 7-15
7.2.8 Land Uses and Development Trends ................................ ................................ ......................... 7-15
7.3 Mitigation Opportunities ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 7-15
8. Drought ............................................................................................................................................ 8-1
8.1 Hazard Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 8-1
8.1.1 Description of the Hazard ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 8-1
8.1.2 Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 8-3
8.1.3 Extent ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 8-4
8.1.4 Previous Occurrences ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 8-6
8.1.5 Future Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8-8
8.2 Vulnerability Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 8-10
8.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 8-10
8.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................ ................................ .............................. 8-10
8.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock ................................ ................................ ............................... 8-12
8.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8-12
8.2.5 Impact on the Economy ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8-12
8.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ............ 8-12
8.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources ................................ ................................ ... 8-12 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch v
8.3 Mitigation Opportunities ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 8-13
9. Earthquake .......................................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Hazard Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 9-1
9.1.1 Description of the Hazard ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9-1
9.1.2 Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 9-4
9.1.3 Extent ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 9-9
9.1.4 Previous Occurrences ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 9-15
9.1.5 Future Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9-17
9.2 Vulnerability Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 9-19
9.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 9-19
9.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................ ................................ ............................... 9-19
9.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock ................................ ................................ .............................. 9-22
9.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9-23
9.2.5 Impact on the Economy ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 9-25
9.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ........... 9-26
9.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources ................................ ................................ .. 9-27
9.3 Mitigation Opportunities ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 9-27
10. Flood ................................................................................................................................................ 10-1
10.1 Hazard Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 10-1
10.1.1 Description of the Hazard ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10-1
10.1.2 Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 10-3
10.1.3 Extent ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 10-6
10.1.4 Previous Occurrences ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 10-7
10.1.5 Future Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 10-11
10.2 Vulnerability Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 10-14
10.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 10-14
10.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................ ................................ ............................. 10-14
10.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock ................................ ................................ ............................. 10-19
10.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines ................................ ................................ ................................ . 10-20
10.2.5 Impact on the Economy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10-21
10.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ......... 10-26
10.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources ................................ ................................ 10-26
10.3 Mitigation Opportunities ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 10-27
11. Landslide ......................................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1 Hazard Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 11-1 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch vi
11.1.1 Description of the Hazard ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 11-1
11.1.2 Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 11-2
11.1.3 Extent ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 11-4
11.1.4 Previous Occurrences ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 11-5
11.1.5 Future Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11-8
11.2 Vulnerability Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 11-9
11.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11-9
11.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................ ................................ ................................ 11-9
11.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock ................................ ................................ ............................... 11-11
11.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines ................................ ................................ ................................ ....11-12
11.2.5 Impact on the Economy ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................11-13
11.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ........... 11-14
11.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources ................................ ................................ .. 11-14
11.3 Mitigation Opportunities ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 11-14
12. Sea-Level Rise ............................................................................................................................... 12-1
12.1 Hazard Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 12-1
12.1.1 Description of the Hazard ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12-1
12.1.2 Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 12-2
12.1.3 Extent ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 12-5
12.1.4 Previous Occurrences ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 12-6
12.1.5 Future Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 12-7
12.2 Vulnerability Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 12-8
12.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12-8
12.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................ ................................ ............................... 12-8
12.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock ................................ ................................ ............................... 12-11
12.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 12-13
12.2.5 Impact on the Economy ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 12-15
12.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ .......... 12-16
12.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources ................................ ................................ . 12-16
12.3 Mitigation Opportunities ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 12-17
13. Severe Weather ......................................................................................................................... 13-19
13.1 Hazard Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13-19
13.1.1 Description of the Hazard ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 13-19
13.1.2 Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 13-23
13.1.3 Extent ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 13-24 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch vii
13.1.4 Previous Occurrences ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................13-27
13.2 Vulnerability Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 13-32
13.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 13-32
13.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................ ................................ ............................. 13-32
13.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock ................................ ................................ ............................ 13-34
13.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 13-35
13.2.5 Impact on the Economy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13-35
13.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ......... 13-36
13.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources ................................ ................................ 13-36
13.3 Mitigation Opportunities ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 13-36
14. Tsunami/Seiche ........................................................................................................................... 14-1
14.1 Hazard Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 14-1
14.1.1 Description of the Hazard ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14-1
14.1.2 Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 14-3
14.1.3 Extent ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 14-5
14.1.4 Previous Occurrences ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 14-7
14.1.5 Future Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 14-8
14.2 Vulnerability Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 14-9
14.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 14-9
14.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................ ................................ ............................... 14-9
14.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock ................................ ................................ ............................. 14-12
14.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 14-13
14.2.5 Impact on the Economy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14-13
14.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ .......... 14-15
14.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources ................................ ................................ . 14-15
14.3 Mitigation Opportunities ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 14-15
15. Wildfire ........................................................................................................................................... 15-1
15.1 Hazard Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 15-1
15.1.1 Description of the Hazard ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 15-1
15.1.2 Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 15-5
15.1.3 Extent ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 15-6
15.1.4 Previous Occurrences ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 15-9
15.1.5 Future Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 15-10
15.2 Vulnerability Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 15-12
15.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 15-12 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch viii
15.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................ ................................ .............................. 15-12
15.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock ................................ ................................ ............................. 15-14
15.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 15-16
15.2.5 Impact on the Economy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 15-17
15.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ .......... 15-18
15.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources ................................ ................................ . 15-18
15.3 Mitigation Opportunities ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 15-19
16. Hazards of Interest ..................................................................................................................... 16-1
16.1 Hazardous Materials and Radiological Incidents ................................ ................................ .......... 16-1
16.2 Public Health Incidents ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 16-1
16.3 Terrorism, Active Attacker, CyberTerrorism, Civil Unrest ................................ ........................ 16-2
17. Hazard Ranking ........................................................................................................................... 17-1 Part 3 - Capability Assessment & Mitigation Strategy .................................................................. 4
18. Capability Assessment .............................................................................................................. 18-1
18.1 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 18-1
18.2 Planning and Regulatory Capability ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18-1
18.2.1 Federal Agencies, Programs, and Capabilities ................................ ................................ ..... 18-2
18.2.2 State Agencies, Programs, and Regulatory Capabilities ................................ ................ 18-3
18.2.3 Alameda County Capabilities ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 18-6
18.2.4 City of Oakland Capabilities ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 18-6
18.3 Local Capability Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 18-10
18.3.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities ................................ ................................ ..................... 18-10
18.3.2 Development and Permitting Capabilities ................................ ................................ ........... 18-13
18.3.3 Administrative and Technical Capabilities ................................ ................................ ............ 18-14
18.3.4 Fiscal Capabilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18-15
18.3.5 Education and Outreach ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 18-15
18.3.6 National Flood Insurance Program ................................ ................................ ........................... 18-16
18.3.7 Participation in Other Programs ................................ ................................ ................................ . 18-18
18.3.8 Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change ................................ ................................ ................... 18-19
19. Mitigation Strategy..................................................................................................................... 19-1
19.1 Mitigation Accomplishments ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 19-1
19.1.1 Mitigation Accomplishments Since 2021 ................................ ................................ .................. 19-1
19.1.2 Status of 2021 Mitigation Actions ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 19-4
19.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 19-7
19.3 Comprehensive Range of Mitigation Actions ................................ ................................ ............... 19-11 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch ix
19.4 Mitigation Action Plan and Implementation ................................ ................................ ............... 19-12
19.5 Action Plan Prioritization................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 19-28
19.6 Mitigation Action Categorization ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 19-30
19.6.1 Prevention ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 19-31
19.6.2 Property Protection ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 19-31
19.6.3 Public Education and Awareness ................................ ................................ ............................... 19-31
19.6.4 Natural Resource Protection ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 19-31
19.6.5 Emergency Services ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 19-31
19.6.6 Structural Projects ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 19-31
19.6.7 Climate Resiliency ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 19-31
19.6.8 Community Capacity Building ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 19-31 Part 4 - Maintaining the Plan ............................................................................................................. 19-1
20. Plan Adoption, Implementation & Maintenance ............................................................ 20-1
20.1 Plan Adoption ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 20-1
20.2 Integrating the Plan................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 20-1
20.3 Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan Through Existing Programs ............... 20-2
20.4 Monitoring the Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 20-2
20.5 Plan Evaluation and Progress Reporting ................................ ................................ ................... 20-4
20.6 Grant Monitoring and Coordination ................................ ................................ .............................. 20-4
20.7 Ongoing Public Involvement ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 20-5
20.8 Updating the Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 20-6
20.8.1 Five-Year Plan Review and Update ................................ ................................ ............................ 20-6
20.8.2 Plan Amendment Process ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 20-6
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Recent and Expected Future Development Trends ................................ ................................ 2-4 Table 2-2. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends ................................ ............................... 2-5 Table 2-3 Plan Changes Crosswalk ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 2-7 Table 3-1. City of Oakland Planning Teams ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 3-4 Table 3-2. Plan Development Milestones ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3-7 Table 3-3. Federal and State Agencies ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3-12 Table 3-4. Local Stakeholders and Neighboring Communities Involved in the Planning Process ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 3-13 Table 3-5. Public Meetings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3-19 Table 3-6. Public Comment Examples and LHMP Incorporation ................................ ....................... 3-22 Table 4-1. Federal Disaster Declaration History in Alameda County ................................ ................... 4-5 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch x
Table 4-2. Oakland Historic Weather Averages and Records ................................ ................................ .. 4-7 Table 4-3 Identified Soil Types in Alameda County ................................ ................................ ...................... 4-10 Table 4-4. Annual Population Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 4-14 Table 4-5. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members ................................ ......... 4-16 Table 4-6. General Plan Land Use Classifications in Oakland ................................ ................................ 4-18 Table 4-7. Distribution of Buildings in the Planning Area by Sub-Area ................................ ......... 4-20 Table 4-8. Distribution of Buildings in the Planning Area by Use Type ................................ ......... 4-20 Table 4-9. Community Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ ............. 4-22 Table 4-10. Safety and Security Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland ................................ ..... 4-24 Table 4-11. Safety and Security Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ........................... 4-24 Table 4-12. Animal Shelters and Senior Centers in the City of Oakland ................................ .......... 4-25 Table 4-13. Food, Hydration, Shelter Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ................ 4-25 Table 4-14. Health and Medical Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland ................................ .....4-28 Table 4-15. Health and Medical Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ........................... 4-28 Table 4-16. Energy Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ .. 4-29 Table 4-17. Energy in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4-29 Table 4-18. Communication Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland................................ ............. 4-32 Table 4-19. Communication Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ .. 4-32 Table 4-20. Transportation Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland ................................ ............... 4-33 Table 4-21. Transportation Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ ..... 4-33 Table 4-22. Hazardous Materials Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland ................................ ... 4-36 Table 4-23. Hazardous Materials Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ........................ 4-36 Table 4-24. Water Systems Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland ................................ .............. 4-37 Table 4-25. Water Systems Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ .... 4-37 Table 4-26. Number of City Residents Employed, by Industry ................................ ............................ 4-40 Table 4-27. Jobs by Occupation in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ ............ 4-40 Table 5-1. Federal Disaster Declaration History in Alameda County ................................ ..................... 5-1 Table 5-2. National Risk Index for the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ .................. 5-3 Table 5-3. Hazard Mitigation Plan Comparison ................................ ................................ ................................ 5-4 Table 6-1. Data Source Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 6-6 Table 7-1. State of California Downstream Hazard Potential Classification ................................ ..... 7-3 Table 7-2. State or Federally Regulated High/Extremely High Hazard Dams in Alameda County with Potential to Impact Oakland ................................ ................................ ..................... 7-4 Table 7-3. Dam Failure Risk to Communities ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 7-6 Table 7-4. Federal Disaster Declarations for Dam Failure ................................ ................................ .......... 7-7 Table 7-5. State Disaster Proclamation for Dam Failure ................................ ................................ .............. 7-7 Table 7-6. Estimated Number of Persons in the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 7-10 Table 7-7. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members in the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 7-11 Table 7-8. Estimated Number of Buildings in the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7-12 Table 7-9. Estimated Number of Buildings, by Occupancy Class, in the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 7-12 Table 7-10. Community Lifelines Located in the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 7-13 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch xi
Table 7-11. Estimated Exposed Building Values to the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7-14 Table 7-12. Estimated Damages to Buildings in the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7-14 Table 7-13. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Dam Failure Hazard ................................ ....... 7-15 Table 8-1. FEMA Declarations for Drought ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 8-6 Table 8-2. State Disaster Proclamations for Drought ................................ ................................ ................... 8-6 Table 8-3. USDA Disaster Declarations for Drought ................................ ................................ ...................... 8-6 Table 8-4. Recent Drought Events Impacting the City of Oakland ................................ ..................... 8-8 Table 8-5. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Drought ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8-11 Table 8-6. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Drought Hazard ................................ ................. 8-13 Table 9-1. Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison ................................ .............. 9-10 Table 9-2. NEHRP Soil Classification System ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 9-14 Table 9-3. FEMA Declarations for Earthquakes ................................ ................................ ............................... 9-15 Table 9-4. State Disaster Proclamations for Earthquake................................ ................................ ........... 9-15 Table 9-5. Recent Earthquake Hazard Events Within 100 Miles of Oakland ................................ . 9-17 Table 9-6. Estimated Earthquake Impact on Persons and Households ................................ ......... 9-20 Table 9-7. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Earthquake ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 9-21 Table 9-8. Example of Structural Damage State Definitions for a Wood, Light Frame Building ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 9-22 Table 9-9. Estimated Building Damages (Structures and Contents) from Earthquakes ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9-22 Table 9-10. Community Lifelines Located in the Very High & High Liquefaction Susceptibility Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 9-23 Table 9-11. Estimated Debris Generated by Earthquake Scenarios ................................ .................... 9-25 Table 9-12. Example of Structural Damage State Definitions for a Wood, Light Frame Building ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9-26 Table 9-13. Estimated Building Damages (Structure and Contents) from Earthquakes ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9-26 Table 9-14. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Earthquake Hazard ................................ ....... 9-27 Table 10-1. Federal Disaster Declarations for Flood ................................ ................................ ...................... 10-8 Table 10-2. State Disaster Proclamations for Flood ................................ ................................ ...................... 10-8 Table 10-3. Recent Flood Events Impacting the City of Oakland ................................ ....................... 10-10 Table 10-4. Recurrence Intervals and Probabilities of Occurrence ................................ ................... 10-12 Table 10-5. Flood Scenarios for the Riverine Flood Vulnerability Assessment ........................... 10-14 Table 10-6. Estimated Number of Persons in the City of Oakland Living in the 1% and
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 10-16 Table 10-7. Estimated Flood Impact on Persons and Households ................................ .................... 10-17 Table 10-8. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Flood – 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area ................................ ................................ ............................... 10-18 Table 10-9. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Flood – 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area ................................ ................................ .......................... 10-19 Table 10-10. Estimated Number of Buildings Located in the SFHA ................................ ................. 10-20 Table 10-11. Community Lifelines Exposed to the Flood Hazard Areas ................................ .......... 10-20 Table 10-12. Estimated Exposure from the 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood Event ................. 10-21 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch xii
Table 10-13. Estimated Exposure from the 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Event ........... 10-22 Table 10-14. Estimated Debris Generated by Flood Scenarios ................................ ............................ 10-22 Table 10-15. Estimated Damages from the 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood Event ............... 10-23 Table 10-16. Estimated Damages from the 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Event .......... 10-23 Table 10-17. National Flood Insurance Program Statistics ................................ ................................ ..... 10-25 Table 10-18. Repetitive Loss Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 10-25 Table 10-19. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Flood Hazard ................................ ................. 10-27 Table 11-1. Federal Disaster Declarations for Landslide ................................ ................................ ................ 11-5 Table 11-2. State Disaster Proclamations for Landslide ................................ ................................ ................ 11-6 Table 11-3. Recent Landslide Events In and Near the City of Oakland ................................ ................ 11-7 Table 11-4. Estimated Number of Persons Located in the High and Very High Landslide Susceptibility Areas ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 11-9 Table 11-5. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to the Combined High and Very High Landslide Susceptibility Areas ................................ .................. 11-10 Table 11-6. Estimated Building Stock Located in the High and Very High Landslide Susceptibility Areas ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 11-11 Table 11-7. Community Lifelines Exposed to the Combined High & Very High Landslide Susceptibility Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......11-12 Table 11-8. Estimated Exposure to the High and Very High Landslide Susceptibility Hazard Areas ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........11-13 Table 11-9. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Landslide Hazard ................................ ............. 11-14 Table 12-1. Range of Estimates for Bay Area Sea-Level Rise ................................ ................................ ..... 12-7 Table 12-2. Estimated Number of Persons Exposed to Sea-Level Rise ................................ ............. 12-8 Table 12-3. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Sea-Level Rise – 2050 Scenario ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 12-9 Table 12-4. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Sea-Level Rise – 2100 Scenario ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...12-11 Table 12-5. Estimated Number of Buildings Exposed to Sea-Level Rise ................................ ......... 12-12 Table 12-6. Estimated Number of Buildings by Building Type Exposed to Sea-Level Rise, 2050 Scenario ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 12-12 Table 12-7. Estimated Number of Buildings by Building Type Exposed to Sea-Level Rise, 2100 Scenario ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 12-13 Table 12-8. Estimated Community Lifelines Exposed to Sea-Level Rise (2050 Scenario) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 12-14 Table 12-9. Estimated Community Lifelines Exposed to Sea-Level Rise (2100 Scenario) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12-15 Table 12-10. Estimated Exposure to Sea-Level Rise, 2050 Scenario ................................ ................... 12-16 Table 12-11. Estimated Exposure to Sea-Level Rise, 2100 Scenario ................................ ..................... 12-16 Table 12-12. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Sea-Level Rise Hazard ............................... 12-17 Table 13-1. Triggers for Public Safety Power Shutoff Events ................................ ................................ .. 13-22 Table 13-2. Beaufort Wind Chart ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 13-24 Table 13-3. NWS Heat Risk Forecasting System ................................ ................................ ........................... 13-26 Table 13-4. Federal Disaster Declarations for Severe Weather ................................ ............................ 13-27 Table 13-5. State Disaster Proclamations for Severe Weather ................................ .............................. 13-27 Table 13-6. USDA Declarations for Severe Weather ................................ ................................ ................... 13-28 Table 13-7. Recent Severe Weather Events Impacting the City of Oakland ............................... 13-28 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch xiii
Table 13-8. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Severe Weather ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 13-33 Table 13-9. General Building Stock Replacement Cost Values ................................ ............................ 13-35 Table 13-10. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Severe Weather Hazard ......................... 13-36 Table 14-1. Recent Tsunami Events Impacting the City of Oakland ................................ ................... 14-8 Table 14-2. Estimated Number of Persons Living in the Tsunami Hazard Area ........................ 14-10 Table 14-3. Estimated Tsunami Impact on Persons and Households ................................ ............. 14-10 Table 14-4. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Tsunami ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14-11 Table 14-5. Estimated Number of Structures Located in the Tsunami Hazard Area ............. 14-12 Table 14-6. Estimated Number of Buildings, by Structure Type, Located in the Tsunami Hazard Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 14-12 Table 14-7. Estimated Community Lifelines Located in the Tsunami Hazard Area ................ 14-13 Table 14-8. Building Values Located in the Tsunami Hazard Area ................................ .................... 14-14 Table 14-9. Estimated Exposure and Total Value of Damages from the Tsunami Hazard Area ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 14-14 Table 14-10. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Tsunami Hazard ................................ ........... 14-15 Table 15-1. Federal Disaster Declarations for Wildfire................................ ................................ ................... 15-9 Table 15-2. State Disaster Proclamations for Wildfire ................................ ................................ .................. 15-9 Table 15-3. USDA Disaster Declarations for Wildfire ................................ ................................ ..................... 15-9 Table 15-4. Recent Wildfire Events Impacting the City of Oakland ................................ .................. 15-10 Table 15-5. Estimated Number of Persons Living in the Very High FHSZ ................................ ...... 15-12 Table 15-6. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Wildfire in FHSZ Buffer Area................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 15-13 Table 15-7. Estimated Number of Buildings Located in the Very High FHSZ ............................. 15-14 Table 15-8. Estimated Number of Buildings, by Structure Type, Located in the Very High FHSZ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 15-15 Table 15-9. General Building Stock by Date of Construction ................................ ................................ . 15-16 Table 15-10. Estimated Community Lifelines Located in the FHSZ ................................ ................... 15-17 Table 15-11. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of Buildings Located in the FHSZ ............... 15-18 Table 15-12. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Wildfire Hazard................................ .............. 15-19 Table 17-1. Natural Hazard Risk Ranking ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 17-1 Table 17-2. Priority Risk Index Scoring Criteria ................................ ................................ ................................ . 17-2 Table 18-1. Summary of Federal Agencies, Programs, and Regulatory Capabilities ................. 18-2 Table 18-2. Summary of State Agencies, Programs, and Regulatory Capabilities ..................... 18-3 Table 18-3. Planning and Regulatory Capabilities for the City of Oakland ................................ ... 18-10 Table 18-4. Development and Permitting Capability ................................ ................................ ................. 18-14 Table 18-5. Administrative and Technical Capabilities for the City of Oakland .......................... 18-14 Table 18-6. Fiscal Capabilities for the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ ................ 18-15 Table 18-7. Education and Outreach Capabilities for the City of Oakland ................................ .... 18-16 Table 18-8. National Flood Insurance Program Capabilities for the City of Oakland ............. 18-16 Table 18-9. Community Classifications for the City of Oakland ................................ ........................... 18-19 Table 18-10. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change ................................ ................................ .................... 18-19 Table 19-1. Status of 2021 LHMP Mitigation Actions ................................ ................................ ....................... 19-5 Table 19-2. 2026 LHMP Mitigation Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 19-8 Table 19-3. Mitigation Action Plan for the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ ..... 19-13 Table 19-4. Mitigation Action Prioritization Categories ................................ ................................ ............ 19-28 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch xiv
Table 19-5. Mitigation Action Prioritization ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 19-29 Table 19-6. Mitigation Action Classification ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 19-32
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Environmental Justice Communities in the City of Oakland ................................ ............. 1-6 Figure 3-1 City of Oakland Hazard Mitigation Planning Area ................................ ................................ ... 3-3 Figure 3-2 City of Oakland Hazard Mitigation Webpage ................................ ................................ .......... 3-16 Figure 3-3 Multilingual Instagram Posts Promoting Public Meetings and the Public Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3-17 Figure 3-4 Postcards Promoting the Public Survey in English, Cantonese, and Spanish ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 3-18 Figure 3-5. Flyers Promoting the Community Workshops (English example depicted. Also made available in Cantonese and Spanish, not pictured here.) .......................... 3-18 Figure 3-6. General Plan Environmental Justice Element Community Screening Factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 3-23 Figure 4-1. Sub-Areas Used in Hazard Risk Assessments ................................ ................................ ........... 4-4 Figure 4-2 Watershed Diagram ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4-8 Figure 4-3 USGS Watershed for the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ .................... 4-9 Figure 4-4. Cultural Asset Map from the General Plan ................................ ................................ ............... 4-12 Figure 4-5 State of California and City of Oakland Population Growth by Decade .................. 4-15 Figure 4-6. Equity Priority Community Factors Defined by the General Plan Environmental Justice Element ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-16 Figure 4-7. Land Use in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-19 Figure 4-8. Community Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ ........... 4-23 Figure 4-9 Safety and Security Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ........................... 4-26 Figure 4-10 Food, Hydration, Shelter Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ .............. 4-27 Figure 4-11 Health and Medical Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ......................... 4-30 Figure 4-12 Energy Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ ...................... 4-31 Figure 4-13 Communication Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ............................... 4-34 Figure 4-14 Transportation Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ ... 4-35 Figure 4-15 Hazardous Materials Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ .......................4-38 Figure 4-16 Water Systems Lifelines in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ ... 4-39 Figure 4-17 Recent Unemployment Rates for California and the City of Oakland .................. 4-41 Figure 7-1. Dam Inundation Areas in the City of Oakland ................................ ................................ ........... 7-5 Figure 8-1 U.S. Drought Monitor Map of California ................................ ................................ .......................... 8-3 Figure 8-2 . U.S. Drought Monitor Categories ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8-4 Figure 8-3 Example Local and National Drought Index Maps (September-October 2025) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 8-5 Figure 8-4 How Drought Can Affect Health ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8-10 Figure 9-1 USGS National Seismic Hazard Map ................................ ................................ ................................ . 9-3 Figure 9-2 Earthquake Faults ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9-6 Figure 9-3 City of Oakland NEHRP Seismic Site Class ................................ ................................ .................. 9-7 Figure 9-4 City of Oakland Liquefaction Susceptibility ................................ ................................ ............... 9-8 Figure 9-5. Calaveras M6.86 Earthquake Scenario ................................ ................................ ......................... 9-11 Figure 9-6. Hayward M7.05 Scenario ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 9-12 Figure 9-7. San Andreas Peninsula M7.38 Scenario ................................ ................................ ...................... 9-13 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Table of Contents Black & Veatch xv
Figure 9-8 UCERF3 Earthquake Probability ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9-18 Figure 9-9. Average Community Lifeline Functionality by # of Days Post-Event, Hayward Fault Scenario ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 9-24 Figure 9-10. Average Community Lifeline Functionality by # of Days Post-Event, Calaveras Fault Scenario ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 9-24 Figure 9-11. Average Community Lifeline Functionality by # of Days Post-Event, San Andreas Fault Scenario ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 9-25 Figure 10-1 FEMA Flood Hazard Areas ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10-5 Figure 10-2 Flood Watches and Warnings ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 10-7 Figure 10-3. How Wildfires Cause Flooding ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10-13 Figure 11-1 Landslide Susceptibility ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 11-3 Figure 12-1. 48-inch Sea-Level Rise Projections ................................ ................................ ............................... 12-3 Figure 12-2. 108-inch Sea-Level Rise Projections ................................ ................................ ............................. 12-4 Figure 13-1. HPI Extreme Heat Edition Data Outputs for the City of Oakland ........................... 13-24 Figure 14-1. Common Sources of Tsunamis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 14-1 Figure 14-2. Tsunami Inundation Areas in the City of Oakland ................................ ............................ 14-4 Figure 14-3. Emergency Siren Locations in Oakland ................................ ................................ .................... 14-7 Figure 15-1. City of Oakland Fire Hazard Severity Zones ................................ ................................ ............. 15-7 Figure 19-1. Goats in the Oakland Hills ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 19-1 Figure 20-1. LHMP Progress Report Posting on the City Website ................................ ...................... 20-5
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Definitions and Acronyms Black & Veatch xvi
Definitions and Acronyms
°F—Degrees Fahrenheit
0.2 percent-annual-chance flood—The flood that
has a 0.2 percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded in any given year; often referred to as the
500-year flood.
0.2 percent-annual-chance (500-year)
floodplain—The area flooded by the flood that has
a 0.2 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded
each year.
1.0 percent-annual-chance flood—The flood that
has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded in any given year; often referred to as the
100-year flood.
1 percent-annual-chance (100-year) floodplain—
The area flooded by the flood that has a 1 percent
chance of being equaled or exceeded in a given
year. The 1 percent-annual-chance flood is the
standard used by most federal and state agencies.
ac-ft—Unit of acre-feet
ADA Programs Division (ADA)—A division in the
City Administrator’s Office that promotes equity for
persons with disabilities by coordinating physical
and programmatic access compliance in all city
programs, activities, and services.
ADA accessibility—The requirement under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II and
Section 504 & 508 for state and local governments
to ensure that all programs, facilities, services,
communications, emergency operations, and
public information are accessible to people with
disabilities. ADA accessibility includes removing
physical, communication, transportation, and
programmatic barriers and ensuring equitable
access to preparedness, evacuation, sheltering, and
recovery activities of emergency management.
Access and Functional Needs (AFN) — an
individual may have an access or functional need if
they have a developmental or intellectual disability,
a physical disability, a chronic condition, an injury,
limited English proficiency or are non-English
speaking, are an older adult, are a child, are a
person living in an institutionalized setting, or are
low income, experiencing homelessness, or
transportation disadvantaged, including, but not
limited to, those who are dependent on public
transit, or those who are pregnant (Government
Code 8593.3). When referring to individuals, the
term is used as “access or functional needs” with
lowercase words and without using the acronym.
When referring to the entire population, resources,
considerations, or department title, the term is
used as “Access and Functional Needs” and the
acronym AFN may be used.
asset—Any man-made or natural feature that has
value, including people; buildings; infrastructure,
such as bridges, roads, sewers, and water systems;
lifelines, such as electricity and communication
resources; and environmental, cultural, or
recreational features such as parks, wetlands, and
landmarks.
ASCE—American Society of Engineers
base flood—The flood having a 1 percent chance of
being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also
known as the “100-year” or “1 percent annual
chance” flood. The base flood is a statistical concept
used to ensure that all properties subject to the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are
protected to the same degree against flooding.
basin—The area within which all surface water—
whether from rainfall, snowmelt, springs, or other
sources—flows to a single water body or
watercourse. The boundary of a river basin is
defined by natural topography, such as hills,
mountains, and ridges. Basins are also referred to
as “watersheds.”
benefit/cost analysis—A systematic, quantitative
method of comparing projected benefits to
projected costs of a project or policy. It is used as a measure of cost effectiveness.
benefit—A net project outcome and is usually
defined in monetary terms. Benefits may include
direct and indirect effects. For the purposes of
benefit/cost analysis of proposed mitigation
measures, benefits are limited to specific,
measurable, risk reduction factors, including
reduction in expected property losses (buildings,
contents, and functions) and protection of human
life.
CAL FIRE—California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection
Cal OES—California Governor’s Office of Emergency
Services
CA DWR—California Department of Water
Resources
capability assessment—An analysis of a
community’s capacity to address threats associated
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Definitions and Acronyms Black & Veatch xvii
with hazards. The assessment includes two
components: an inventory of an agency’s mission,
programs, and policies, and an analysis of its
capacity to carry them out.
CDC—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CIP—Capital Improvement Program
climate change—A change in global or regional
climate patterns, in particular a change apparent
from the mid to late 20th century onwards and
attributed largely to the increased levels of
atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of
fossil fuels.
Community Lifeline—As defined by FEMA, a
community lifeline enables the continuous
operation of critical government and business
functions and is essential to human health and
safety or economic security.
CRS—Community Rating System
Core Planning Team (CPT)—Planning team
comprised of key personnel from the City of
Oakland and discipline leads from the City’s
contract consultant, Black & Veatch
cyber-attack—An attempt to damage, disrupt, or
gain unauthorized access to a computer, computer
system, or electronic communications network.
dam failure—An uncontrolled release of
impounded water due to structural deficiencies in
dam.
dam—Any artificial barrier or controlling
mechanism that can or does impound or divert
water.
debris flow—Dense mixtures of water-saturated
debris that move down-valley, looking and
behaving much like flowing concrete. They form
when loose masses of unconsolidated material are
saturated, become unstable, and move down slope.
The source of water varies but includes rainfall,
melting snow or ice, and glacial outburst floods.
DFIRM—Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map
Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA; Public Law 106-
390)—The latest federal legislation enacted to
encourage and promote proactive, pre-disaster
planning as a condition of receiving certain federal
financial assistance.
DMA—Disaster Mitigation Act
DRE—Department of Race and Equity. The
Department of Race and Equity works with City
departments to create a city where our diversity is
maintained, racial disparities have been eliminated
and racial equity has been achieved.
drought—The cumulative impacts of long periods
of dry weather. These can include deficiencies in
surface and subsurface water supplies and general
impacts on health, well-being, and quality of life.
earthquake—The shaking of the ground caused by
an abrupt shift of rock along a fracture in the earth
or a contact zone between tectonic plates.
EBMUD—East Bay Municipal Utility District
EBRPD—East Bay Regional Parks District
emergency action plan—A formal document that
identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam
and specifies actions to be followed to minimize
property damage and loss of life. The plan specifies
actions the dam owner should take to alleviate
problems at a dam. It contains procedures and
information to assist the dam owner in issuing early
warning and notification messages to responsible
downstream emergency management authorities
of the emergency situation. It also contains
inundation maps to show emergency
management authorities the critical areas for
action in case of an emergency.
EMSD - Emergency Management Service Division
EMSD, a division of the Oakland Fire Department, is
responsible for ensuring the City of Oakland can
respond to, recover from, and mitigate against any
hazard that affects our city, the region, the state,
and beyond. Through internal and external training
and exercising, EMSD builds its capabilities,
explores vulnerabilities and evaluates and reviews
City plans covering the entire cycle of preparedness
to ensure continuous improvement.
epicenter—The point on the earth’s surface directly
above the hypocenter of an earthquake. The
location of an earthquake is commonly described
by the geographic position of its epicenter and by
its focal depth.
equity— OMC 2.29.170.2.C and AI-580 define Equity
as fairness. Ensuring City departments take steps
so that all people have access to opportunities,
services and the fair distribution of resources to
support positive outcomes in meeting their needs
and take their conditions into consideration.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Definitions and Acronyms Black & Veatch xviii
Equity Priority Communities (EPC)—As defined in
this plan, communities in census tracts that align
with the City ‘s Environmental Justice Element of
the General Plan are considered priority areas for
implementing mitigation initiatives. This includes
individuals with Access and Functional Needs
(AFN).
exposure—Exposure is defined as the number and
dollar value of assets considered to be at risk during
the occurrence of a specific hazard.
extreme heat—Temperatures that hover 10 ºF or
more above the average high temperature for a
region and last for several days.
fault—A fracture in the earth’s crust along which
two blocks of the crust have slipped with respect to
each other.
federal disaster declaration—Declarations for
events that cause more damage than state and
local governments and resources can handle
without federal government assistance. A federal
disaster declaration puts into motion long-term
federal recovery programs, some of which are
matched by state programs, to help disaster
victims, businesses, and public entities.
FEMA—Federal Emergency Management Agency
fire behavior—Fire behavior refers to the physical
characteristics of a fire and is a function of the
interaction between the fuel characteristics (such
as type of vegetation and structures that could
burn), topography, and weather. Variables that
affect fire behavior include the rate of spread,
intensity, fuel consumption, and fire type (such as
underbrush versus crown fire).
FIRM—Flood Insurance Rate Map
flash flood—A flood that occurs with little or no
warning when water levels rise at an extremely fast
rate.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)—The official
maps on which the Federal Emergency
Management Agency delineate the Special Flood
Hazard Area.
floodplain—The land area along the sides of a river
that becomes inundated with water during a flood.
flood—The inundation of normally dry land
resulting from the rising and overflowing of a body
of water.
floodway—Floodways are areas within a floodplain
that are reserved for the purpose of conveying flood
discharge without increasing the base flood
elevation more than 1 foot. Generally speaking, no
development is allowed in floodways, as any
structures located there would block the flow of
floodwaters.
frequency—How often a hazard of specific
magnitude, duration, and/or extent is expected to
occur on average. Statistically, a hazard with a 100-
year frequency is expected to occur about once
every 100 years on average and has a 1 percent
chance of occurring any given year. Frequency
reliability varies depending on the type of hazard
considered.
g—Gravity (%g, percent acceleration force of
gravity)
GBS—general building stock
geographic information system (GIS)—A
computer software application that relates data
regarding physical and other features on the earth
to a database for mapping and analysis.
goal—A general guideline that explains what is to
be achieved. Goals are usually broad-based, long-
term, policy-type statements and represent global
visions. Goals help define the benefits that a plan is
trying to achieve. The success of a hazard
mitigation plan is measured by the degree to which
its goals have been met (that is, by the actual
benefits in terms of actual hazard mitigation).
greenhouse gases—Methane, nitrous oxide and
other gases that trap heat and warm the Earth, as a
greenhouse traps heat from the sun.
ground shaking—The result of rapid ground
acceleration caused by seismic waves passing
beneath buildings, roads, and other structures.
gust—A strong rush of wind
hazard—A source of potential danger or adverse
condition that could harm people and/or cause
property damage.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)—
Authorized under Section 202 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act, the HMGP is administered by FEMA and
provides grants to states, tribes, and local
governments to implement hazard mitigation
actions after a major disaster declaration. The
purpose of the program is to reduce the loss of life
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Definitions and Acronyms Black & Veatch xix
and property due to disasters and to enable
mitigation activities to be implemented as a
community recovers from a disaster.
hazardous material—A substance or combination
of substances (biological, chemical, radiological,
and/or physical) that, because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious
characteristics, has the potential to cause harm to
humans, animals, or the environment, either by
itself or through interaction with other factors.
HCD—Department of Housing and Community
Development
high-hazard dam—Dams that can cause loss of
human life from the failure or improper operation
of the dam.
HMA—Hazard Mitigation Assistance
HMP—Hazard Mitigation Plan
hypocenter—The region underground where an
earthquake’s energy originates.
Individuals with Access and Functional Needs
(AFN)— People who may require additional
assistance before, during, or after an emergency
due to factors affecting independence,
communication, transportation, supervision, or
medical care. This category includes, but is not
limited to, people with disabilities, older adults,
children, individuals with limited English
proficiency, those without access to transportation,
pregnant individuals, people experiencing
homeless, and others who may face functional
barriers during disasters. AFN is a planning term
used to guide inclusive emergency preparedness
and response. It does not replace or modify civil
rights protections under the ADA. See “Equity
Priority Communities”
intensity—The measure of the effects of a hazard.
inventory—The assets identified in a study region.
Inventories include assets that could be lost when a
disaster occurs, and community resources are at
risk. Assets include people, buildings,
transportation, and other valued community
resources.
ITD—Information Technology Department
landslide—The movement of masses of loosened
rock and soil down a hillside or slope. Slope failures
occur when the strength of the soils forming the
slope is exceeded by the pressure, such as weight
or saturation, acting upon them.
lightning—Lightning is an electrical discharge
resulting from the buildup of positive and negative
charges within a thunderstorm. When the buildup
becomes strong enough, lightning appears as a
“bolt,” usually within or between clouds and the
ground. A bolt of lightning instantaneously reaches
temperatures approaching 50,000 degrees F. The
rapid heating and cooling of air near lightning
causes thunder. Lightning is a major threat during
thunderstorms. In the United States, 75 to 100
Americans are struck and killed by lightning each
year.
liquefaction—Loosely packed, water-logged
sediments losing their strength in response to
strong shaking, causing major damage during
earthquakes.
local government—Any county, municipality, city,
town, township, public authority, school district,
special district, intrastate district, council of
governments (regardless of whether the council of
governments is incorporated as a nonprofit
corporation under State law), regional or interstate
government entity, or agency or instrumentality of
a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized
tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or
organization; and any rural community,
unincorporated town or village, or other public
entity.
magnitude—The measure of the strength of an
earthquake.
mass movement—A collective term for landslides,
debris flows, and lahars.
mitigation actions—Specific actions to achieve
goals and objectives that minimize the effects from
a disaster and reduce the loss of life and property.
mitigation—A preventive action taken in advance
of an event to reduce or eliminate risk to life or
property.
millimeter (mm)—unit of length, equal to one
thousandth of a meter
Mw—Moment Magnitude Scale
NCEI—National Centers for Environmental
Information
NFIP—National Flood Insurance Program
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Definitions and Acronyms Black & Veatch xx
NRI—National Risk Index
NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NWS—National Weather Service
OakDOT—Oakland Department of Transportation
objective—For the purposes of this plan, an
objective is defined as a short-term aim that, when
combined with other objectives, forms a strategy or
course of action to meet a goal. Unlike goals,
objectives are specific and measurable.
OFD—Oakland Fire Department
OPD—Oakland Police Department
OPW—Oakland Public Works Department
pandemic—An epidemic of infectious disease that
has spread through human populations across a
large region, multiple continents, or worldwide.
PDM—Pre-Disaster Mitigation
peak ground acceleration (PGA)—A measure of
the highest amplitude of ground shaking that
accompanies an earthquake, based on a
percentage of the force of gravity.
PGA—Peak Ground Acceleration
preparedness—Actions that strengthen the
capability of government, people, and communities
to respond to disasters.
presidential disaster declaration (same as federal
disaster declaration)—These declarations are
typically made for events that cause more damage
than state and local governments and resources
can handle without federal government assistance.
Generally, no specific dollar loss threshold has been
established for such declarations. A presidential
disaster declaration puts into motion long-term
federal recovery programs, some of which are
matched by state programs, designed to help
disaster victims, businesses, and public entities.
probability of occurrence—A statistical measure or
estimate of the likelihood that a hazard will occur.
This probability is generally based on past hazard
events in the area and a forecast of events that
could occur in the future. A probability factor based
on yearly values of occurrence is used to estimate
probability of occurrence.
Project Management Team (PM)—Planning team
comprised of key personnel from the City of
Oakland Fire Department - Emergency
Management Services Division (OFD EMSD) and
discipline leads from the City’s contract consultant,
Black & Veatch
RCV—replacement cost value
recurrence interval —The recurrence interval
(sometimes called the return period) is based on
the probability that the given event will be equaled
or exceeded in any given year.
residual risk—The risk that remains after controls
are accounted for.
return period—The average number of years
between occurrences of a hazard (equal to the
inverse of the annual likelihood of occurrence).
risk assessment—The process of measuring
potential loss of life, personal injury, economic
injury, and property damage resulting from
hazards. This process assesses the vulnerability of
people, buildings, and infrastructure to hazards
risk ranking—Process to score and rank hazards
based on the probability that they will occur and
the impact they will have if they do.
risk—The estimated impact that a hazard would
have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community. Risk measures the likelihood of a
hazard occurring and resulting in an adverse
condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is
often expressed in relative terms such as a high,
moderate, or low likelihood of sustaining damage
above a particular threshold due to occurrence of a
specific type of hazard. Risk also can be expressed
in terms of potential monetary losses associated
with the intensity of the hazard.
riverine—Of or produced by a river. Riverine
floodplains have readily identifiable channels.
Robert T. Stafford Act—The statutory authority for
most federal disaster response activities, especially
as they pertain to FEMA and its programs (Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act, Public Law 100-107). Signed into law November
23, 1988; amended by the Disaster Relief Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-288).
SFHA—Special Flood Hazard Area
special flood hazard area—The base floodplain
delineated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. The
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Definitions and Acronyms Black & Veatch xxi
SFHA is mapped as a Zone A in riverine situations
and zone V in coastal situations. The SFHA may or
may not encompass all of a community’s flood
problems.
stakeholder—Business leaders, civic groups,
academia, non-profit organizations, major
employers, managers of critical facilities, farmers,
developers, special purpose districts, and others
whose actions could impact hazard mitigation.
steep slope—A slope greater than 33 percent.
Steering Committee (SC)— Planning team
comprised of CPT members, personnel from the
City of Oakland, and local and areawide
stakeholders.
Sustainability— Office of Sustainability. The Office
of Sustainability is housed in the Sustainability and
Resilience Division of the City Administrator's
Office. This team fosters collaboration with staff
across all City Departments and with community
leaders and experts on equitable climate change
mitigation and adaptation.
USACE—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDM—U.S. Drought Monitor
USGS—U.S. Geological Survey
VHFHSZ—Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
vulnerability—Assessment of how exposed or
susceptible an asset is to damage. Vulnerability
depends on an asset’s construction, contents, and
the economic value of its functions.
watershed—An area that drains downgradient
from areas of higher land to areas of lower land to
the lowest point.
wildfire—Fires that result in uncontrolled
destruction of forests, brush, field crops, grasslands, and real and personal property in non-urban areas.
Because of their distance from firefighting
resources, they can be difficult to contain and can
cause a great deal of destruction.
wildland-urban interface area (WUI)—An area
susceptible to wildfires and where wildland
vegetation and urban or suburban development
occur together. An example would be smaller
urban areas and dispersed rural housing in forested
areas.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Of Oakland
To reduce risk and increase resilience equitably, the mission of the City of Oakland Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is to establish and promote a comprehensive mitigation strategy and efforts to protect the whole community and environment from identified natur al and human -caused hazards.
HAZARD MITIGATION OVERVIEW
The City of Oakland (City) has updated its local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) to continue its commitment to reducing risk of natural hazards for the residents, assets, environment, and community lifelines within the city.
The LHMP update forms the foundation of the City’s long -term strategy to reduce disaster losses and break the cycle of disaster damage, rebuilding, and repetitive damage. This plan aligns with federal and state hazard mitigation planning regulations and requirements to ensure the City remains eligible for pre - and post-disaster mitigation funding through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-2
PLANNING PROCESS
The City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan is an update of the 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Oakland Fire Department’s (OFD) Emergency Management Services Division (EMSD) managed the LHMP update and will oversee its implementation and annual updates. The planning area for the Hazard Mitigation Plan was defined as the incorporated area of the City of Oakland.
The planning process for this LHMP update, consisted of the following steps:
• Organization of Resources –The City organized the Project Management Team (PM), Core Planning Team (CPT), and Steering Committee (SC) (see Table 3-1). These groups met and coordinated throughout the planning process.
• Public Engagement and Outreach – A robust public engagement strategy was implemented.
• Update Community Capabilities – City departments assessed capabilities related to implementing mitigation initiatives.
• Identify Hazards – The Core Planning Team and Steering Committee identified and confirmed hazards to include in the plan.
• Risk Assessment – Using best available data and with input from the CPT and SC, the consultant team performed a risk assessment of each natural hazard of concern. • Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategy – Through a consultant-facilitated process, City departments and stakeholders assembled to develop objectives and mitigation actions.
• Assemble and Review the Plan –Black & Veatch (the consultant team) updated and assembled the draft plan with input from the planning groups and City staff. The draft plan was open for public comment for a two-week period. • Plan Approval and Adoption – The LHMP is approved by FEMA and the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) . The plan is adopted by City Council and is adopted into the General Plan Safety Element. The City chose to adopt the plan pending Cal OES and FEMA approval to expedite the City Council adoption process.
Additionally, the City adopted the LHMP as an appendix to the General Plan’s Safety Element for plan integration. Cal OES performed a review of the draft and FEMA issued approval on Month Day, 2026.
The Project Management Team (PM) and Core Planning Team (CPT) facilitated the development of the 2026 LHMP update. The CPT consisted of staff from key departments of the City of Oakland and the consultant team. A 23-member Steering Committee (SC) of City staff and areawide stakeholders oversaw the plan development. Coordination with other local, state, and federal agencies involved in hazard mitigation occurred throughout the seven-step planning process. The SC reviewed the City’s 2021 LHMP, and existing programs that may support hazard mitigation actions. The consultant team made recommendations to the City to align with the 2023 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Public outreach efforts included a hazard mitigation survey, presentations to area stakeholders, five in -person public meetings, two virtual town hall meetings, a project website, the use of social media, and printed materials.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-3
Chapter 2 (Planning Process) of this plan documents the process used to develop the 2026 City of Oakland LHMP. It includes who was a part of the process, and what data and information were utilized to create or revise the plan. Efforts were made to ensure a successful planning endeavor by engaging with community leaders, stakeholders, and the public to ensure their input and support throughout the process.
BUILDING THE PLANNING TEAM S
The City brought together a diverse and inclusive group of individuals to participate, develop, and implement the LHMP. A Project Management (PM) team, a Core Planning Team (CPT) and Steering Committee (SC) were responsible for overseeing, coordinating, and executing the planning process:
• Project Management Team - The PM team was comprised of key personnel from EMSD and discipline leads from the consultant team.
• Core Planning Team - The CPT was comprised of key personnel from the City and discipline leads from the consultant team.
• Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee – Included 23-members comprised of CPT members, other city personnel, and neighboring jurisdiction stakeholders.
The PM Team and the CPT facilitated the development of this plan update, consisting of staff from several departments of the City of Oakland and a contract consultant. A 23-member SC of city staff and areawide stakeholders oversaw the plan development. (As many departments had non -voting members and/or alternates, a total of 39 individuals participated in the SC.) Coordination with other local, state, and federal agencies involved in hazard mitigation occurred throughout the seven -step planning process. The CPT and SC reviewed the City’s previous hazard mitigation plan (the 2016 -2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan), the 2023 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, and existing programs that may support hazard mitigation actions.
A Whole Communities Team included City staff acting as equity subject matter experts, convening as needed to provide recommendations and promote inclusion of and benefit to Equity Priority Communities and individuals with AFN. Members of the Whole Communities Team were also participants in the CPT and SC.
OUTREACH STRATEGY
The City implemented a multi -media public involvement strategy using a community engagement plan that was approved by the SC.
The strategy included five in-person public meetings combined with Personal Emergency Preparedness (PEP) workshops. The sessions included presentations on the hazard mitigation planning process , presentation of hazard mapping, and an opportunity for attendees to suggest potential actions by the City of Oakland. Interpretation was offered in Cantonese, Spanish and Vietnamese.
Community outreach also included a community hazard mitigation survey available in English, Spanish, Chinese and Vietnamese; a project webpage with an interactive StoryMap; and web-based updates and social media releases. Outreach methods included printed City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-4
postcards with a survey link, printed meeting flyers, and an email interest list including individuals and local community-based organizations.
Two virtual town halls were held during the public comment period. One focused on technical input from subject -matter experts, and the second town hall focused on input from the whole community.
RISK ASSESSMENT
A risk assessment describes the risks associated with each identified hazard of concern. A general profile of the hazard as it impacts the City was updated and an assessment was performed to determine the effects and the potential damage of the hazard. For this LHMP update, total and Equity Priority Communities are considered in the risk assessment.
The CPT and SC reviewed available information to determine what types of hazards may affect the City, how often they can occur, their potential severity, and considered the hazard groupings in the State of California HMP for consistency with the State’s approach to mitigation planning. The following hazards are included in the 2026 LHMP:
• Dam Failure
• Drought
• Earthquake
• Flood
• Landslide
• Sea-Level Rise
• Severe Weather
• Tsunami/Seiche
• Wildfire
The SC used the risk assessment to gauge the potential impacts of hazards identified as “hazards of concern” for this plan. Risk assessment models for hazards of concern in this LHMP are based on current data and technologies. The assessment of each hazard of concern includes discussion of the following:
• Hazard identification and profile.
• The exposure and potential impacts to population, property, and the environment to the hazards.
• The estimated cost of potential damage, where applicable.
Based on the risk assessment, the hazards of concern are ranked as the risk they pose to the City. Results are as follows:
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-5
COMMUNITY CAPABILITIES
The LHMP process included a robust assessment of Oakland’s capabilities , based on information provided by City departments. This process was designed to identify any gaps that need to be addressed for successful implementation of the mitigation actions. The following capability types are analyzed in this LHMP:
• Plans, Programs, Ordinances and Authorities
• Administrative and Technical Capabilities
• Fiscal Capabilities
• NFIP Capabilities
• Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Capabilities
• Public Education and Outreach
The capability assessment results indicate that the City is well -equipped to implement mitigation strategies with existing capabilities.
MITIGATION STRATEGY
The mitigation strategy is the long-term blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment. It describes how the City will accomplish the overall purpose, goals, and objectives of the planning process.
Goals , Objectives , and Actions
The SC reviewed and udpated the mitigation goals from the prior plan to reflect the current focus of the City of Oakland, to integrate current citywide plans, and to add an equity focus where feasible. The 2026 LHMP has five goals of equal priority:
• Goal 1. Advance equity, reduce racial disparities, and ensure ADA accessibility for people with disabilities and individuals with access and functional needs in all phases of preparing for, responding to, and recovering from natural hazards. • Goal 2 . Protect life, property, the environment, and natural and cultural resources equitably.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-6
• Goal 3 . Advance community-driven outreach efforts to equip Oaklanders with the knowledge, resources, and support needed to prepare for, respond to, and recover from natural hazards.
• Goal 4 . Implement strategies to enable departments of the City of Oakland to equitably respond to and mitigate hazards in accordance with the Emergency Operations Plan in an integrated manner.
• Goal 5 . Pursue feasible, cost -effective, and environmentally appropriate hazard mitigation measures including adaptive capacity to reduce risk from a changing climate, incorporating targeted strategies to advance equitable outcomes.
The 2026 LHMP includes objectives that are more clearly paired with mitigation actions, which will support measurable progress and inclusive hazard reduction over the five -year implementation period. City d epartments developed objectives and actions that aligned with the five overarching goals and addressed equity considerations, including accessibility for individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs. This process included consideration of the objectives in the 2021 LHMP. The SC reviewed the objectives and actions developed for the updated LHMP and provided feedback.
Mitigation actions presented in this plan are designed to reduce or eliminate losses resulting from natural hazard events. The LHMP development process resulted in the identification of 75 mitigation actions that will be prioritized over the next five years. Table ES1 summarizes the actions , specifying the designated lead and supporting departments who will implement the action, along with their respective priorities for implementation.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-7
Table ES-1. Mitigation Action Plan for the City of Oakland
MITIGATION OBJECTIVE MITIGATION ACTION LEAD SUPPORT
Objective 1: Ensure the LHMP is
in alignment with the General
Plan and utilizing General Plan
Safety and EJ Element tools to
ensure Equity Priority
Communities have priority for
funding, and access to City
mitigation and emergency
preparedness services.
1. Prioritize hazard preparedness and mitigation funding for communities identified in the General Plan and LHMP as Equity Priority Communities with vulnerability.
OFD ADA
Objective 1 2. Prioritize mitigation and emergency preparedness services for communities identified in the General Plan and LHMP as Equity Priority Communities with vulnerability.
OFD ADA
Objective 2: Individuals with
AFN have priority for funding,
access to City mitigation and
emergency preparedness
services regardless of
geographic area. Services are
accessible to individuals with
AFN.
1. Mitigation and preparedness services will be compliant with ADA, Section 504, Section 508 requirements, and any applicable accessibility policies & laws.
ADA ITD, City
Administrator’s
Office
Objective 2 2. Advocate for the inclusion of considerations for individuals with AFN in planning efforts from other agencies in which Oakland staff participate.
Connect planning efforts with city-affiliated groups.
DRE, ADA
Objective 2 3. Identify and build relationships with local organizations and agencies serving individuals with AFN. Build relationships with other agencies to connect with these organizations to better plan for their needs during a natural hazard event.
City
Administrator’s
Office
OFD
Objective 3: Increase hazard
awareness throughout Oakland
with a focus on Equity Priority
Communities and individuals
with AFN. Reduce disparities in
preparedness and mitigation of
disaster risks.
1. Strengthen partnerships with community-based organizations, faith-based groups, and the private sector to support mitigation outreach and implementation.
OFD ADA, EWDD
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-8
MITIGATION OBJECTIVE MITIGATION ACTION LEAD SUPPORT
Objective 3 2. Develop multilingual hazard awareness campaign including campaign materials for populations facing higher risk, including specific content to meet the needs of individuals with AFN. Involve these communities in providing input to ensure the campaign’s accessibility and cultural competency.
OFD ADA
Objective 3 3. Embed mitigation and preparedness messaging into programs that already serve equity priorities communities and individuals with AFN (e.g., clinics, food banks, youth programs).
OFD ADA
Objective 3 4. Develop an Online 'Know Your Risk' + Equity Map: Create a web tool where residents can view hazards alongside indicators of social vulnerability and find tailored mitigation resources.
OFD ADA
Objective 3 5. Develop community engagement campaign to expand participation in AC Alert programs, hazard mitigation planning and the identification of mitigation projects.
OFD ADA
Objective 4: Maximize potential
for City facilities to protect the
community from hazards.
1. Facilitate resilience improvements in City facilities to reliably serve as resilience hubs or places of respite during hazard events.
Sustainability OFD, OPW, ADA
Objective 4 2. Prioritize investment in City facilities that might be used as respite centers or emergency related support for retrofit and safety improvements.
OPW ADA, OFD,
Sustainability
Objective 4 3. Develop public communication methods to inform about City resources available in the event of a hazard.
OFD ADA, City
Administrators
Office
Objective 5: Encourage the
incorporation of hazard
mitigation measures into
repairs, major alterations, new
development, and
redevelopment practices, and
prioritize Equity Priority
Communities and individuals
with AFN that are subject to
substantial hazard risk.
1. Continue to seek funding to revive Housing Preservation Services programs supporting seismic retrofits of high-risk housing units in Equity Priority Communities. This includes two pending applications for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding from FEMA and Cal OES to re-open the Safer Housing for Oakland Program (SHOP): Soft Story Apartment Retrofit Program, providing financial assistance to property owners with buildings subject to Oakland’s Mandatory Soft Story Retrofit Program.
HCD Planning &
Building, ADA
Objective 5 2. Educate low-income homeowners seeking rehabilitation loans about the purpose and availability of publicly funded seismic retrofit assistance programs, such as the Earthquake Brace + Bolt (EBB) and Earthquake Soft- Story (ESS) programs funded by the State of California/California Earthquake Authority.
HCD ADA
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-9
MITIGATION OBJECTIVE MITIGATION ACTION LEAD SUPPORT
Objective 6: Support and
strengthen or replace property,
infrastructure and lifelines to
minimize post disaster
disruption and facilitate short-
term recovery (1-5 years), with a
focus on Equity Priority
Communities and individuals
with AFN impacted by a hazard
event.
1. Fast track / streamline permitting process with prioritization for Equity Priority Communities and individuals with AFN.
Planning & Building HCD, ADA
Objective 6 2. Consider adoption of a disaster reconstruction overlay zone. As part of this action, re-evaluate all development scenarios and requirements following a hazard event such as a wildfire, landslide, flood, earthquake; explore funding sources and create a low-interest construction loan program for income- qualified owners who are recovering from a disaster.
Planning & Building ADA
Objective 6 3. Consider an ordinance requiring installation and periodic inspection and maintenance of gas shut-off valves in existing buildings at the time of sale, transfer of title, and when upgrades are planned for gas piping to minimize the risk of post-earthquake fires due to gas pipeline ruptures.
Planning & Building ADA
Objective 7: Use the best
available and most recent
hazard data to evaluate the
potential threat and its impacts
on Equity Priority Communities
when reviewing proposed
development opportunities
1. In areas vulnerable to contaminated groundwater rise, study the compounding impacts of sea level rise in groundwater threats in areas with hazardous facilities and Equity Priority Communities. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions as appropriate to develop a Shallow Groundwater Rise Vulnerability assessment to establish a detailed understanding of the effects of rising shallow groundwater on people, the built environment, and water supply.
Sustainability
ADA, OPW
Objective 7 2. Evaluate densities where slopes are at the greatest risk for landslides and consider reducing current permitted development densities and intensities by 2028.
Planning & Building ADA
Objective 8: Develop and
coordinate the City’s Sea Level
Rise strategy.
1. Develop the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan. Sustainability ADA Objective 8 2. Sea-Level Rise Vulnerability and Assessment Improvement Plan - The Port of Oakland’s Sea-Level Rise Vulnerability and Assessment Improvement Plan will assess the potential effects of sea-level rise on maritime facilities. The study will evaluate facilities Port-wide for sea-level rise vulnerability and develop an implementation plan for near-term and long-term strategies to Port of Oakland Planning &
Building,
Sustainability, City
Administrator’s
Office
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-10
MITIGATION OBJECTIVE MITIGATION ACTION LEAD SUPPORT
address potential impacts. The study will analyze the need for infrastructure such as sea walls, wharf improvements, and changes in port operations. In addition, the study will help establish design standards.
Objective 9: Use the best
available data on groundwater
rise and its potential impacts on
Equity Priority Communities
while reviewing proposed
development opportunities in
areas vulnerable to
contaminated groundwater
rise.
1. Study compounding impact of sea level rise on groundwater threats in areas with hazardous facilities. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions as appropriate to create a Shallow Groundwater Rise Vulnerability Assessment to establish a detailed understanding of the effects of rising shallow groundwater on people, the built environment, and water supply. This includes buoyancy, seepage, infiltration, liquefaction, corrosion, and contaminant mobilization hazards. The assessment should have an interactive map component that will be updated based on site-specific geotechnical and topographic data submitted by new developments.
Continue to comply with performance standards pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System municipal stormwater permit.
Planning & Building Sustainability, OPW,
DRE, ADA
Objective 10: Reduce fire risk
during natural hazard events by
reducing natural gas
infrastructure in Oakland.
1. Work with PG&E to implement pilot projects under SB 1221 to identify and eliminate natural gas infrastructure through electrification of homes and businesses, prioritizing those with the potential to result in branch line decommissioning of natural gas piping.
Sustainability ADA
Objective 10 2. Work with public agency partners to provide safety and security information regarding the emergency use of diesel and gasoline powered generators.
Sustainability ADA
Objective 10 3. Promote the widespread use of carbon monoxide detectors in homes and businesses, including through the donation and giveaway programs of carbon monoxide detectors.
Sustainability ADA
Objective 11: Safer Housing for
Oakland Program (SHOP): Soft
Story Apartment Retrofit
Program—Under this action,
the City will invest in and seek
Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) funding from
FEMA and CalOES to support
property owners with buildings
subject to Oakland’s Mandatory
Soft Story Retrofit Program,
which the Department of
Planning & Building developed
to enforce 2019 municipal
ordinance No. 13516.
1. The program will be implemented by contacting owners of the remaining subject buildings that that have not yet completed the required retrofit. This is a discrete list, but these types of buildings tend to be in lower income areas of Oakland. The initial focus will be on Opportunity Zones and other priority areas of need.
HCD ADA
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-11
MITIGATION OBJECTIVE MITIGATION ACTION LEAD SUPPORT
Objective 12: Increase public
awareness of benefits of fire
safety and mitigation practices.
1. Expand on existing strategies to reach low-income, historically hard to reach and non-English speaking populations and individuals with AFN through translated materials, earned media, and strategic engagement planning.
OFD ADA
Objective 12 2. Introduce Firewise program to Equity Priority Communities in the WUI to reduce wildfire risk through resident-led action, education, and collaboration with local fire agencies, focusing on creating defensible space, hardening homes, and developing preparedness plans to become more resilient to wildfires criteria.
OFD ADA
Objective 12 3. Monitoring grant opportunities for the City of Oakland to increase fire safe and fuel mitigation efforts, and expand emergency preparedness.
OFD ADA
Objective 13: Reduce the
likelihood of catastrophic
wildfires by limiting ignition
potential, reducing fuel loads,
and modifying fuel
arrangements on City-owned
lands.
1. Full implementation of the 10 year Vegetation Management Plan to cover more than 1,400 acres of City property plus treatment areas approximately 300 miles of roadside using heavy equipment, hands crews and goats.
OFD ADA
Objective 13 2. Collaborate with CAL FIRE, EBRPD, Oakland Firesafe Council Friends of Joaquin Miller, Friends of Sausal Creek, Firewise Communities to align fire prevention, fuel mitigation and public awareness campaigns to strengthen preparedness, prevention and resiliency strategies.
OFD ADA
Objective 14: Maintain 100%
compliance on private and
public parcels related to
vegetation management.
1. The Vegetation Management Unit of the Oakland Fire Department inspects properties in the Oakland Hills, much of which is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The VMU works under the Oakland Fire Department's Fire Prevention Bureau. The VMU is responsible for the inspections of around 25,000 parcels in the VHFHSZ. The purpose of these inspections is to identify and mitigate hazards that could contribute to the spread, growth, and intensity of wildfire. Inspections are done annually, and property owners are required to actively maintain their parcels in a fire-safe condition year-round.
OFD ADA, OPW
Objective 14 2. Continue to deploy one of the largest herds of goats in CA to mitigate low lying and dry vegetation on roadside and in City open space.
OFD ADA
Objective 15: In high hazard
areas, develop local programs
and messaging to ensure broad
awareness and specifically
among Equity Priority
Communities for defensible
space maintenance, home
1. Continue to provide fire safety and public education efforts related to requirements for development, property maintenance, and emergency preparedness in the VHFHSZ and prioritize the most vulnerable populations in these areas.
OFD ADA
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-12
MITIGATION OBJECTIVE MITIGATION ACTION LEAD SUPPORT
hardening, and training for
evacuation procedures to
reduce risk to people and
property.
Objective 16: Reduce instances
of storm-related tree and
branch failures that may cause
road closures, property
damage, and threats to life by
reinstating a regular
pruning/maintenance cycle on
all city trees. Prioritize tree
maintenance activities in
frontline communities.
1. Prune all trees in the public right of way on regular 7-year intervals, as described in the 2024 Oakland Urban Forest Plan, to address preventable whole tree and branch failures during wind and wind/rain events.
OPW ADA
Objective 16 2. Implement the awarded USDA Forest Service Inflation Reduction Act funding to begin routine pruning in Oakland’s highest-priority census tracts per the OakDOT Geographic Equity Toolbox.
OPW ADA
Objective 16 3. Identify additional funding sources to regularly prune trees in the rest of Oakland, with work focusing on census tracts based on priority level identified in the Geographic Equity Toolbox.
OPW ADA
Objective 17: Complete the
City’s Storm Drainage Master
Plan.
1. Identify feasible, equitable (using the CIP prioritization system), and cost- effective stormwater infrastructure projects that would increase system capacity, have been identified in the City’s capital improvement program and/or Storm Drainage Master Plan, that and would be good target projects for which to pursue funding under applicable local, state, and federal grant programs.
OPW OakDOT, ADA
Objective 17 2. Conduct equitable outreach and engagement as we implement all CIP Storm Drainage projects.
OPW OakDOT, ADA
Objective 17 3. Leverage funding opportunities that may be available through government grants or projects conducted by DOT.
OPW OakDOT, ADA
Objective 17 4. Tree Planning. Implement the component of the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan that looks to quantify the stormwater capture and pollutant removal benefit of tree planting and modeling where in the city stormwater runoff reduction could be achieved through increased tree canopy. Coordinate with Tree Services Division to make sure it corresponds to the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
OPW OakDOT, ADA
Objective 18: Identify, integrate,
and implement green
infrastructure practices into
1. The City will continue to implement its Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan to include GSI where required by the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and where feasible. Examples include bioretention areas, OPW OakDOT, Planning
& Building, ADA
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-13
MITIGATION OBJECTIVE MITIGATION ACTION LEAD SUPPORT
streetscape improvement, and
stormwater management
projects.
engineered tree well filters, green roofs, flow-through planters, and permeable pavement.
Objective 18 2. Encourage developers to include green infrastructure practices. Planning & Building OPW, ADA Objective 19: Minimize
repetitive and potential losses
due to flood by maintaining
compliance with the NFIP and
improving floodplain
operations.
1. Continue to maintain the City’s good standing and compliance under the NFIP through:
• Enforce the City’s flood damage prevention ordnance
• Update the City’s flood damage prevention ordinance to ensure compliance with state and federal requirements
City Administrator’s
Office
Planning &
Building, OPW,
ADA
Objective 19 2. Participate in floodplain and mapping updates and advocate for accuracy in updated maps based on locally documented conditions.
OPW Planning &
Building, ADA
Objective 19 3. Build community knowledge of floodplain concerns and revised floodplain mapping in an inclusive manner. Provide public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
OPW and Planning
& Building
ADA
Objective 20: Explore resources
and steps needed to participate
in CRS program.
1. Complete CRS assessment and determine City of Oakland readiness for participation.
City Administrator's
Office, OPW,
Planning & Building
ADA
Objective 21: Complete the
City’s Storm Drainage Master
Plan
1. Identify feasible, equitable (using the CIP prioritization system), and cost- effective stormwater infrastructure projects that would increase system capacity, have been identified in the City’s capital improvement program and/or Storm Drainage Master Plan, that and would be good target projects for which to pursue funding under applicable local, state, and federal grant programs.
OPW ADA
Objective 21 2. Conduct equitable outreach and engagement as we implement all CIP Storm Drainage projects.
OPW ADA
Objective 21 3. Leverage funding opportunities that may be available through government grants or projects conducted by DOT and OPW.
OPW OakDOT, ADA
Objective 22: Prevent
discharge of wastewater
contamination into waterways
as a result of natural hazards.
Enhance social equity by
implementing sewer system
improvement project with high
1. Extend the service life of the City’s sewer collection system. Complete 13-mile of sewer collection system rehabilitation annually to extend service life.
Prioritize repairs based on risk factors and equity factors.
OPW ADA
2. Enhance social equity by implementing sewer system improvement project with high CIP scores focusing on underserved communities.
OPW ADA
3. Complete 50-mile sewer pipelines with root control treatment to improve sewage conveyance annually.
OPW ADA
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-14
MITIGATION OBJECTIVE MITIGATION ACTION LEAD SUPPORT
CIP scores focusing on
underserved communities.
Objective 22 4. Partner with Alameda County Health Department for Fat/Oil/Grease (FOG) enforcement and outreach focusing on Food Service Establishments and high FOG contributors.
OPW ADA
5. Continue to send abatement notices to property owners with private sewer lateral defects.
OPW ADA
6. Engage communities by sending out project notices and/or flyers prior and during project implementation to households and businesses in the targeted areas.
OPW ADA
Objective 22 7. Faster project delivery by eliminating project barriers to expedite project implementation, including but not limited to, contractor outreach, enhanced contracting process, onsite support/enforcement.
OPW ADA
8. Equitable access by providing guidance to property owners on sewer lateral corrections.
OPW ADA
9. For major capital sanitary sewer subbasin projects, the City will continue to replace private lower laterals where applicable within the City right-of-way where the sewer main is replaced.
OPW ADA
Objective 23: Monitor and
measure number of miles of
sewer main rehabilitation
annually. Complete sanitary
sewer masterplan by end of
2025. Obtain priority of work
with risk and equity
components.
1. Enhance social equity by implementing sewer system improvement project with high CIP scores focusing on underserved communities.
OPW ADA
Objective 23 2. Engage communities by sending out project notices and/or flyers prior and during project implementation to households and businesses in the targeted areas.
OPW ADA
Objective 23 3. Faster project delivery by eliminating project barriers to expedite project implementation, including but not limited to, contractor outreach, enhanced contracting process, onsite support/enforcement.
OPW ADA
Objective 23 4. Send abatement notices to property owners with private sewer lateral defects. Provide equitable access by providing guidance to property owners on sewer lateral corrections.
OPW ADA
Objective 23 5. For major capital sanitary sewer subbasin projects, the City will continue to replace private lower laterals where applicable within the City right-of-way where the sewer main is replaced.
OPW ADA
Objective 24: Integrate
Integrated Preparedness Plan
(IPP) priorities into
departmental work plans.
1. Develop the annual IPP Work Plan that lists priority preparedness activities, responsible departments, milestones, and supports implementation of relevant LHMP mitigation actions.
OFD ADA
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-15
MITIGATION OBJECTIVE MITIGATION ACTION LEAD SUPPORT
Objective 24 2. Conduct an Annual Integrated Preparedness Planning Workshop (IPPW)with internal and external partners to review opportunities for capacity and capability improvements for risk reduction and update the multi-year IPP schedule.
OFD ADA
Objective 24 3. Maintain a Multi-Year Preparedness Calendar of trainings, exercises, plan updates, outreach events, and major projects.
OFD ADA
Objective 25: To mitigate the
effects of disruptions, ensure
the city’s ability to maintain
internal operations and external
services with a focus on the
needs of Equity Priority
Communities and individuals
with AFN.
1. Each City department will submit Continuity of Operations Plans (COOPs) to the Emergency Management Services Division of OFD on an annual basis.
Each department will keep these plans current by submitting revisions as needed.
OFD ADA
Objective 26: Reduce risk to
critical Port of Oakland facilities
and infrastructure through
targeted seismic, flood, and
climate resilience
improvements, enhanced
monitoring capabilities, and
modernization of energy
systems to ensure operational
continuity during hazard
events.
1. Wharf Seismic and Structural Resilience Upgrade- Implement a comprehensive Wharf Repair and Upgrade Project to enhance resilience against earthquakes and severe storm conditions. The project will include:
• Seismic Upgrades: Strengthen wharf structures to withstand ground shaking and minimize catastrophic damage during major earthquakes. • Structural Enhancements: Improve load distribution, reinforce critical connections, and repair or replace deteriorated piles to restore vertical and lateral support.
• Concrete Rehabilitation: Remove delaminated concrete, install corrosion-resistant reinforcement, and place new concrete to restore deck integrity and reduce maintenance needs.
Port of Oakland
Objective 26 2. Maritime Area Seismic Monitors - The Port of Oakland’s Seaport terminals are generally constructed of pile-supported wharf structures with riprap bulkheads retaining soil at the back of the terminals. The Port proposes to implement additional seismic monitoring equipment at Berths 23–26 and Berths 57–58, as well as repair existing equipment at Berths 35–37. Port personnel have identified difficulty in assessing potential damage to terminals after a major earthquake due to limited functioning seismic monitoring equipment. The proposed installations will fill gaps in the current monitoring system by providing a more complete picture at Inner Harbor, Middle Harbor, and Outer Harbor locations. This will allow engineers to focus on inspections of areas most susceptible to damage and proceed with repairs to resume operations quickly.
Port of Oakland
Objective 26 3. North Field Flood Protection Study and Adaptation Plan - Building on the 2023 North Field Vulnerability Study, the Port of Oakland will lead a comprehensive analysis to:
• Confirm design of flood elevations and critical infrastructure vulnerabilities.
Port of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-16
MITIGATION OBJECTIVE MITIGATION ACTION LEAD SUPPORT
• Assess wetlands, culverts, and drainage systems.
• Identify near-term flood protection measures and phased adaptation strategies.
• Develop coordination protocols with Caltrans, East Bay Regional Park District, City of Alameda, and other stakeholders.
Objective 26 4. Old Earhart Road Floodwall Improvement - Based on the 2023 North Field Vulnerability Study, the Port of Oakland will implement a localized flood protection project at Old Earhart Road. The project will:
• Raise Old Earhart Road to connect two existing high points on the north side of North Field.
• Construct two short floodwalls totaling approximately 530 feet to close gaps and create a continuous barrier.
• Reduce flood risk for critical airport infrastructure and maintain operational continuity during extreme weather and sea level rise events.
Port of Oakland
Objective 26 5. Modernize Port Energy Infrastructure for Resilience and Reliability - Port Public Power will strengthen energy resilience by modernizing the Port’s electrical infrastructure and planning for future grid demands. This action includes:
• Conducting a comprehensive assessment of existing systems • Identifying critical upgrades
• Integrating advanced technologies to support full-scale electrification Over the next decade, the Port will implement renewable generation projects, battery storage systems, and smart grid solutions to:
• Enhance operational flexibility
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Provide uninterrupted service to critical facilities during hazard events Port of Oakland
Objective 26 6. Maritime Terminal Study on Liquefaction Potential - The Port of Oakland is located in a geographic area highly prone to liquefaction and, as a result, infrastructure damage from seismic activity. To mitigate risk and prepare for imminent seismic events, the Port will conduct a comprehensive liquefaction study at its marine terminals. This study will evaluate liquefaction potential throughout the terminals and its effects on Port infrastructure. It will identify areas and facilities most at risk and outline a plan for mitigation, retrofit, and emergency response.
Port of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Executive Summary Black & Veatch ES-17
IMPLEMENTING , ADOPTING, AND MAINTAINING THE PLAN
The LHMP action items provide a framework for activities that the City of Oakland can implement over the next 5 years. The goals objectives , and mitigation actions will be implemented through existing plans, policies, and programs.
The City of Oakland’s Emergency Management Services Division (EMSD) Manager and the Planning & Building Department will have co -lead responsibility for overseeing the plan implementation and maintenance strategy. Plan implementation and evaluation will be a shared responsibility among all agencies identified as lead agencies in the mitigation action plan.
The Oakland City Council has adopted the 2026 LHMP and will hold responsibility for allocating City resources to ensure it is implemented. As part of the City ’s General Plan Update led by the Planning & Building Department, City Council adopted an updated Safety Element, updated Housing Element and created a new Environmental Justice Element (September 26, 2023). The updated Safety Element adopted the 2021 LHMP, and city staff will seek to adopt the 2026 LHMP as an appendix to the Safety Element as well.
Plan maintenance of the LHMP will include the following:
• Monitoring implementation of the mitigation actions.
• Progress reporting.
• A strategy for continued public involvement.
• Plan integration with other relevant plans and programs.
This LHMP is designed with an adaptive management approach that can evolve along with funding sources and state and federal mandates. The framework established by this plan will enable the City to pursue FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant fundin g for feasible, eligible, and cost -effective actions. The City developed this plan with extensive opportunities for public involvement and input.
P
art 1 - Introduction &
Planning Process
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Introduction Black & Veatch 1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 WHY PREPARE THIS PLAN?
Hazard mitigation reduces the loss of life, property, and environmental damage caused by natural and human -made disasters. Hazard Mitigation Plan consists of long -term and short -term policies, programs, projects, and other activities.
The City of Oakland prepared this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to better protect the residents, property, and assets throughout the City from the effects of natural hazards, and to establish eligibility for pre - and post - disaster FEMA grants.
Hazard mitigation plays a crucial role in emergency management by working to reduce the impacts of disasters on individuals, communities, and important assets. By implementing mitigation measures, we can help prevent the same areas from being repeatedly impacted by disasters. Mitigation is part of the emergency management cycle, which is divided into four phases:
• Preparedness
is when we develop or update activities, programs and systems before an event happens. These activities are often tested (or exercised) in non -emergency situations to determine their effectiveness. Emergency managers also assess potential risks, hazards, and vulnerabilities in this phase.
• Response
focuses on the immediate
and short-term effects of a disaster. It is
usually focused on life safety and
preventing immediate damage.
• Recovery
is a long -term phase that
looks to return a community to normal,
or to a more resilient state, after a
disaster.
• Mitigation
focuses on building (or
rebuilding) in ways that reduce the risk
more permanently. It is an activity that
can occur at any point in the emergency
management cycle. For example,
communities can undertake mitigation
actions before a disaster (the
preparedness phase) or while rebuilding
after a disaster (the recovery phase)
(FEMA 2023).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Introduction Black & Veatch 1-2
1.1.1 Federal and State Eligibility
Federal Eligibility
In an effort to reduce the Nation's mounting natural
disaster losses, the US Congress passed the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), which amended the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act. Section 322 of DMA 2000 emphasiz es
the need for state and local government entities to
closely coordinate on mitigation planning activities and requires a LHMP for any local government applying for
federal mitigation grant funds. These funds primary fall under FEMA HMA program. Grant pr ograms under
HMA include the following:
• Fire Management Assistance Grant.
• Flood Mitigation Assistance.
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
• Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams (HHPD).
• Public Assistance – Categories C through G.
Entities with an adopted and federally -approved LHMP are pre -positioned to receive available mitigation funds before and after the next disaster strikes. The plan was developed to make Oakland eligible for pre- and post-disaster FEMA grants.
State Eligibility
Assembly Bill Number 2140 (AB 2140) allows counties
and cities in California to be considered for additional state cost-share on eligible Public Assistance projects by adopting their current, FEMA -approved local
hazard mitigation plans into the Safety Element of
their General Plan. This adoption, along with other
requirements, makes the county or city eligible to be
considered fo r part or all of its local -share costs on eligible Public Assistance projects to be provided by the state through the California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA) (Cal OES 2024).
1.2 PURPOSES FOR PLANNING
The City of Oakland prepared , formally approved and adopted this DMA 2000 -compliant hazard mitigation plan . The plan was approved by Cal OES and FEMA. The plan identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risk from natural hazards. Elements and strategies in the plan meet program requirements and the intent of the City and its residents to mitigate hazards. The plan will help guide mitigation activities throughout the planning area. It was developed to meet the following needs:
• Meet or exceed program requirements specified under the DMA.
Hazard mitigation is any sustained
action taken to reduce or eliminate
long-term risk to life and property
from hazards.
FEMA defines a Hazard Mitigation
Plan as a community-driven
process to help state, local, tribal,
and territorial governments plan
for hazard risk. By planning for risk
and setting a strategy for action,
governments can reduce the
negative impacts of future
disasters.
Once the mitigation plan is approved
by Cal OES and FEMA, the local
jurisdiction must then adopt the
mitigation plan into the Safety
Element of their General Plan
following the requirements outlined
by Cal OES.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Introduction Black & Veatch 1-3
• Enable the City of Oakland to apply for federal grant funding to reduce hazard risk through mitigation.
• Fulfill state and federal requirements for hazard mitigation planning. • Create a risk assessment that focuses on the hazards of concern in Oakland. • Coordinate existing plans and programs so that high -priority projects to mitigate potential disaster impacts are funded and implemented.
• Serve as an implementation tool for the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan. • Develop hazard and risk information utilizing Equity Priority Community data developed by the City’s General Plan Environmental Justice Element.
1.3 WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS PLAN?
All residents, businesses, and employees in the City of Oakland are the beneficiaries of this hazard mitigation plan. The plan reduces risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the City.
It provides a viable planning framework for all foreseeable natural hazards. Participation in development of the plan by key stakeholders helped to ensure that the outcomes will be mutually beneficial. The plan’s goals and recommendations lay the groundwork for the development and implementation of equitable local mitigation activities and partnerships.
1.4 FOCUS ON EQUITY
1.4.1 City of Oakland’s Equity History and Goals
Social equity is critical in promoting healthy and inclusive communities. Oakland has a long history of activism around issues of racial equity and social justice. The City takes a systemic approach to eliminating disparities and barriers to accessing City resources and services with the goal of increasing the well-being of all Oakland residents.
In 2016, the City changed its Municipal Code to define equity and the conditions needed to implement it in its departments, The City of Oakland Municipal Code defines equity as fairness. It means that identity —such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, or expression —has no detrimental effect on the distribution of resources, opportunities, and outcome s for the City’s residents. The Department of Race and Equity (DRE) was then created to provide support and the design of a citywide framework , tools and infrastructure. In 2017, Oakland was chosen to be among the first cohort of five cities to develop loc al equity indicator tools in partnership with the City University of New York’s Institute for State and Local Governance, with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. The project began as a joint effort between the Resilient Oakland Office and the DRE. It resulted in a baseline report of racial disparities in Oakland. The 2018 Equity Indicators Reports started to be used by City departments to identify disparities that could be addressed through their lines of business, In 2024, The National Civic League r ecognized Oakland as one of the best ten Cities in the areas or Equity and Inclusive Engagement noting that most of its ma jor policy and planning efforts had adopted the equity process and framework developed by DRE in collaborations with City Departments. Oakland City Departments strive to advance equity by using this process to identify strategies determined through an intentional focus on racial and ethnic disparities and their root causes, informed by community input and City staff expertise.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Introduction Black & Veatch 1-4
Oakland’s General Plan Environmental Justice and Safety Element provides a quantitative framework used by City staff and community members to better understand the impacts of race, measure disparities, and track changes in policy to eliminate negative impacts of past policies for different groups over time. This framework inform s policies that address these disparities and is built upon the data provided in the Equity Indicators Report.
1.4.2 Addressing Equity in Hazard Mitigation
There are many examples of what happens in a disaster when vulnerable communities are not taken into consideration in the planning process. Tragedies like Hurricane Katrina, and most recently fires in California where non-English speakers, especially Asian Americans and Spanish speaking population struggled to receive notifications, information and resources, highlight the need to take a more holistic approach to Hazard Mitigation Planning.
The planning process for this hazard mitigation plan was designed to stimulate better, more effective, sustainable and vital connections between stakeholders, toward the common objective of mitigating hazard risks to the community. The plan emphasizes equi ty to empower the City’s most vulnerable people to play a role in building resilience. This focus on equity aligns with the City’s approach to evaluate burdens, benefits, and outcomes on underserved communities. The equity process was applied throughout the public outreach process, in the evaluation of risk, and in the development of mitigation actions.
The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan utilizes the Environmental Justice Communities identified in the Environmental Justice Element of the City’s General Plan as Equity Priority Communities. These Equity Priority Communities are analyzed to determine exposure to and risk from natural hazards.
As part of the General Plan Environmental Justice
Element, the City developed a screening analysis to
identify EJC that consists of a composite set of
indicators (quantitative metrics of EJ issues). Each
indicator is scored and then combined to identify the
topmost cumulatively burdened communities (City of
Oakland 2023) . Refer to the Environmental Justice
Element of the General Plan for further details on the
how the City identified the EJC. Refer to Figure 1-1 that shows the distribution of the EJCs.
Through this broad engagement and focus on equity, the City seeks to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards for all communities so that the benefits of hazard mitigation, such as the following, can be shared by all:
• A faster recovery and return to normal life for neighborhoods after a hazard event • Reduced stress on emergency responders and social services • A faster return to work for workers after a hazard event, resulting in less economic disruption and fewer businesses closing
• Maintenance of the culture, diversity, and distinct neighborhoods of the City For this LHMP update, the composite
score of each census tract was
divided into three categories (91 -100,
81-90, and ≤80). Populations in these
categories are recognized as priority
communities that are most affected
by the hazard.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Introduction Black & Veatch 1-5
The planning process sought to identify specific needs for targeted mitigation actions that can overcome traditional barriers and challenges to equity. Such actions should achieve the following objectives:
• Minimize the impacts of hazard events.
• Provide a better quality of life for all groups and members of the community. • Build trust and networks that can be relied upon for other developmental activities. • Promote overall sustainability and resilience.
The risk assessments and the action plan in this hazard mitigation plan aimed for equity by considering the diversity of communities in the City and each community’s access to resources (including information, knowledge, and technology), social networks an d connections, beliefs and customs, age, gender, race, health, and physical ability. The City will continue to apply an equity lens to address hazard mitigation that aligns with its equity priorities.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Introduction Black & Veatch 1-6
Figure 1-1. Environmental Justice Communities in the City of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Introduction Black & Veatch 1-7
1.5 NAVIGATING THE LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The 2026 City of Oakland LHMP was prepared to align with FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide (April 2025), FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Handbook ( June 2025), and the State of California planning requirements.
Throughout th is plan, FEMA’s local hazard mitigation planning requirements and state- specific compliance are identified using the icons below. These provide a pathway to show where the LHMP meets each requirement.
FEMA Mitigation Plan Requirement – 44 CFR Part 201.6
Used to identify the requirements met for a local hazard mitigation plan.
California Senate Bill Compliance
Used to identify where the plan complies with California Senate Bills related to hazard mitigation planning.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Update – What Has Changed Black & Veatch 2-1
2. PLAN UPDATE – WHAT HAS CHANGED
Preparation of the 2026 City of Oakland Local Hazard Mitigation Plan continues the hazard mitigation planning process that has been in place in the City of Oakland since the early 1970s, with the adoption of the first Seismic and Safety Elements to the City’s General Plan.
The City of Oakland is a leader in the regional discussion of hazards, hazards mitigation, and disaster recovery. The City was designated one of the first Disaster Resistant Communities in the United States, as well as one of the first “100 Resilient Cities.” This is the fourth update to the City of Oakland’s initial 2006 hazard mitigation plan (previously updated in 2011 , 2016, and 2021 ). Prior plan updates reconciled changes or enhancements made to the plan as required by FEMA for local hazard mitigation plan updates. This section reconciles changes and enhancements to the 2021 update.
2.1 THE 2021 PLAN
Oakland’s 2021 hazard mitigation plan established a 22-member Steering Committee of City staff and area stakeholders to oversee all phases of the planning process. The mission of the 2021 LHMP was:
To equitably reduce risk and increase resilience, the mission of the City of Oakland local hazard mitigation plan is to establish and promote a comprehensive mitigation strategy and efforts to protect the whole community and environment from identified natural and manmade hazards.
The following goals and objectives were determined in alignment with the City’s mission statement.
2.1.1 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals
1. Protect life, property, the environment, and natural and cultural resources.
2. Increase public awareness of and the prevention and preparedness for risks.
3. Coordinate with other programs that can support or enhance hazard mitigation.
4. Increase the effectiveness of emergency services provided to the City.
5. Pursue feasible, cost -effective, and environmentally sound hazard mitigation measures.
6. Increase adaptive capacity to reduce risk from hazard impacts based on a changing climate.
7. Reduce racial disparities in how communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from local hazards.
2.1.2 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan Objectives
1. Reduce repetitive losses due to flood, fire, and earthquake by informing land use, design, and construction policies.
2. Identify natural and manmade hazards that threaten life and property in the City.
3. Use best available hazard data while reviewing proposed development opportunities.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Update – What Has Changed Black & Veatch 2-2
4. Encourage the incorporation of hazard mitigation measures into repairs, major alterations, new development, and redevelopment practices, especially in areas subject to substantial hazard risk.
5. Encourage and support leadership within the private sector, non-profit agencies, and community-based organizations to promote and implement local hazard mitigation activities.
6. Incorporate risk reduction considerations in new and updated infrastructure and development plans to reduce the impacts of hazards.
7. Continue providing City emergency services staff with training and equipment to address all identified hazards.
8. Develop and provide updated information about threats, hazards, vulnerabilities, and mitigation strategies to state, regional, and local agencies, as well as private sector and nonprofit groups.
9. Establish and maintain partnerships among all levels of government, private sector, community groups, and institutions of higher learning that improve and implement methods to protect life and property.
10. Create financial and regulatory incentives to motivate stakeholders such as homeowners, private sector businesses, and nonprofit community organizations to mitigate hazards and risk.
11. Continue developing and strengthening inter -jurisdictional coordination and cooperation in the area of emergency services.
12. Support the protection of vital records, and strengthen or replace buildings, infrastructure, and lifelines to minimize post -disaster disruption and facilitate short - term and long-term recovery.
13. Coordinate state and local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement climate action strategies through hazard mitigation plans and actions.
14. Implement hazard mitigation programs and projects that protect life, property, and the environment.
15. Promote and implement hazard mitigation plans and projects that are consistent with state, regional and local climate adaptation goals, policies, and programs.
16. Advance community resilience through preparation, adoption, and implementation of state, regional, and local multi-hazard mitigation plans and projects.
17. Prioritize vulnerable populations in policy responses, including but not limited to, low- income individuals and families; people of color; the young; the elderly; people with disabilities; people with existing health issues; and people with limited English proficiency.
During the 2021 LHMP planning process , City staff engaged Oakland residents at six community meetings and through an online survey, to hear their concerns and priorities for reducing risks from known hazards. Due to COVID-19 considerations, all public events were held as virtual town halls, using the City’s Zoom account and were widely accessible to any interested community members and/or stakeholders.
The City convened a group of internal City staff in various departments, as well as outside agencies and districts, to update hazard risk profiles and prioritize equitable mitigation measures. To address the impacts from the nine hazards that were assessed, the plan identified and prioritized 21 mitigation strategies with assigned implementation and funding priority.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Update – What Has Changed Black & Veatch 2-3
2.2 WHY UPDATE?
2.2.1 Federal Eligibility
In response to the requirements of the DMA 2000, which requires local governmental agencies to develop and update its LHMP every 5 years, this plan serves as the 2026 update to the 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The City of Oakland LHMP update is in alignment with FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide (April 2025), FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (June 2025), and the State of California planning requirements.
Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) stipulates that hazard mitigation plans must present a schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan (see Section
20.4). This provides an opportunity to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been accomplished, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of mitigation strategies. The Robert T. Stafford Act requires that jurisdictions have current hazard mitigation plans to pursue and receive certain federal grant funding.
2.2.2 Changes in Development
Tracking previous and future growth in potential hazard areas provides an overview of increased exposure to hazards within a community. This requirement ensures that the mitigation strategy continues to address the risk and vulnerability of existing and po tential development and takes into consideration possible future conditions that could impact vulnerability.
As of January 1, 2025, the reported population estimate for the City of Oakland was 426,457, representing a decrease of 1.07% from the 2021 reported population (California Department of Finance 2025) . The total number of 191,411 housing units was reported, a 6.23 percent increase, and the average number of persons per household was 2.31, a decrease of 6.97 percent, for the same time frame. The change in demographics for household types over the performance period was as follows:
• Single Detached: +0.49 percent
• Single Attached: +2.32 percent
• 2 to 4 Units: +0.73 percent
• Five or More Units: +16.35 percent
• Mobile Homes: no change
The City has adopted a general plan that governs land -use decisions and policymaking, as well as a building code and specialty ordinances based on state and federal mandates. The updated LHMP assumes that some new development triggered by the increase in population occurred in hazard areas. All such new development would have been regulated pursuant to local programs and codes. Therefore, it is assumed that hazard vulnerability did not measurably increase even if exposure did. Any new development would have accounted Local Plan Requirement E1—44 CFR Part 201.6(d)(3)
A local jurisdiction must review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Update – What Has Changed Black & Veatch 2-4
for potential hazard impacts under codes and standards such as the International Building Code and flood damage prevention requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
A comprehensive review of permitting since completion of the previous plan can help to identify recent development trends and anticipated future development. Table 2-1 summarizes development trends in the performance period since the preparation of the previous hazard mitigation plan, as well as expected future development trends.
Table 2-1 Recent and Expected Future Development Trends Criterion Response
Land annexed since last
hazard mitigation plan
None.
Land targeted for
annexation in next five
years
None.
Areas targeted for
development or major
redevelopment in the next
five years, and whether
any of the areas interface
with known hazard risk
areas.
The City has an extensive list of development and redevelopment proposals throughout the City. These developments are highly likely to interface with one or more of the hazards assessed by this plan. The City’s General Plan and Building Code provide the capacity to address the risk to these developments when they interface with a known hazard area.
Number of permits for
new construction issued in
the City since the
preparation of the
previous hazard mitigation
plan
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Single Family 215 323 346 235 243
Multi-Family 892 1,344 1,563 560 785
Other (commercial, mixed use,
etc.)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 3127 3,688 3,931 2818 3052
Notes:
Other (commercial, mixed-use, etc.) building permit types typically fall under the multifamily category.
Single-family permits include detached single-family, townhomes, condos, and accessory dwelling units.
Multi-family permits are for structures with 2+ units
Number of new
construction permits for
each hazard area (or
qualitative description of
where development has
occurred).
The City currently does not track permit activity by known hazard areas, with the exception of new development proposals that occur within the FEMA-designated special flood hazard area, pursuant to the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Level of buildout in the
City, based on a buildable
lands inventory.
Oakland does not have a buildable lands inventory.
2.2.3 Changes in Risk
As will be shown in Chapter 4, Section 4.5.2 of this LHMP, the general building stock (GBS) in the City has a 2025 assessed valuation of $128.97 billion, a n increase of 8.8% of the assessed value for the general building stock in 2020. It is important to note that while the value of general building stock in the City increased, the footprint of the City through annexation or expansion did not. The permit activity noted in Table 2-1 is primarily associated with City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Update – What Has Changed Black & Veatch 2-5
redevelopment. As noted above, all development or redevelopment within the City would have been regulated accor ding to the City’s General Plan and adopted building codes.
Redevelopment with oversight f rom a General Plan and building code applications is considered to lower the risk as it strengthens or replaces sub-standard building stock. While the 2026 LHMP may show an increase in exposure and /or loss estimations, these increases are viewed as directly attributable to the increase in property value within the City. Examples of changes in risk identified from the 2021 LHMP and this update are shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends Hazard
2021 LHMP
GBS Value Exposed
2026 LHMP
GBS Value Exposed % Change
Dam Failure1 $20,239,748,722 $17,213,821,280 -17.6%
Earthquake2 $117,570,761,434 $128,971,332,346 8.8%
100-Year Flood $1,108,508,129 $1,671,521,003 33.7%
Landslide (Very High) $1,132,210,919 $3,114,145,788 63.6% SLR-2050 1,622,061,045 $11,802,105,142 86.3%
SLR-2100 17,639,582,766 $23,054,285,189 23.5%
Tsunami $16,162,563,441 $16,965,465,804 4.7%
Wildfire (Very High FHSZ) $9,551,318,096 $19,255,494,290 50.4% Severe Weather2 $117,570,761,434 $128,971,332,346 8.8%
(1) Number decreased due to mapping
(2) GBS value for the entire City since the hazard impacts all areas of the City.
2.3 THE UPDATED PLAN – WHAT IS DIFFERENT?
The 2026 LHMP has been improved and revised in response to changes in community priorities, planning requirements and overall improvements. Key changes are outlined as follows:
• Mission Statement – The mission statement of the LHMP was revised to include equity, an overarching priority of all planning efforts in the City reinforced by the adoption of the General Plan Environmental Justice Element in 2023. • Plan Integration – Goals have been updated to align with equity considerations, current initiatives, programs, as well as to meet identified state priorities. • Goals and Objectives – City departments recognized that many the goals and objectives in the prior plan lacked a measureable component. To more closely align with current City priorities for accountability, this update focuses on measurable objectives for each mitigation action.
• Equity Priority Communities – The update d plan defines Equity Priority Communities in alignment with the City ‘s Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan and includes enhancements to increase its focus on Equity Priority Communities and serving individuals with access and functional needs. This includes Local Plan Requirement E2—44 CFR Part 201.6(d)(3)
A local jurisdiction must review and revise its plan to reflect changes in community priorities.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Update – What Has Changed Black & Veatch 2-6
expansion in community engagement efforts, incorporation of hazard zone overlay mapping in the equity analysis, and a process to develop mitigation objectives and actions that incorporated equity and services for individuals with access and functional needs.
• Climate Change Impacts – The updated plan integrates a dedicated a subsection for each hazard of concern to the issue of climate change and its potential effects on climate-related hazards.
• Risk Ranking – Hazard risk ranking methodology was revised to align with input from the extensive community outreach efforts at the beginning of the planning process.
The revised methodology accounts for resident displacement, economic impacts, environmental impacts, and transportation impacts.
• Community Outreach – The City’s priorities for inclusive community outreach have changed significantly since the 2021 LHMP, when all engagement was held virtually to align with priorities for social distancing due to the COVID -19 pandemic.
Community outreach priorities for the 2026 update focused on reaching people at in- person events in their own communities.
The following table indicates the changes between the 2021 LHMP and this 2026 update as they related to 44 CFR requirements.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Update – What Has Changed Black & Veatch 2-7
Table 2-3 Plan Changes Crosswalk
44 CFR Requirement (April 2025) 2021 LHMP 2026 LHMP Update Element A: Planning Process
Does the plan document the planning process,
including how it was prepared and who was
involved in the process for each jurisdiction?
(44 CFR § 201.6(c)(1))
The 2021 LHMP documented the planning
process in Chapter 3 (Plan Development
Approach).
The 2026 LHMP update documents the
planning process in Section 3 (Planning
Process).
Does the plan document an opportunity for
neighboring communities, local and regional
agencies involved in hazard mitigation
activities, and agencies that have the authority
to regulate development as well as businesses,
academia, and other private and non-profit
interests to be involved in the planning
process? (44 CFR § 201.6(b)(2))
The 2021 LHMP process identified key
stakeholders and coordinated with them
throughout the process.
The 2026 LHMP update provided multiple
opportunities for neighboring communities and
stakeholders to be involved in the planning
process. This is described in Section 3.5
(Stakeholder Outreach Involvement).
Does the plan document how the public was
involved in the planning process during the
drafting stage and prior to plan approval? (44
CFR § 201.6(b)(1))
Two groups played significant roles in the
planning process for the 2021 plan update:
• A core planning team, made up of discipline
leads from the City and technical
consultants, made all milestone decisions on
plan process and content.
• Those milestone decisions were vetted and
validated through an oversite Steering
Committee made up of City staff and
outside stakeholders.
Both committees reviewed existing plans and
programs that could support or enhance the
outcomes from this plan and identified and
participated in a robust public engagement
strategy including a community member
survey, public forums, and a public comment
period.
The 2026 LHMP update provided multiple
opportunities for the public to be involved in
the planning process. This is described in
Section 3.6 (Public Participation and
Involvement).
Does the plan describe the review and
incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports,
and technical information? (44 CFR §
201.6(b)(3))
A comprehensive review of relevant plants and
programs was performed by the planning
team.
A comprehensive review of relevant plans and
programs was performed by the planning
team, as discussed in Section 3.8 (Review and
Incorporation of Existing Programs) and Section
18 (Capability Assessment).
Element B: Risk Assessment
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Update – What Has Changed Black & Veatch 2-8
44 CFR Requirement (April 2025) 2021 LHMP 2026 LHMP Update 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? (44 CFR § 201.6(c)(2)(i))
Comprehensive risk assessments of each
hazard of concern are presented in Chapters 7
through 15. Each chapter includes the following:
• Hazard profile, including maps of extent and
location, historical occurrences, frequency,
severity, and warning time
• Secondary hazards
• Exposure of people, property, critical
facilities, and the environment
• Vulnerability of people, property, critical
facilities, and the environment
• Future trends in development
• Scenarios
• Issues
• The hazards are compared to each other via
a risk ranking methodology described in
Chapter 17.
Comprehensive risk assessments of each
hazard of concern are presented in Chapters 7
through 15. Each chapter includes the following:
• Description of the hazard
• Location
• Extent including intensity, warning time,
and worst-case scenarios
• Previous occurrences
• Future conditions including probability,
climate change, and potential future
impacts
• Vulnerability of the hazards on the
population, general building stock,
community lifelines, economy, historic and
cultural resources, ecosystems and natural
resources, and land use and development
trends.
• Mitigation opportunities for each hazard.
The hazards are compared to each other via a
risk ranking methodology described in Chapter
17. 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? (44 CFR § 201.6(c)(2)(ii))
Vulnerability was assessed for all hazards of
concern. The Hazus computer model was used
for the dam failure, earthquake, flood, and
tsunami hazards. These were Level-2 (user-
defined) analyses using coordinating agency
and local data. Critical facilities and assets were
defined and inventoried using the Hazus
Comprehensive Data Management System and
other available datasets. Outputs were
generated for other hazards by applying an
estimated damage function to affected assets
when available. The asset inventory was
extracted from the Hazus model. Best available
data were used for all analysis.
The description of the National Flood Insurance
Program and repetitive loss discussion was
enhanced to meet new DMA and CRS planning
requirements. The update includes a
Sections 7 through 15 include vulnerability
assessments for each hazard of concern. For
dam failure, earthquake, flood, and tsunami,
Hazus was used to conduct a Level-2 analysis to
determine the number of people and
structures exposed to the hazards, along with
the estimated impacts on the economy, debris,
and people seeking shelter. For all other
hazards, a more qualitative assessment was
performed to understand the persons and
assets at risk to hazards.
Updated NFIP statistics, including repetitively
damaged structures, are included in the 2026
plan.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Update – What Has Changed Black & Veatch 2-9
44 CFR Requirement (April 2025) 2021 LHMP 2026 LHMP Update comprehensive analysis of repetitive loss
properties. For these properties, the type of
structure was determined and causes of
flooding were cited, and the information was
reflected on maps. National Flood Insurance
Program capability is also assessed.
Element C: Mitigation Strategy
Does the plan document each participant’s
existing authorities, policies, programs and
resources and its ability to expand on and
improve these existing policies and programs?
(44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3))
An action plan was developed (Chapter 21) via a
facilitated process that included:
• Risk ranking
• Capability assessment
• Action alternative review
• Action selection
• Action prioritization
• Action category analysis.
A mitigation action plan was developed
(Chapter 19) that identifies and prioritizes
mitigation actions for the 2026 LHMP. Through
a facilitated process that incorporated equity
priorities, risk ranking, capability assessment,
and the plan’s goals and objectives, the SC
evaluated existing capabilities to determine
mitigation actions to improve existing policies
and programs.
Does the plan address each jurisdiction’s
participation in the NFIP and continued
compliance with NFIP requirements, as
appropriate? (44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)(ii))
Section 5.3.7 includes an assessment of
capabilities related to NFIP requirements. The
action plan in Chapter 21 includes actions
supporting continued compliance and good
standing under the program.
Section 10.2.5 (Impact on the Economy)
includes a discussion on the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) and the City’s
assessment of the NFIP. In addition, the City
identified actions in Chapter 19 (Mitigation
Strategy) related to the NFIP.
Does the plan include goals to reduce/avoid
long-term vulnerabilities to the identified
hazards? (44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)(i))
Chapter 19 identifies a mission statement, seven
goals and 17 objectives. Objectives were
selected to meet multiple goals, and actions
were selected and prioritized based on meeting
multiple objectives. All of these planning
components were new for this plan update.
The 2026 LHMP updated goals and objectives
and includes the following goals to reduce
long-term vulnerabilities to hazards:
• Goal 1: Advance equity, reduce racial
disparities, and ensure ADA accessibility for
people with disabilities and individuals with
access and functional needs in all phases of
preparing for, responding to, and recovering
from natural hazards.
• Goal 2: Protect life, property, the
environment, and natural and cultural
resources equitably.
• Goal 5: Pursue feasible, cost-effective, and
environmentally appropriate hazard
mitigation measures including adaptive
capacity to reduce risk from a changing
climate, incorporating targeted strategies to
advance equitable outcomes.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Update – What Has Changed Black & Veatch 2-10
44 CFR Requirement (April 2025) 2021 LHMP 2026 LHMP Update Does the plan identify and analyze a
comprehensive range of specific mitigation
actions and projects for each jurisdiction being
considered to reduce the effects of hazards,
with emphasis on new and existing buildings
and infrastructure? (44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)(ii))
A hazard mitigation catalog was developed
from which recommended actions were
selected. A table in the action plan section
analyzes each action by mitigation type to
illustrate the range of actions selected.
A comprehensive range of mitigation actions
was identified for the plan update and the City
identified at least one mitigation action that
addresses each hazard of concern.
Does the plan contain an action plan that
describes how the actions identified will be
prioritized (including a cost-benefit review),
implemented, and administered by each
jurisdiction? (44 CFR § 201.6(c)(3)(iv));
(§201.6(c)(3)(iii))
Each of the recommended actions is prioritized
using a qualitative methodology that looked at
the objectives the project will meet, the
timeline for completion, how the project will be
funded, the impact of the project, the benefits
of the project and the costs of the project. This
prioritization scheme is detailed in Section 21.3.
Section 19.5 describes the prioritization process
used for each mitigation strategy identified for
the LHMP. Estimated costs and benefits are
included in the detailed discussion of each
proposed mitigation action.
Element D: Plan Maintenance
Is there discussion of how each community will
continue public participation in the plan
maintenance process? (44 CFR § 201.6(c)(4)(iii))
Chapter 22 details a comprehensive strategy for
continuing public involvement
Section 20.7 discusses ongoing public
participation following plan approval.
Is there a description of the method and
schedule for keeping the plan current
(monitoring, evaluating and updating the
mitigation plan within a five-year cycle)? (44
CFR § 201.6(c)(4)(i))
Chapter 22 includes a detailed plan
maintenance strategy centered on an annual
progress report by the City over the 5-year
performance period of the plan. This is an
entirely new strategy from the 2016-2021 plan.
Section 20.4 discusses the procedures for
monitoring the plan, including tracking of the
progress/status of actions. Section 20.8
discusses the procedures for updating the plan.
Does the plan describe a process by which each
community will integrate the requirements of
the mitigation plan into other planning
mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital
improvement plans, when appropriate? (44
CFR § 201.6(c)(4)(ii))
Chapter 22 includes a detailed plan
maintenance strategy centered on an annual
progress report by the City over the 5-year
performance period of the plan. This is an
entirely new strategy from the 2016-2021 plan.
Section 20.2 and 20.3 documents how the SC
will integrate the LHMP into relevant decision-
making processes, plans, or mechanisms,
where feasible.
Element E: Plan Update
Was the plan revised to reflect changes in
development? (44 CFR § 201.6(d)(3))
There is a discussion on future development
trends as they pertain to each hazard of
concern. This discussion looks predominantly at
the existing land use and the current regulatory
environment that dictates this land use.
Section 2.2.2 discusses how changes in
development and population are incorporated
into the plan.
Was the plan revised to reflect changes in
priorities and progress in local mitigation
efforts? (44 CFR § 201.6(d)(3))
An action plan was developed (Chapter 21) via a
facilitated process that included:
• Risk ranking
• Capability assessment
• Action alternative review
• Action selection
Goals and objectives have been updated to
reflect current priorities and focus areas within
the City. The mitigation strategy was updated
to reflect progress made with the previous
actions and identify new local priorities with an
equity focus.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Update – What Has Changed Black & Veatch 2-11
44 CFR Requirement (April 2025) 2021 LHMP 2026 LHMP Update • Action prioritization
• Action category analysis.
Element F: Plan Adoption
For single-jurisdictional plans, has the
governing body of the jurisdiction formally
adopted the plan to be eligible for certain FEMA
assistance? (44 CFR § 201.6(c)(5))
Appendix G includes formal adoption
documentation.
The 2026 LHMP achieved DMA compliance for
the City of Oakland. Adoption resolution is
included in Appendix E.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-1
3. PLANNING PROCESS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The following section describes the overall process of developing the LHMP, including how it was prepared, who was involved, and how stakeholders and the public participated. To adhere to the requirements of the DMA 2000 and ensure that the planning process received wide and robust support from regional and local stakeholders and the public, the approach to the planning process and plan documentation included the following:
• The 2026 City of Oakland LHMP is a single
jurisdictional plan and considers all natural
hazards that pose a threat to the City. This
satisfies the natural hazards requirements
specified in DMA 2000 and Element B of
FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Policy
Guide (April 2025).
• The City selected a contract consultant,
Black & Veatch Corporation ( the
consultant team ), to assist with the
development and implementation of the
plan.
• This LHMP was developed following the
process outlined by DMA 2000, FEMA’s
Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide
(April 202 5), and the State of California
requirements for mitigation planning.
Following these processes ensures that all
requirements have been met and
supports state and federal reviews of the
LHMP.
The planning process for this LHMP update,
consisted of the following steps:
1. Organization of Resources –City staff
defined and organized the Project
Management Team (PM), Core Planning Team (CPT), and Steering Committee (SC) (see Table 3-1). These groups met and coordinated throughout the planning process.
2. Public Engagement and Outreach – A robust public engagement strategy was implemented, focused on reaching diverse groups of community members.
Local Plan Requirement A1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(1)
The plan shall document the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-2
3. Update Community Capabilities – City departments assessed capabilities related to implementing mitigation initiatives.
4. Identify Hazards – The Core Planning Team and Steering Committee identified and confirmed hazards to include in the plan.
5. Risk Assessment – Using best available data and with input from the CPT and SC, the consultant team performed a risk assessment of each natural hazard of concern.
6. Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategy – Through a consultant-facilitated process, City departments and stakeholders assembled to develop measurable objectives and feasible mitigation actions.
7. Assemble and Review the Plan – The consultant team updated and assembled the draft plan in stages to allow input from the City on 50%, 75%, and 100% drafts. Members of the public were encouraged to comment on the draft prior to agency submittal.
8. Plan Approval and Adoption – The City chose to adopt the plan prior to agency submittal to expedite the City Council adoption process. Additionally, the City adopted the LHMP into the General Plan Safety Element for plan integration. Cal OES performed a review of the draft and FEMA issued approval on Month Day, 2026.
3.2 DEFINING THE PLANNING AREA
The planning area consists of the incorporated limits for the City of Oakland. Relevant Planning Area characteristics are described in Chapter 4 (City of Oakland Profile ).
Throughout this plan, quantitative risk assessment results are presented by sub-area, where it is feasible to do so, and shown on Figure 3-1 and listed below:
• Central East Oakland
• Coliseum/Airport
• Downtown
• East Oakland Hills
• Eastlake/Fruitvale
• Glenview/ Redwood Heights
• North Oakland Hills
• North Oakland/Adams Point
• West Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-3
Figure 3-1 City of Oakland Hazard Mitigation Planning Area
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-4
3.3 FUNDING
City general funds, Cal OES funding, and an HMGP grant covered 100 percent of the cost of developing this hazard mitigation plan update. The Oakland Fire Department’s (OFD) Emergency Management Services Division (EMSD) administered the development of the plan.
3.3.1 Contract Consultant
Black & Veatch was selected as a contract consultant to guide and assist the City throughout the expedited planning process.
3.4 FORMATION OF THE PLANNING TEAM S
The LHMP planning teams included a Project Management (PM) team, a Core Planning Team (CPT), and a Steering Committee ( SC). Some members of the CPT and SC also participated in a Whole Communities Team , a subset of the planning teams, to advise on issues related to equity. Members of the planning teams are listed in Table 3-1. • Project Management Team (PM) included key personnel from EMSD, and discipline leads from the consultant team . They guided the overall planning process for the planning teams.
• Core Planning Team (CPT) includes key personnel from the City and discipline leads from the consultant team . They were responsible for monitoring plan progress milestones and working closely with the plan development. • Steering Committee (SC) consisted of 23 members made up of the CPT, additional City staff, and stakeholders from other jurisdictions. Throughout the process they were responsible for reviewing and approving information, providing input, informing the risk assessment and risk ranking, approving key milestones (with City Council having final approval authority) and approving mitigation strategies.
Table 3-1. City of Oakland Planning Teams
Organization /
Department Name Title
Project
Management
Team Member
Core Planning
Team Member
SC Member
SC Member
(Alternate)
City of Oakland
City Administrator's
Office - ADA Programs
Anh Nguyen ADA Programs Manager X
City Administrator's
Office - ADA Programs
Mark Romoser ADA Programs Program
Analyst
X
City Administrator's
Office – Public
Information Officer
Sean Maher Citywide Communications
and Engagement Director
X
City Administrator's
Office - Sustainability
Daniel Hamilton Sustainability Manager X X
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-5
Organization /
Department Name Title
Project
Management
Team Member
Core Planning
Team Member
SC Member
SC Member
(Alternate)
City Administrator's
Office & Animal
Services
Joe DeVries Director of Animal Services X
City Attorney's Office Michael Branson Deputy City Attorney X X Department of
Transportation
Jason Patton Senior Transportation
Planner
X
Human Resources
Management
Greg Elliot Human Resources
Manager
X
Human Services Melissa Francisco Executive Assistant to the Director
X
Information
Technology
Eduardo Alvarez Spatial Analyst X
Information
Technology
Julian Ware Spatial Data Administrator X
Fire Department Matthew Nichelini Deputy Chief X
Fire Department-Fire
Prevention
Javan Smith Fire Marshall Assistant X
Fire Department
Emergency
Management Services
Division
Olga Crowe Assistant Emergency
Services Manager
X X X
Fire Department
Emergency
Management Services
Division
Jessica Feil EMSD Manager X X
Fire Department
Emergency
Management Services
Division
Veronika Cole Emergency Planning
Coordinator
X X X
Fire Department-
Public Information
Officer
Michael Hunt Chief of Staff X
Parks, Recreation &
Youth Development
Alethia Walker Recreation Supervisor X
Parks, Recreation &
Youth Development
Jessica Bustos Recreation Supervisor X
Parks, Recreation &
Youth Development
Carlos Vargas Recreation Supervisor X
Public Works Capital
Improvement Program
Tess Kavanagh CIP Coordinator X
Planning & Building Daniel Findley Planner X X
Planning & Building Laura Kiminski Planning & Building Strategic Planning Manage
X X
Planning & Building Ed Manasse Planning & Building
Deputy Director
X X
Public Works Terri Fashing Watershed Program
Manager
X X
Race and Equity Jacque Larrainzar Race and Equity Analyst X X City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-6
Organization /
Department Name Title
Project
Management
Team Member
Core Planning
Team Member
SC Member
SC Member
(Alternate)
Race and Equity Darlene Flynn Department of Race and
Equity Director
X
Alameda County
Office of Emergency
Services
Brentt Blaser Emergency Manager X
Office of Emergency
Services
Francesca Ciresi Emergency Services
Coordinator
X
Office of Emergency
Services
Shauna D. Polk Senior Emergency Services
Coordinator
X
Office of Emergency
Services
Samia Stanley Senior Emergency Services
Coordinator
X
City of Piedmont
Fire Department Dave Brannigan Fire Chief X
Planning Department Lamis Chabbani Assistant Planner X East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
EBMUD Heidi Benenson Emergency Preparedness
and Business Continuity
Administrator
X
EBMUD Shelly Dean Associate Engineer X
East Bary Regional Park District (EBRPD)
EBRPD Justin Porter Health and Safety Officer X
Port of Oakland
Port of Oakland Desmond
DeMoss
Safety and Business
Continuity Officer
X
Port of Oakland Sarah Corso Environmental Health &
Safety Specialist
X
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch Rob Flaner Project Manager X X
Black & Veatch Megan Brotherton Lead Planner X X
Black & Veatch Carol Baumann Risk Assessment Lead X X
Black & Veatch Heather Apgar Mitigation Strategy Lead X Black & Veatch Erin Schanen Planner X X
3.5 PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Table 3-2 summarizes the planning process activities, efforts, and key milestones conducted to prepare the LHMP. Meeting documentation (e.g., presentations, meeting summaries) is located in Appendix B (Meeting Documentation). Table 3-2 only identifies milestone meetings and activities held during the plan update; it does not reflect all planning activities conducted throughout the planning process.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-7
Table 3-2. Plan Development Milestones
Date
FEMA Local
Mitigation
Planning Policy
Requirement* Activity Description Attendance
April 24, 2025 A1, A2, A3, B1 CPT Kickoff • LHMP Overview • Planning Groups
• Community engagement
• Hazard Identification
• Update on Contractor Selection
• Future meeting times
10 May 13, 2025 A1, B1, C1, C3 SC Kickoff
Meeting
• Overview of the LHMP with Cal
OES Presentation
• Introduction to Hazard
Identification
• Mission, Goals, Objectives, and
Mitigation Statement
• Steering Committee Guidelines
29 (Included
six CalOES
staff
presenters)
May 29, 2025 A2, A4, B1, B2,
C3
SC #2 • Floodplain Concern
• Approval of Identified Hazards
• Goals and Objectives
• Community Engagement
18 July 14, 2025 A2, A3 SC #3 • Introduction and Overview • 2025 LHMP Annual Progress
Report
• Community Engagement Plan
24 August 28, 2025 A2, A3 CPT#2 • Update on contracting • Community Engagement
8 Planning Process Supported by Contract Consultant
September 23,
2025
A2, A4, B1, B2,
C3
PM Project
Kickoff Meeting
• Introductions
• Scope & schedule
• Planning teams & committees
• Risk assessment
• City department responsibilities
• Communication protocols
8 October 9, 2025 A2, A4, B1, B2,
C3
CPT #3 • Select and confirm hazard
scenarios for GIS analysis
• Overview and assignments for
the capabilities assessment
• Summary of community
outreach
10 October 14, 2025 A1, A2, A3 PM #1 • Public Townhall Meetings • CPT Scheduling and Meeting
Content
• Data Sources
3 October 28, 2025 A1, C1 PM #2 • Schedule and Milestone Timeline • Work Plan for Each Working
Group (SC and CPT)
• New Data Sources for Integration
4 November 3,
2025
A1, A2, A3, B2 PM #3 • Schedule and Milestone Timeline
• Mitigation Actions
• Risk Assessment
4 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-8
Date
FEMA Local
Mitigation
Planning Policy
Requirement* Activity Description Attendance
• SC Coordination
• CPT Coordination
• Public Town Halls
November 5,
2025
A1, C4, C5, D2 SC #4 • Introductions
• Approve Prior Meeting Minutes
• Schedule and Milestones
• Previous Mitigation Actions
• Goals & Objectives
• Plan Maintenance Strategy
19 November 10,
2025
A2, A3, C3, C4 PM #4 • Public Survey
• Equity Approach
• LHMP Development
• SMARTE Objectives Overview
4 November 13,
2025
B2, C3, C4 CPT #4 • LHMP Process (Equity, Goals,
Objectives and Action Items)
• Equity Analysis and Earthquake
Mapping
• Introduction to the Mitigation
Catalogue
9 November 17,
2025
B2, C3, C4 SC #5 • Introductions
• Approve Prior Meeting Minutes
• Schedule and Milestones
• Approve Updated Mitigation
Goals
• Hazard Profiles - Risk
Assessment
Risk Ranking
• Objectives and Mitigation
Actions
18 November 24,
2025
A2, A3, B2 CPT #5 • Risk Assessment Follow-Ups
from 11.17.25 Steering Committee
Meeting
• Equity Analysis
• Community Engagement to
Inform LHMP Facilities/
Community Lifelines
10 November 24,
2025
A2, A3, B2, C3 PM #5 • Public Survey
• Schedule and Milestone Timeline
• CPT Coordination
• Risk Assessment
• Equity Priority Communities
• Goals and Objectives
• Stakeholder Engagement
4 November 25,
2025
B2 CPT #6 • Mapping Discussion
• EJ Community/Gradient
Discussion
• Oakland History Profile
Discussion
10 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-9
Date
FEMA Local
Mitigation
Planning Policy
Requirement* Activity Description Attendance
December 1,
2025
A2, A3, C2, C3 PM #6 • Public Survey
• Schedule and Milestones
• StoryMap Access and Updates
• Repetitive Loss Data
• Information Packet for
Objectives and Action Items
• CPT Coordination
5 December 3,
2025
A2, C1, C2, C3,
C4, C5
Mitigation
Objectives and
Action Items
Workshop
Kickoff
• Overview of Mitigation Objective
and Action Plan Development
20 December 8,
2025
A2, A3 PM #7 • Public Survey
• Update from the LHMP Equity
• Review Meeting
• Schedule and Milestones
• LHMP Development - 50% Draft
• Public Meetings
5 December 9,
2025
A2, C1, C2, C3,
C4, C5
Mitigation
Objectives and
Action Items
Workshop –
NFIP Session
• Develop Mitigation Objectives
• Develop Mitigation Actions as
Measurable Components of the
Objectives
7 December 9,
2025
A2, C1, C2, C3,
C4, C5
Mitigation
Objectives and
Action Items
Workshop –
Infrastructure
Working Group
• Develop Mitigation Objectives
• Develop Mitigation Actions as
Measurable Components of the
Objectives
19 December 10,
2025
A2, C1, C2, C3,
C4, C5
Mitigation
Objectives and
Action Items
Workshop –
Whole
Communities
Team
• Develop Mitigation Objectives
• Develop Mitigation Actions as
Measurable Components of the
Objectives
11 December 10,
2025
A2, C1, C2, C3,
C4, C5
Mitigation
Objectives and
Action Items
Workshop –
HCD and
Planning
Working Group
• Develop Mitigation Objectives
• Develop Mitigation Actions as
Measurable Components of the
Objectives
10 December 11,
2025
A2, C1, C2, C3,
C4, C5
Mitigation
Objectives and
Action Items
Workshop –
OFD Working
Group
• Develop Mitigation Objectives
• Develop Mitigation Actions as
Measurable Components of the
Objectives
13 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-10
Date
FEMA Local
Mitigation
Planning Policy
Requirement* Activity Description Attendance
December 12,
2025
A2, C1, C2, C3,
C4, C5
Mitigation
Objectives and
Action Items
Workshop –
Office of
Sustainability
Working Group
• Develop Mitigation Objectives
• Develop Mitigation Actions as
Measurable Components of the
Objectives
7 December 12,
2025
A2, C1, C2, C3,
C4, C5
Mitigation
Objectives and
Action Items
Workshop –
Whole
Communities
Team
• Review and Provide Input on
Objective and Action Item
Development Process with
Equity Focus
• Define Access and Functional
Needs Populations
10 December 17,
2025
A2, A4, B1, B2,
C2
SC #6 • LHMP Updates
• Approval of the Risk Assessment
and Risk Ranking Methodology
• Mitigation Strategy - Approval of
Mitigation Objectives and
Actions for Public Comment
Draft
• Update on LHMP Public
Comment Draft
20 January 12, 2026 B2 CPT #7 • Approval of Objectives and Actions
10 January 9 –
February 2, 2026
A2, A3 Public
Comment
Period
• Three and a half weeks open
public comment period on the
draft plan
N/A
January 20, 2026 A2, A3 Technical
Forum
• Presentation of the draft plan for
comment
2 January 27, 2026 A2, A3 Community
Town Hall
• Presentation of the draft plan for
comment
22 March 12, 2026 - Draft Plan
Submittal to Cal
OES
• Submittal of draft plan and Plan
Review Tool to Cal OES for review
and approval
N/A
March 25, 2026 A2, A4, B1, B2,
C2
SC #7 • Discuss public comment packet
• Collect topics for 2027 annual
update
N/A
May 1, 2026 - Draft Plan
Submittal to
FEMA Region 9
• Submittal of draft plan to FEMA
Region 9 by Cal OES
N/A
Month Day, 2026 - Approval
Pending
Adoption
• Approval Pending Adoption
letter provided by FEMA Region
9 N/A
Month Day, 2026 F1 Adoption • Oakland City Council adoption of draft plan
N/A
Month Day, 2026 F1 Approval • Proof of adoption
documentation submitted to
FEMA Region 9 and Cal OES
N/A
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-11
Date
FEMA Local
Mitigation
Planning Policy
Requirement* Activity Description Attendance
Month Day, 2026 F1 Approval • Final approval of the plan by FEMA Region 9
N/A
*Identifies specific FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Policy requirements:
A1 – Planning Process – Documentation
A2 – Planning Process – Stakeholder Input
A3 – Planning Process – Public Involvement
A4 – Planning Process – Existing Plans
Incorporation
B1 – Risk Assessment – Identify Hazards
B2 – Risk Assessment – Hazard Vulnerabilities
C1 – Mitigation Strategy – Existing Capabilities
C2 – Mitigation Strategy – NFIP Participation
C3 – Mitigation Strategy – Mitigation Goals
C4 – Mitigation Strategy – Identify Mitigation
Actions
C5 – Mitigation Strategy – Develop Action Plan
D1 – Plan Maintenance – Continued Public
Participation
D2 – Plan Maintenance – Keeping Plan Current
D3 – Plan Maintenance – Plan Integration
E1 – Plan Update – Changes in Development
E2 – Plan Update – Changes in Priorities
F1 – Plan Adoption
3.6 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND INVOLVEMENT
Outreach to stakeholders began within the first month of the planning process and was maintained throughout the planning process. The LHMP incorporates relevant feedback and information from stakeholders as described in this section . This section outlines the stakeholders who were involved in the creation of this LHMP and outlines their participation.
3.6.1 Types of Stakeholders
Stakeholders consist of individuals and groups that mitigate actions or policies affect. For this LHMP, private organization s, public entities , and neighboring er were identified and invited to participate. The City made conscientious efforts to ensure diverse regional, county, and local representation in the planning process . Refer to Table 3-4 for the list of stakeholders.
3.6.2 Stakeholder and Neighboring Community Participation Stakeholders were invited to participate via presentations and/or email notifications informing them of the planning effort and giving them an opportunity to get involved.
Stakeholders were invited to participate in the following activities:
• Participate as a member of the SC.
• Participate in public outreach events
• Host a public outreach event.
• Share information on public outreach within their organization. • Comment on the draft plan.
Local Plan Requirement A2 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(b)(2)
The planning process shall include an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-12
Below is a summary of the stakeholders' involvement in the planning process, demonstrating the extensive outreach efforts made by the City. Key elements of stakeholder outreach include the following:
• Four stakeholders agreed to serve as members of the SC. • One stakeholder hosted a public outreach event.
• The web link to the draft plan was emailed to all 287 stakeholders and neighboring communities, inviting them to view the website to learn more, join community engagement events or comment on the draft plan. Comments were received from the identified stakeholders via email and in meetings held during the public comment period.
Incorporation of Stakeholder and Neighboring Community Input Comments on the draft plan were reviewed, and applicable feedback was incorporated into this LHMP, including the following:
• ADA compliance is needed across all emergency planning efforts. • Use a community-based approach to support residents during disaster events.
Federal and State Agencies
The following section lists the government agencies that were involved during the planning process. Note that Alameda County agencies are included in the Local Stakeholders and Neighboring section.
Table 3-3 describes how federal and state agencies participated in the 2026 City of Oakland LHMP. Those listed in the table below were directly or indirectly involved in the process and provided crucial information to develop the LHMP.
Table 3-3. Federal and State Agencies
Agency Federal State Participation
FEMA Region 9 X
FEMA provided updated planning guidance; provided
summary and detailed NFIP data for the City; and
conducted a plan review.
FEMA National Risk
Index (NRI) X FEMA’s NRI was used to confirm the natural hazard selection for this LHMP.
National Centers for
Environmental
Information (NCEI)
X
NCEI’s online tools were accessed to obtain
information regarding hazard identification, hazard
details, and risk assessments to incorporate into this
LHMP.
NOAA Storm Prediction
Center (SPC) X Information accessed to support risk assessment US Army Corps of
Engineers X Information accessed to support risk assessment U.S. Census Bureau X Information accessed to support city profile and risk assessment
U.S. Geological Survey X Information accessed to support the risk assessment Cal OES – Mitigation
Planning Division X Oversaw the planning process, presented at the kickoff SC meeting, and provided technical support.
CAL FIRE X
Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps were consulted for
the risk assessment; however, the City’s adopted fire
risk maps were used for analysis.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-13
Local Stakeholders and Neighboring Communities
A broad group of stakeholders and neighboring communities were invited to participate in the LHMP update process and are listed in Table 3-4.
The following City stakeholders were invited via email to participate in the plan development process from the beginning and/or were kept apprised of plan development milestones and invited to comment on the draft plan:
• City of Oakland ADA Programs
• Oakland City Attorney’s Office
• City of Oakland City Administrator’s Office
• City of Oakland Communications Division
• City of Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development • City of Oakland Department of Race and Equity
• City of Oakland Department of Transportation
• City of Oakland Economic and Workforce Development Department • City of Oakland Fire Department
• City of Oakland Human Services Department
• City of Oakland Parks, Recreation & Youth Development • City of Oakland Planning & Building Department
• City of Oakland Public Libraries
• City of Oakland Public Works Department
• City of Oakland Senior Centers
• Mayor’s Commission on Persons with Disabilities
• Port of Oakland
The stakeholders and neighboring communities listed below were contacted via email with public meeting announcements, town hall invitations, and/or invitations to comment on the draft plan.
Table 3-4. Local Stakeholders and Neighboring Communities Involved in the Planning P rocess Stakeholder Category Agency or Organization Name
Agencies Involved in Hazard
Mitigation Activities
Alameda County Flood Control District
California Department of Water Resources (CA DWR)
Cal OES
Firesafe Council
Claremont Canyon Conservancy
Community-Based
Organizations/Non-Profits
Acts Full Gospel
Allen Temple
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
Center for Independent Living
Collective Resilience Now
Communities for a Better Environment
Confederated Villages of Lijan
CURYJ
East Oakland Collective
East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
El Timpano
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-14
Stakeholder Category Agency or Organization Name
Family Bridges
Friends of Lincoln Square Park
Friendship House
Mayor’s Commission on Persons with Disabilities
Mujeres Unidas y Activas
Oak Center Neighborhood Association
Oakland Climate Action Coalition
Oakland Housing Authority
Oakland Neighborhood Councils
Oakland Public Libraries
Oakland Senior Centers
Resilient Communities
Roots Community Health
Sogorea Te Land Trust
Tzu Chi
Unity Council
United Policy Holders
Urban Habitat
Urban Releaf
Wa Sung Community Service Club
West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project
West Oakland Cultural Action Network
Emergency Services American Red Cross (Bay Area Chapter) Alameda County OES Sherrif’s Office
Local Businesses and
Academia
Oakland Unified School District
University of California
Natural Resource Protection
East Bay Regional Park District
Save the Bay
Sierra Club
Neighboring Communities
City of Alameda
City of Berkeley
City of Emeryville
City of San Leandro
Planning and Zoning Oakland Department of Planning and Building Transportation Oakland DOT
Utilities East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
3.6.3 Stakeholder Draft Plan Review
All the entities listed above were provided an opportunity to review and comment on th e draft plan during the public comment period. Each entity was sent an email informing them that the draft plan was available for comment and including a link to the web page and online comment tool. Additional invitations to review the draft plan were released through social media posts and on a banner on the City’s website.
The stakeholder and public draft review period extended from January 16-29, 2026 .
Stakeholders submitted written comments on the draft plan and provided verbal input City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-15
during a Technical Forum and a presentation to the Firesafe Council. Applicable comments are incorporated in the draft plan.
Upon completion of a public comment period, the complete draft plan was sent to Cal OES and FEMA Region 9 for a review to ensure program compliance.
3.7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT
An important component of the mitigation planning process involved public participation.
Public involvement during the development of the City of Oakland LHMP was sought using six methods:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Webpage and StoryMap
• Social media
• Postcards
• Public meetings and presentations to groups
• Public survey
• Email to LHMP Interest List
During the first phase of outreach in the Fall of 2025, emails in English, Cantonese, and Spanish were sent to 319 community members and stakeholder organizations informing them of opportunities to be involved in the planning process. In January 2026, a second phase of outreach was similarly conducted via 287 emails to encourage participation in the public comment period. Comments received from community members throughout the planning process are incorporated in the draft plan as listed in Table 3-6.
3.7.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Webpage and StoryMap
The City maintains a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan webpage to provide information about the overall process, including upcoming meetings , ways to get involved, a hazard mapper (StoryMap) where the public can learn about hazards impacting any address in Oakland, and general information about hazard mitigation. The webpage was used to keep the public informed about public participation opportunities.
Local Plan Requirement A3 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(b)(1)
The planning process shall include an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-16
Figure 3-2 City of Oakland Hazard Mitigation Webpage
3.7.2 Social Media
The City used social media platforms (Facebook, X, and Instagram) to promote the planning effort, including links to the mitigation webpage, invitation to complete the public survey, and notifications of upcoming meetings. Posts were shared in multiple languages (English, Spanish, and Chinese).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-17
Figure 3-3 Multilingual Instagram Posts Promoting Public Meetings and the Public Survey
3.7.3 Print and Digital Postcard
The City used printed and digital postcards and flyers, in multiple languages, to promote the public survey. Postcards were provided at the public window for Building and Planning as well as to attendees of meetings and workshops.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-18
Figure 3-4 Postcards Promoting the Public Survey in English, Cantonese, and Spanish
Figure 3-5. Flyers Promoting the Community Workshops (English example depicted. Also made available in Cantonese and Spanish, not pictured here.)
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-19
3.7.4 Public Meetings
Five in-person public workshops were held throughout the City, focusing on locations that provided convenient access to Equity Priority Communities. Meetings were held in English with translation services in Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese . Two virtual meetings were held during the public comment period. In addition, City staff made presentations with opportunities for public comment to the Mayor’s Commission on Persons with Disabilities , the North Hills Community Association and two presentations to the O akland Firesafe Council.
Table 3-5 summarizes each public meeting throughout the planning process along with key takeaways from public comment provided.
Table 3-5. Public Meetings
Date Event and Location Number
Present
Key Takeaways
June 25,
2025
North Hills Community
Association
Montclair Presbyterian Church
5701 Thornhill Drive
Oakland, CA
32 • Need for enhanced parking
restrictions in fire hazard areas
• Need to study and coordinate traffic
response in an emergency,
community understanding of who
coordinates traffic response
• One respondent commented that
sirens are not audible
September
15, 2025
Presentation to the Mayor’s
Commission on Persons with
Disabilities) (Online and In-
Person)
City Hall, Hearing Room 1, First
Floor, One Frank H. Ogawa
Plaza, Oakland, CA, 94612
17 • Concern about safe evacuations for
persons with disabilities
September
18, 2025
Oakland Firesafe Council
Virtual via Zoom
26 • Evacuation route concerns
• Vegetation management needed on
side streets
• Fire hydrants need to be checked to
ensure pumps work properly
October 1,
2025
Personal Emergency
Preparedness & Hazard
Mitigation Plan Workshop
West Oakland Branch Library
1801 Adeline Street
47 • Tree trimming for low-income
community members
• More multi-lingual outreach needed
• Remove trash/abandoned vehicles
that can clog storm drains or hinder
evacuation access
• Summarize hazard maps for easy
understanding
October 2,
2025
Personal Emergency
Preparedness & Hazard
Mitigation Plan Workshop
3301 East 12th Street Library
(Fruitvale Branch)
7 • Clear storm drains
• Remove/trim trees on Cleveland that
can damage utility lines
• Improve communication with those
who don’t have email or social media
access
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-20
Date Event and Location Number
Present
Key Takeaways
• Engage trusted neighborhood
partners for better outreach to
Spanish-speaking community
members
October 9,
2025
Personal Emergency
Preparedness & Hazard
Mitigation Plan Workshop
Main Library
125 14th Street
29 • Coordinate with landlords of large
apartment buildings to provide
emergency preparedness
information
• Protect the unhoused from hazards
• Train the trainers to focus on
supporting local resiliency in the
local neighborhoods
• Increase awareness and
understanding of the “Know Your
Zone” program
October 10,
2025
Personal Emergency
Preparedness & Hazard
Mitigation Plan Workshop
81st Avenue Library
1021 81st Avenue
24 • Add more siren locations to better
cover the community
• Support creek management in low-
income areas to remove invasive
plants
• Remove fire-prone eucalyptus in the
hills
• Fund resilience hubs in trusted
community locations
• Remediate illegal dumping that
blocks storm drains
November 6,
2025
Personal Emergency
Preparedness & Hazard
Mitigation Plan Workshop
East Oakland Collective
7800 MacArthur Boulevard
47 • Educate community members on
hazardous household materials that
could present extra dangers during a
wildfire
• Trim trees or promote community
member activities to trim trees on
private property to reduce damage
during high-wind events
• Clean the trash from the streets that
clogs storm drains
January 20,
2026
Technical Forum
Virtual via Zoom
2 • Concerns about the urban heat
island effect in vulnerable
communities
January 21,
2026
Presentation to Oakland
Firesafe Council
Virtual via Zoom
43 • Wildfire can impact equity priority
communities away from the
VHFHSZ, safe spaces with air
filtration is needed.
• Increase accessibility for
neighborhood groups to perform
vegetation management work on
City Property with less steps needed
to get permission. (Expedited
permitting)
• Raise awareness of where the
highest hazards are.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-21
Date Event and Location Number
Present
Key Takeaways
• Improve wildfire detection in parks
through sensors.
• Consider impact to cell phones in a
public safety power shutoff.
January 27,
2026
Community Town Hall
Virtual via Zoom
22 • Accessibility and ADA compliance
across communications, evacuations,
and facilities.
• Desire for decentralized community
driven resilience strategies.
• Improved evacuation planning for
mobility impaired residents and non-
vehicle travel.
• Environmental equity in parks, tree
canopy, and heat mitigation.
• Better access to hazard maps and
more digestible plan summaries.
3.7.5 Public Survey
A local hazard mitigation plan community survey captured data and information from members of the public, focusing on those that live or have connections to the City (such as through work or school) . The survey was posted from September 2025 through December 2025 and was offered in English, Spanish, Chinese , and Vietnamese . The City posted the survey on multiple social media platforms, and a link was provided on the City’s mitigation plan webpage. Print copies of the survey postcard were posted and available for the public at the Building and Planning helpdesk. A link to the electronic public survey was shared with SC members, other City staff, and the LHMP interest list.
Public Survey Results
Between September 2025 and December 2025, over 120 members of the public completed the public survey. The complete survey and detailed results are included in Appendix A (Public Survey). The following summarizes highlights from the survey:
• Earthquake readiness and wildfire smoke/wildfire risk are the clearest priorities—both in lived experience and perceived importance.
• Resilience hubs, continuity of City operations, and community training are widely supported, indicating interest in accessible, neighborhood ‑level supports and skills‑building.
• Awareness gaps remain (e.g., AC Alerts), and more than half lack a specific evacuation route, highlighting opportunities for targeted outreach and route planning. • Email is the most effective channel for engagement; consider pairing with in ‑person events to reach older adults and communities less active online.
Incorporation of the Public Input into the Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey participants, meeting attendees, and members of the public who commented on the draft plan , including those from Equity Priority Communities, suggested actions the City should continue to do or should start doing to reduce or eliminate risk of future hazard events. All mitigation-related suggestions are included in the mitigation action plan, or are City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-22
existing core capabilities that the City will continue to carry out. Refer to Table 3-6 for examples of the suggestions and how they were incorporated in the Plan.
Table 3-6. Public Comment Examples and LHMP Incorporation Public Input 2026 LHMP Incorporation
Provide more multi-lingual outreach for hazard information and preparedness
Mitigation action 3-2
Resilience hubs needed in more neighborhoods to increase community resilience
Mitigation action 4-1
More tree trimming to reduce the amount of damage during windstorms
Mitigation action 16-1
3.7.6 Public Comment Period
Members of the public were provided an opportunity to comment on the draft plan from January 16-29, 2026. The City’s website included a link to the draft plan and an online tool that allowed community members to submit comments. In addition to the website, the public comment period was promoted on Oakland’s social media channels , with the Oakland Firesafe Council during their regular meeting and during the two virtual meetings listed in Table 3-5. In addition, 185 community members who joined the LHMP interest list were emailed with an invitation to comment on the draft plan.
3.8 IDENTIFICATION AND OUTREACH TO EQUITY PRIORITY
COMMUNITIES
Equity Priority Communities are identified t o align with the City’s General Plan Environmental Justice Element as shown in Figure 3-6. Defined in the General Plan (Environmental Justice Communities) and in this LHMP (Equity Priority Communities), the communities are low-income areas that are disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to adverse health effects. These communities are eligible for special funding considerations, as well as targeted environmental justice efforts and investments to be recognized and uplifted in order to equitably allocate opportunities and resources (City of Oakland 2023).
Outreach was conducted via multi-lingual email blasts, social media posts, and through in- person meetings held in five locations throughout the identified Equity Priority Community neighborhoods. The meeting materials were translated into Spanish and Chinese, and meetings were held with interpretation in these languages along with Vietnamese.
Additionally, the LHMP was presented and feedback sought at the Mayor’s Commission on Persons with Disabilities.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-23
Figure 3-6. General Plan Environmental Justice Element Community Screening Factors
3.9 REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
The City utilized the most current technical information, plans, studies, and reports during the planning process to assist in hazard profiling, risk and vulnerability assessment, reviewing mitigation capabilities, and identifying, developing, and prioritizing mitigation strategies at local levels. The following provides examples of sources reviewed for the development of this plan.
• Overall Planning Process – The 2025 FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide and Handbook were reviewed and used to develop the LHMP for the City. The 2023 California State HMP was reviewed for alignment with mitigation goals, identified hazards, risk assessments, and mitigation actions. In addition, neighboring jurisdiction mitigation plans were reviewed for alignment with identified hazards and mitigation actions.
• Risk Assessment – Asset and inventory data collected was used to complete the risk assessment of the LHMP. This included local, state, and federal hazard technical information (e.g., US Geological Survey [USGS] earthquake data, FEMA disaster declarations). Details of the data used, along with how the data was used, is presented in Chapter 6 and throughout the natural hazard profiles (Chapters 7 through 14). • Capability Assessment – Numerous plans, reports, regulations, codes, and technical information were reviewed for the LHMP. Details are provided in Chapter 18. The following programs and plans can affect mitigation within the planning area:
o 2021 City of Oakland Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
o City of Oakland Emergency Operations Plan
o 2025-2028 City of Oakland Strategic Plan
o Oakland Municipal Code
o Oakland Planning Code
Local Plan Requirement A4 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(b)(3)
Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Planning Process Black & Veatch 3-24
o City of Oakland Capital Improvement Program
o City of Oakland General Plan including:
▪ Environmental Justice Element
▪ Land Use and Transportation Element
▪ Estuary Policy Plan
▪ Safety Element
▪ Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation (OSCAR) Element ▪ Historic Preservation Element
▪ Housing Element
o Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan
o Oakland 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan
o Oakland Preliminary Sea -level rise Road Map
o Resilient Oakland Playbook
o California Fire Code
o 2019 California Building Code
o California Clean Air Act
o California State Hazard Mitigation Forum
o Disabled Access Code
o Title 24 California Energy Code 2019 Edition
o Vegetation Management Plan
• Mitigation Strategy – The City developed 75 mitigation actions to address the results of the risk assessment and input received from the public and local stakeholders.
These actions considered the current capabilities of City departments to implement each strategy.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-1
4. CITY OF OAKLAND PROFILE
This chapter provides general information about the City of Oakland, including its historical information, physical setting, general building stock, land use, population, demographics, population trends, and community lifelines. Analyzing this information leads to an understanding of the study area, including economic, structural, and population assets at risk, and of concerns that could be related to hazards analyzed in this plan (e.g., low -lying areas prone to flooding, high percentage of vulnerable persons in an area).
4.1 OVERVIEW
4.1.1 Geographic Overview
The City of Oakland is a municipality in Alameda County, California, on the eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay opposite San Francisco. The City has a total area of 78 square miles and is bordered by 19 miles of coastline to the west and hills to the east, with views of both the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Cities adjacent to Oakland include Berkeley to the north; San Leandro to the south; Alameda across the Oakland Estuary; Piedmont, a small city surrounded by Oakland; and Emeryville, a city along the bay between Oakland and Berkeley. Oakland is the only city in the United States with a natural saltwater lake, 115 -acre Lake Merritt, wholly contained within its border.
4.1.2 Historical Overview
Oakland has a rich and complex history shaped by geography, industry, migration, and infrastructure development. These historical factors have deeply influenced the city’s vulnerability to natural and human-caused hazards.
Oakland was founded on unceded land of the Chochenyo -speaking Ohlone indigenous group, the Lisjan, who are the original stewards of th is land. After the arrival of Spanish missionaries in the 1760s, many Lisjan people were forced into labor camps at missions and baptized into the Catholic faith . By the late 1840s, many other Ohlone were forced into remote reservations or killed . The Lisjan continue to revitalize their cultural practices and uphold their responsibilities to protect and care for their ancestral homeland.
Between the 1770s and 1849, Spanish settlers and later Mexican ranchers established large land grants (ranchos) in the area.
Oakland’s incorporation in 1852 coincided with California’s Gold Rush economy. Its proximity to San Francisco and access to deep -water ports made it a hub for shipping and manufacturing. The arrival of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869 transformed Oakl and into a major transportation center, spurring rapid industrialization.
Industries such as shipbuilding, canneries, and manufacturing clustered along the waterfront. While these industries fueled economic growth, they introduced environmental hazards: toxic waste and soil contamination from industrial operations created long -term remediation challenges; fire risk increased due to wooden structures and lack of modern fire codes in early industrial districts; flooding was exacerbated by the filling of wetlands and creeks to create industrial land, reducing natural drainage.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-2
Oakland’s population surged in the early 20th century, driven by migration from the Midwest and South, as well as waves of immigrants from Asia and Europe. African Americans migrated during the Great Migration, seeking jobs in shipyards and factories. Thes e communities often settled in low -lying, industrial areas where housing was affordable but hazard exposure was high.
Urban growth led to dense housing in flatlands, increasing vulnerability to earthquakes and fires; infrastructure strain, as water and sewer systems lagged behind population growth, heightening public health risks during floods or disasters; and transporta tion expansion, including streetcars and early highways, which improved mobility but also fragmented neighborhoods and created evacuation challenges.
World War II brought massive shipbuilding operations to Oakland’s waterfront. Oakland became a defense industry powerhouse, attracting tens of thousands of workers. This boom intensified hazard risks: industrial accidents and fires became more common in sh ipyards and factories; air and water pollution worsened, creating long -term environmental health hazards; housing shortages led to hastily built structures, often lacking seismic resilience.
After the war, the construction of Interstate 880 and other freeways reshaped Oakland.
While highways improved regional connectivity, they introduced new vulnerabilities:
earthquake risk for elevated freeway structures (tragically realized during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake when the Cypress Freeway collapsed); flooding and drainage issues due to paved surfaces and altered watershed patterns; and community displacement, concentrating low-income residents in hazard-prone areas.
By the 1970s, Oakland faced economic decline as manufacturing jobs disappeared.
Abandoned industrial sites became environmental hazards, with contaminated soils and derelict buildings posing fire and health risks. Social vulnerability increased as unemployment rose and public investment lagged.
Hazard mitigation during this era focused on earthquake preparedness, spurred by growing awareness of the Hayward Fault’s proximity; flood control projects, including improvements to stormwater systems; and fire prevention, particularly in the wildland -urban interface of the Oakland Hills.
The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was a turning point for Oakland. The collapse of the Cypress Freeway killed 42 people and highlighted the fragility of aging infrastructure.
Liquefaction in the flatlands caused structural damage, and emergency response was hampered by transportation disruptions.
Post-disaster reforms included seismic retrofitting of bridges, freeways, and public buildings; updated building codes to improve earthquake resilience; and hazard mapping and land - use planning to identify vulnerable zones.
Two years later, the 1991 Oakland Hills Firestorm destroyed over 3,000 homes and killed 25 people. This disaster underscored the risks of development in fire-prone areas and the need for vegetation management, emergency communication systems, and community evacuation planning.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-3
Mitigation measures included strict fire codes for hillside construction; vegetation clearance programs and defensible space requirements; and mutual aid agreements for firefighting resources.
Today, Oakland faces a complex hazard landscape shaped by its history: seismic risk remains high due to the Hayward Fault; flooding and sea-level rise threaten low-lying neighborhoods and former wetlands filled for industrial use; wildfire risk persists in the hills, exacerbated by climate change; and social vulnerability continues in historically marginalized communities concentrated in hazard-prone areas.
Recent mitigation efforts include green infrastructure projects to manage stormwater and reduce flood risk; climate adaptation planning, focusing on sea-level rise and heat resilience; and community-based preparedness programs, addressing equity in disaster response.
Oakland’s history reveals a recurring theme: economic and infrastructural decisions have long-term consequences for hazard vulnerability. Industrial development, transportation networks, and housing patterns created exposure to earthquakes, floods, fires, and environmental hazards. Migration and social inequities compounded these risks, making hazard mitigation not just a technical challenge but a social imperative.
Today’s resilience strategies—seismic retrofits, fire prevention, and climate adaptation—are informed by these historical lessons. Oakland’s future depends on integrating hazard mitigation with equitable development, ensuring that all communities can withstand and recover from the hazards shaped by the City’s past.
4.1.3 Government
The City of Oakland has a Mayor -Council form of government, where the mayor, one councilmember at-large and seven district based councilmembers are elected to serve four- year terms. Through the Mayor and the Mayor-appointed City Administrator, the City Council establishes policy and directs City departments. The Administrator’s office enforces policies, makes recommendations to the Council, and coordinates project s and initiatives assigned by the Council. The City Council is responsible for adopting this local hazard mitigation plan, while the City Administrator is responsible for overseeing its implementation.
Sub-Areas
In 2019, the City of Oakland adopted a new plan for paving City streets that divided Oakland into nine areas for project planning. These areas, larger than City-defined neighborhoods but smaller than city council districts, were drawn based on consideratio ns including street condition, population density, and equity factors. For this hazard mitigation plan, City staff determined that these areas are suitable for use as sub-areas in assessing the risk presented by natural hazards. Throughout this plan, quantitative risk assessment results are presented by sub-area where it is feasible to do so. The sub-areas are as follows (see Figure 4-1):
• Central East Oakland
• Coliseum/Airport
• Downtown
• East Oakland Hills
• Eastlake/Fruitvale
• Glenview/Redwood Heights
• North Oakland Hills
• North Oakland/Adams Point
• West Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-4
Figure 4-1. Sub-Areas Used in Hazard Risk Assessments
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-5
4.1.4 Major Past Hazard Events
The City of Oakland was the site of the Oakland Hills Fire in 1991, which resulted in 25 deaths, 150 injuries, and over $1.5 billion in fire losses. The City also has been included in many Alameda County disaster proclamations. Since 1969, federal disaster declarations have been issued for 24 disasters affecting Alameda County, as listed in Table 4-1. While many of these events may not have directly impacted the City of Oakland, they are a testament to the frequency and types of hazard events typical of the region. Review of these events helps identify targets for risk reduction and methods to increase a community’s capability to avoid large-scale events in the future.
Federal disaster declarations are typically issued for hazard events that cause more damage than state and local governments can handle without assistance from the federal government, although no specific dollar loss threshold has been established for these declarations. A presidential disaster declaration puts federal recovery programs into motion to help disaster victims, businesses, and public entities. Some of the programs are matched by state programs. There are two types of disaster declarations provi ded for in the Stafford Act: Emergency Declarations and Major Disaster Declarations. Both declaration types authorize the President to provide supplemental federal disaster assistance (FEMA 2011). • Emergency Declaration: An Emergency Declaration can be declared for any occasion or instance when the President determines federal assistance is needed. Emergency Declarations supplement State and local efforts in providing emergency services, such as the protection of lives, property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States. • Major Declaration: The President can declare a Major Disaster Declaration for any natural event, including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought, or, regard less of cause, fire, flood, or explosion, that the President believes has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond. A major disaster declaration provides a wide range of federal assistance programs for individuals and public infrastructure, including funds for both emergency and permanent work.
Review of presidential disaster declarations helps establish the probability of reoccurrence for each hazard and identify targets for risk reduction. Table 4-1 summarizes the federal disaster declarations that included Alameda County since 1970.
Table 4-1. Federal Disaster Declaration History in Alameda County Disaster
Number Event Date(s)
Declaration
Date
Incident
Type Title
DR-283-CA February 16, 1970 February 16, 1970 Flood Severe Storms & Flooding DR-295-CA September 29, 1970 September 29,
1970 Fire Forest & Brush Fires
EM-3023-CA January 20, 1977 January 20, 1977 Drought Drought City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-6
Disaster
Number Event Date(s)
Declaration
Date
Incident
Type Title
DR-651-CA December 19, 1981-
January 8, 1982 January 7, 1982 Flood Severe Storms, Flood, Mudslides & High Tide
DR-677-CA January 21, 1983-
March 30, 1983 February 9, 1983 Coastal Storm Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides & Tornadoes
DR-758-CA February 12, 1986-
March 10, 1986 February 21, 1986 Flood Severe Storms & Flooding DR-845-CA October 17, 1989-
December 18, 1989 October 18, 1989 Earthquake Loma Prieta Earthquake DR-894-CA December 19, 1990-
January 3, 1991 February 11, 1991 Freezing Severe Freeze DR-919-CA October 20-29, 1991 October 22, 1991 Fire Oakland Hills Fire DR-1046-CA February 13-April 19,
1995 March 12, 1995 Severe Storm
Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding Landslides, Mud
Flow
DR-1044-CA January 3-February
10, 1995 January 10, 1995 Severe Storm
Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, Landslides, Mud
Flows
DR-1155-CA December 28, 1996-
April 1, 1997 January 4, 1997 Severe Storm Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud And Landslides
DR-1203-CA February 2-April 30,
1998 February 9, 1998 Severe Storm Severe Winter Storms And Flooding
EM-3248-CA August 29-October 1,
2005
September 13,
2005 Hurricane Hurricane Katrina
Evacuation
DR-1646-CA March 29-April 16,
2006 June 5, 2006 Severe Storm Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, And Mudslides
DR-1628-CA December 17, 2005-
January 3, 2006 February 3, 2006 Severe Storm Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, And Landslides
DR-4308-CA February 01-
February 23, 2017 April 1, 2017 Flood Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, And Mudslides
DR-4305-CA January 18-23, 2017 March 16, 2017 Flood Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, And Mudslides
DR-4301-CA January 3-12, 2017 February 14, 2017 Severe Storm Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, And Mudslides
DR-4482-CA January 20, 2020-
May 11, 2023 March 22, 2020 Biological Covid-19 Pandemic EM-3428-CA January 20, 2020-
May 11, 2023 March 13, 2020 Biological Covid-19
DR-4699-CA February 21-July 10,
2023 April 3, 2023 Severe Storm
Severe Winter Storms,
Straight-Line Winds,
Flooding, Landslides, And
Mudslides
DR-4683-CA December 27, 2022-
January 31, 2023 January 14, 2023 Flood
Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, Landslides, And
Mudslides
EM-3591-CA January 8-31, 2023 January 9, 2023 Flood Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, And Mudslides
Source: (FEMA 2025)
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-7
4.2 PHYSICAL SETTING
This section describes the location, geography, topography, watersheds, and climate of the City of Oakland.
4.2.1 Location
The City of Oakland is located on the east side of the San Francisco Bay in the County of Alameda. It is bordered to the west by 19 miles of coastline and to the east by rolling hills that offer views of the Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The City features more than 100 parks, covering over 2,500 acres, along with several recreational areas along its perimeter. Lake Merritt is located adjacent to the downtown area (City of Oakland 2011).
4.2.2 Climate
Oakland has a warm -summer Mediterranean climate, with warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. Table 4-2 lists the historical monthly averages for Oakland for low temperature, high temperature, mean temperature, and average precipitation (NWS NOAA NOWData n.d.) The warmest month of the year is September, and the coldest month of the year is January. The wettest month is January, with an average rainfall of 4.78 inches, and the driest is July, with an average of 0.07 inches.
Table 4-2. Oakland Historic Weather Averages and Records Month Average High Average Low Average Mean Precipitation January 57.0° 50.9° 53.8° 0.10”
February 60.1° 50.8° 55.0° 0.10”
March 61.8° 51.8° 56.4° 0.11”
April 61.9° 56.2° 58.7° 0.04”
May 64.0° 58.2° 60.6° 0.02”
June 65.5° 60.7° 63.4° 0.01”
July 67.2° 61.7° 64.1° 0.00”
August 69.3° 62.5° 66.0° 0.00”
September 69.4° 62.5° 66.8° 0.00”
October 68.1° 62.2° 64.9° 0.04”
November 60.7° 54.9° 58.0° 0.07”
December 57.3° 50.7° 53.2° 0.16”
Source: NWS NOWData
4.2.3 Topography
About two-thirds of Oakland lies in the flat plain of the East Bay, with one -third rising into the foothills and hills of the East Bay range. Oaklanders refer to their city’s terrain as “the flatlands” and “the hills”. Oakland’s highest point is near Grizz ly Peak Boulevard, east of Berkeley, just over 1,760 feet above sea level.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-8
4.2.4 Watersheds and Surface Waters
A watershed is a geographical area that
directs precipitation and snowmelt
toward creeks, streams, rivers, and
ultimately outflow locations such as
reservoirs, bays, and the ocean.
Watersheds vary in size and
configuration, encompassing anything
from a small body of water or county to
vast regions covering thousands of
square miles with numerous waterways
(National Ocean Service 2024). Figure 4-2
depicts the general makeup of a
watershed.
The City of Oakland dominantly resides in
the San Fransico Bay watershed with the
northern planning area contributing to
the San Pablo Bay watershed (California
DWR 2025) ; (USGS 2022) . Several local
watersheds reside within the Planning
Area and are depicted in Figure 4-3.
Source: NOAA Fisheries, 2022
Figure 4-2 Watershed Diagram
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-9
Figure 4-3 USGS Watershed for the City of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-10
4.2.5 Soils
Several soil types can be found in the city, varying in drainage and slope. The 1975 Soil Survey of Alameda County identifies seven general soil types in the area (including the City of Oakland), as summarized in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3 Identified Soil Types in Alameda County
Soil Type Soil Description % of Total
Survey Area
Reyes-Urban land Nearly level, very poorly drained clays on tidal flats, and urban land
23.0 Clear Lake-Omni-Urban
land
Nearly level to moderately sloping, poorly drained clays and silty clay loams, and urban land; on the basin rim
17.0 Xeropsamments-Urban
land-Baywood
Nearly level to moderately sloping, somewhat excessively drained sands and loamy sands, and urban land; on the
coastal plain
8.0 Xerorthents-Maymen-
Millsholm
Steep to very steep, well drained and somewhat
excessively drained soils that have various textures; on foothills
17.0 Danville-Botella Nearly level to moderately sloping, well drained loams and silty clay loams; on low terraces and alluvial fans
16.0 Tierra-Urban Land Nearly level to moderately steep, moderately well drained loams, and urban land; on upland terraces
7.0 Sycamore-Yolo Nearly level, well drained and poorly drained silt loams, on flood plains and alluvial fans
12.0 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975
4.2.6 Geology
The planning area lies within the geologic region of California referred to as the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. The natural region of the Coast Ranges is between the Pacific Ocean and the Great Valley, extending from the Oregon border to the Santa Ynez River near Santa Barbara. Discontinuous northwest -trending mountain ranges, ridges, and intervening valleys characterize this province. Much of the Coast Range province is composed of marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks that form the Franciscan Assembl age. The Franciscan Assemblage in this region represents some of the oldest rocks in the region and consists primarily of greenstone (altered volcanic rocks), basalt, chert (ancient silica -rich ocean deposits), and sandstone that originated as ancient sea floor sediments.
The San Francisco Bay is in a broad depression in the Franciscan bedrock resulting from an east-west expansion between the San Andreas and the Hayward fault systems. The bedrock surface can be found at elevations of 200 to 2,000 feet below mean sea level across the Bay Area. Sedimentary deposits overlie the Franciscan bedrock that originated from millions of years of erosion, deposition, and changes in sea level. Geologists categorize these sedimentary deposits into geologic formations based on the period o f deposition and material type:
• The Alameda Formation is the deepest and oldest of these sedimentary deposits and consists of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and some shells with predominantly silt and clay sediments surrounding discontinuous layers of sand and gravel.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-11
• Overlying the Alameda Formation is the San Antonio Formation , which consists of sandy clays, gravelly clays, clayey sands, and gravels with interbedded silty clay deposits.
• Younger alluvial deposits once referred to as the Temescal Formation are deposited on top of the San Antonio and consist of sandy clays, clayey sands, sands, and gravels.
The source material for these alluvial deposits comes from the Berkeley Hills.
Ruptures along the nearby San Andreas Fault caused severe earth movement in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1906 and 1989. San Andreas quakes induce creep (movement occurring on earthquake faults) in the Hayward fault, which runs directly through Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, and other Bay Area cities.
4.3 SENSITIVE RESOURCES
4.3.1 Historical and Cultural Resources
Oakland’s wealth of historic buildings and neighborhoods is matched by few other California cities. These artifacts reflect the City’s rich multicultural history, from earliest times to the present. The materials and workmanship used are impossible or costly to obtain today. In 1994 the City of Oakland adopted a Historic Preservation Element as part of its General Plan.
The Historic Preservation Element is based on two broad goals:
• Use historic preservation to foster economic vitality and quality of life. • Prevent unnecessary destruction of properties of special historical, cultural, and aesthetic value.
The Element spells out these goals through policies and actions that govern how the City treats “Designated Historic Properties” (landmarks, districts, and heritage properties) and “Potential Designated Historic Properties .” Potential Designated Historic Propert y is the broadest definition of “historic” under the Preservation Element. It is a description, not a designation. It is a category based on Planning Department survey ratings. The ratings report what the survey has found throughout Oakland, on a scale of A (“highest importance”) through E (“of no particular interest”). The City considers any property that has at least a potential rating of C (“secondary importance”) or that could contribute to a potential primary or secondary district to warrant cons ideration for possible preservation. To recognize the importance of neighborhood character and highlight restoration opportunities, this is a very inclusive category. About a fifth to a quarter of Oakland’s buildings are considered to have at least some minimal historic value. Figure 4-4 shows the distribution of the different cultural assets across the City.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-12
Figure 4-4. Cultural Asset Map from the General Plan
Source: (City of Oakland 2022)
Landmarks in the city may be designated for historical, cultural, educational, architectural, aesthetic, or environmental value. They are nominated by their owners, the City, or the public and are designated after public hearings by the Landmarks Board, Pl anning Commission, and City Council. About 150 landmarks and preservation districts have been designated, out of nearly 100,000 buildings in Oakland. These buildings, sites, and features range from City Hall to the home of blues musician Brownie McGhee, to the Old Survivor Redwood Tree, to the Grand Lake Theater and Roof Sign.
Officially designated Preservation Districts are also called S-7 and S-20 Zones. They are areas or neighborhoods that are recognized for the same values as individual landmarks, and they are nominated and designated in the same way, usually with active nei ghborhood participation. There are currently nine designated districts containing about 1,500 buildings.
They include Preservation Park, Old Oakland-Victorian Row, the Bellevue-Staten Apartment District along Lake Merritt in Adams Point, Sheffield Village, Oak Center Historic District, and 7th Street Commercial District in West Oakland.
As the cultural center of the East Bay, Oakland is home to a symphony recognized regionally and nationally for its convergence of artistic excellence and community service, an award - winning zoo with more than 400 animals, the restored Art Deco Paramount Theater movie palace, and the renovated Fox Theater. The Oakland Museum of California has the largest
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-13
collection of California art, culture and history. Oakland also has a strong musical history with many artists originating from Oakland. Oakland’s diverse population is reflected in the variety of attractions including Chinatown, the Latino -dominant Fruitvale area and the African American Museum and Library at Oakland.
4.3.2 Scenic Resources
Oakland boasts one of the highest percentages of parks and open space per capita in the nation. The waterfront city features green hills, forests, creeks, an estuary and two lakes.
Oakland is at the heart of the East Bay Regional Park District, a system of 73 parks and 31 regional hiking trails covering more than 120,000 acres in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. In the hills overlooking the San Francisco Bay, the parks offer an extraordinary variety of recreational activities, including fishing, swimming, hiking, mountain biking, picnicking, or relaxing in a natural setting. Oakland also has an extensive collection of municipal parks, recreation centers, aquatic and water activity sites, and sports fields.
The Scenic Highways Element of the City’s General Plan addresses the preservation and enhancement of attractive roadways and major thoroughfares traversing the City of Oakland. This element creates policies to address the character of specific roads, inclu ding MacArthur Freeway, Skyline Boulevard/Grizzly Peak Boulevard/Tunnel Road, the Grove - Shafter Freeway, the Warren Freeway, Park Boulevard, Joaquin Miller Road, Golf Links Road, the Embarcadero, and Oak Street.
4.3.3 Natural Resources
Oakland’s urban forest is made up of over 500 different tree species, and includes 56,000 street trees 12,000 trees in landscaped parks, and a vast yet unknown number of trees on private property and in open space areas (City of Oakland 2024) . The 2024 City of Oakland Urban Forest Plan estimates the City of Oakland has 7,819 acres of tree canopy cover, which is 21.5% of the land area for the City. Over 70% of this tree canopy is on private property.
Oakland has more tree canopy than other cities in the region, primarily due to the forested Oakland Hills. This puts Oakland in about the mid-range of cities in the Bay Area for the size of its urban forest. Oakland has held the status of a Tree City USA for 38 years. This designation is made by the National Arbor Day Foundation to communities that meet core standards for urban forestry management.
The East Bay Regional Park District comprises 73 parks and a system of interpark trails spanning over 125,000 acres in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. These parklands preserve the natural beauty that makes the Bay Area such a desirable place to live. They provide habitat for wildlife, including many rare and endangered species. They also enhance the region's quality of life, resulting in tangible economic benefits as well as aesthetic values (East Bay Regional Park District 2025).
Lake Merritt in Oakland, a tidal estuary with a 3-mile shoreline, is home to the United States’ oldest designated wildlife refuge, established by state law on March 18, 1870. Lake Merritt is a tidal estuary that formed about 10,000 to 15,000 years ago when the last ice age ended. It has been extensively modified by people in the last 150 years. It is flushed twice daily by the six-hour cycle of high and low tidal flows and receives water from 62 storm drain outfalls around the lake. With water coming from t he storm drains and the estuary, the lake has City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-14
brackish water (a mixture of fresh and salt water) but strongly tends toward a marine (salt water) environment.
4.4 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
Those that live in the City are one of the most important assets and this LHMP will assess risk to people and identify mitigation strategies to protect them, including equity priority populations.
4.4.1 General Population
Oakland is the third most populous City in the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Area.
The City stands out as a vibrant mosaic of diverse cultures and ethnicities, where no single group comprises a majority of the population.
Current and Historical Population
The State of California Department of Finance reported the population of Oakland to be 426,457 as of January 1, 2025 (E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State).
Table 4-4 shows the population in the City of Oakland from 2000 to 2025.
Table 4-4. Annual Population Data
Year Population Year Population Year Population
2000 399,566 2009 389,913 2018 429,145
2001 399,262 2010 391,475 2019 430,753
2002 399,296 2011 390,724 2020 433,697
2003 397,440 2012 394,694 2021 431,073
2004 394,917 2013 399,927 2022 420,963
2005 389,937 2014 414,091 2023 424,172
2006 386,350 2015 419,571 2024 424,235
2007 385,882 2016 425,115 2025 426,457
2008 387,554 2017 428,165 - -
Source: California Department of Finance E-4 Population Estimates, 2001-2010, 2011-2020, & 2021-2025 Between 2000 and 202 5, California’s population grew by 16.7 percent while the City of Oakland’s population increased by 6.7 percent. Figure 4-5 shows the planning area’s annual population growth rates from 1970 to 202 5 compared to those of the state. The State experienced peak population growth in 2000, while the Oakland area is currently seeing a declining growth rate. The State and the City both experienced a general slowing of the annual growth rate between 2000 to 2010. However, the City of Oakland’s population grew by 11 percent between 2010 and 2020, while the California population only grew by 7 percent during the same period. Both the City and state have seen a decrease in growth from 2020 to 2025.
Future Population Projections
According to population projections by the California Department of Finance, Alameda County’s population is expected to increase to 1. 84 million by 20 50. This represents an 11.5 percent increase from the 2025 population of 1.65 million (California Department of Finance 2025).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-15
Figure 4-5 State of California and City of Oakland Population Growth by Decade
4.4.2 Equity Priority Communities
Equity Priority Communities are populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, which have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life. Equity Priority Communities represent areas where there is the potential for loss within an individual or social group. The term recognizes that some traits influence an individual’s or group’s resilience. This is their ability to prepare, respond, cope or recover from an event (FEMA 2023).
These communities may be more at -risk during hazard events due to a variety of factors, such as their physical and financial capacity to react or respond effectively, as well as the location and quality of their housing. Those with greater vulnerability may experience more severe impacts during emergencies or disasters. It is essential for public officials to consider the distinct needs of vulnerable populations in order to ensure their safety.
Note that throughout this LHMP, hazard mapping depicts Equity Priority Communities with an “EJC composite indicator score” based on the General Plan definition described below.
Environmental Justice Communities
The City of Oakland used the identified Environmental Justice Communities ( EJC) from the City’s General Plan Environmental Justice Element to determine the Equity Priority Communities exposed to and at risk from natural hazards. As part of the General Plan Environmental Justice Element, the City developed a screening analysis to identify EJC that consists of a composite set of indicators (quantitative metrics of EJ issues). Each indicator is scored and then combined to identify the topmost cumulatively burd ened communities (City of Oakland 2023) . Refer to the Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan for further details on the how the City identified the EJC. Figure 4-6 shows the screening
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-16
indicators by category, to de fine these communities for the City’s General Plan. This definition was approved by the Steering Committee to define Equity Priority Communities in this LHMP.
For this LHMP update, the composite score of each census tract was divided into three categories (91-100, 81-90, and ≤80). Populations in these categories are recognized as priority communities that are most affected by the hazard.
Figure 4-6. Equity Priority Community Factors Defined by the General Plan Environmental Justice Element
The distribution of Equity Priority Community members among planning sub-areas is shown in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Sub-Areas
Equity Priority
Community
Thresholds1 EPC Population2
Central East Oakland 91-100 34,939
81-90 23,907
≤80 25,659
Coliseum/Airport 91-100 4,879
81-90 0
≤80 0
Downtown 91-100 0
81-90 0
≤80 15,144
East Oakland Hills 91-100 0
81-90 0
≤80 0
Eastlake/Fruitvale 91-100 17,933
81-90 13,346
≤80 17,531
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 91-100 0
81-90 0
≤80 0
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-17
Sub-Areas
Equity Priority
Community
Thresholds1 EPC Population2
North Oakland Hills 91-100 0
81-90 0
≤80 0
North Oakland/Adams Point 91-100 0
81-90 0
≤80 20,378
West Oakland 91-100 2,553
81-90 8,882
≤80 20,979
Totals 91-100 60,304
81-90 46,135
≤80 99,691
Source: (City of Oakland 2023)
Notes: (1) These thresholds are determined by the City of Oakland to be the most burdened communities in the City.
(2) Population, by census tract, within the EPC threshold
4.5 DEVELOPMENT PROFILE
4.5.1 Land Use
Land use describes the human use of land. It represents the economic and cultural activities (e.g., agricultural, residential, industrial, mining, and recreational uses) that are practiced at a given place. Public and private lands frequently represent very different uses (U.S. EPA 2024).
Land cover describes how much of an area is covered by forests, wetlands, impervious surfaces, agriculture, and other land and water types. Water types include wetlands or open water (National Ocean Service 2024).
Land use varies from land cover in that certain uses may not always be immediately apparent (e.g., land utilized for timber production without harvest for an extended period and wooded areas designated as wilderness may both appear as forested areas but se rve different purposes) (U.S. EPA 2024).
Local Plan Requirement B2 - 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C) The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
Local Plan Requirement E1 - 44 CFR Part 201.6(d)(3)
A local jurisdiction must review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-18
The City of Oakland is highly urbanized. Of the total land, over 95 percent is developed.
Residential neighborhoods are spread throughout the city. Table 4-6 summarizes the area and Figure 4-7 illustrates the location of current land uses in the City of Oakland.
Table 4-6. General Plan Land Use Classifications in Oakland Land Use Category
General Plan Data (2024)
Acreage Percent of City
Business Mix 1,344.9 3.74%
Central Business District 721.4 2.01%
Community Commercial 771.5 2.14%
Detached Unit Residential 5,812.5 16.16%
EPP General Commercial 1 52.3 0.15%
EPP Heavy Industry 28.5 0.08%
EPP Light Industry 131.0 0.36%
EPP Mixed Use District 94.2 0.26%
EPP Parks 76.3 0.21%
EPP Planned Waterfront Development 108.2 0.30%
EPP Produce Market 6.8 0.02%
EPP Residential Mixed Use 129.7 0.36%
EPP Retail Dining Entertainment 44.5 0.12%
EPP Waterfront Commercial Recreation 39.4 0.11%
EPP Waterfront Mixed Use 9.5 0.03%
EPP Waterfront Warehouse District 14.5 0.04%
General Industry and Transportation 4,767.8 13.25%
Hillside Residential 5,949.0 16.54%
Housing and Business Mix 378.0 1.05%
Institutional 1,051.9 2.92%
Mixed Housing Type Residential 6,021.6 16.74%
Neighborhood Center Mixed Use 764.5 2.13%
Regional Commercial 646.4 1.80%
Resource Conservation 3,414.2 9.49%
Urban Park and Open Space 2,404.2 6.68%
Urban Residential 1,194.9 3.32%
Total 35,977.6 100.00%
Source: General Plan GIS Data provided by City of Oakland 2024 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-19
Figure 4-7. Land Use in the City of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-20
4.5.2 General Building Stock
Current Building Stock
Based on assessor records, Table 4-7 and Table 4-8 show the breakdown of planning area building stock (number and estimated replacement value) by sub -area and by type of use, respectively.
Table 4-7. Distribution of Buildings in the Planning Area by Sub-Area Sub-Area Total # of Buildings
Total Building Value—
Structure and Contents
Central East Oakland 22,271 $17,986,229,601
Coliseum/Airport 1,229 $5,646,390,094
Downtown 5,087 $21,475,904,408
East Oakland Hills 10,993 $8,434,796,515
Eastlake/Fruitvale 17,046 $20,713,824,637
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 11,192 $7,699,736,380
North Oakland Hills 10,125 $9,022,389,851
North Oakland/Adams Point 21,103 $26,981,073,354
West Oakland 6,497 $11,010,987,509
Total 105,543 $128,971,332,346
Sources: (City of Oakland 2025); (City of Oakland 2025); (City of Oakland 2015) Table 4-8. Distribution of Buildings in the Planning Area by Use Type Use Type Total # of Buildings
Total Building Value—
Structure and Contents
Residential 98,069 $73,172,798,249
Commercial 5,347 $35,757,270,070
Industrial 743 $5,844,984,605
Agriculture 4 $7,152,700
Religion 416 $2,044,975,108
Government 717 $6,434,885,259
Education 247 $5,709,266,356
Total 105,543 $128,971,332,346
Sources: (City of Oakland 2025); (City of Oakland 2025); (City of Oakland 2015)
4.5.3 Development Trends
Future Trends
The City of Oakland’s General Plan governs land use decision and policymaking. This hazard mitigation plan will work together with the General Plan to support wise land use in the future by providing vital information on the risk associated with hazards within the city. The City will incorporate by reference the hazard mitigation plan in the General Plan’s Safety Element. This will ensure that all future trends in development can be established with the benefits of information on risk and vulnerability to hazards identified in this plan. The City is presently undertaking a comprehensive update to its General Plan, and completed Phase 11 with the adoption of the updated Safety Element, updated Housing Element, and a new Environmental Justice Element in September 2023. This hazard mitigation plan builds upon City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-21
and implements those policy documents as well as updates to policies on l and use, transportation, open space, infrastructure and capital facilities, and noise.
Planning Framework
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan supports “growth in industry and commerce, providing the flexibility needed to accommodate evolving trends in retailing, entertainment, manufacturing processes, and distribution techniques while also resolvin g long-standing problems relating to conflicts among different land uses.” As of the date of this LHMP update, the City has adopted the following specific plans: Broadway Valdez District Specific Plan, Central Estuary Area Plan, Coliseum Area Specific Plan , Downtown Oakland Specific Plan, Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, North Oakland Hill Area Specific Plan, and West Oakland Specific Plan.
The Estuary Policy Plan (EPP) is part of the General Plan. This plan includes policies to enhance the Oakland waterfront as a resource for the City. Recommendations from the Estuary Policy Plan replace those in the General Plan for the estuary shoreline, extending from Castro Street to the East Creek Slough (City of Oakland 1999) . All these plans provide guidance for the development of underutilized sites in the City with residential and commercial uses that will contribute to City revitalization and economic development.
The 2023-2031 City of Oakland Housing Element identifies areas of the city with the best potential for housing development, specifically addressing the needs of households by income level. The foundation for the Housing Element is a state-mandated requirement that all California cities provide for their fair share of the regional housing need for all income levels. In the Bay Area, assignments for each city are determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Under this requirement, Oakland needs to p lan for 26,251 new housing units between 2023 and 2031 (City of Oakland Planning & Building Department 2023).
4.6 COMMUNITY LIFELINES
FEMA released initial guidance on the community lifelines concept in 2019 to describe the critical facilities or assets that enable the continuous operation of critical government and business functions and are essential to human health and safety or economic security.
Lifelines are the most fundamental services in the community that, when stabilized, enable all othe r aspects of society to function. When disrupted, decisive intervention (e.g., rapid service re -establishment or employment of contingency response solutions) is required (FEMA 2023a).
The SC identified the critical facilities or lifelines that support the City before, during, and after hazard events. A summary of the critical facilities or lifelines located within the Planning Area is listed in Table 4-9 and shown on Figure 4-8.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-22
Table 4-9. Community Lifelines in the City of Oakland
Sub-Area
Communications
Energy
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Health and Medical
Safety and Security
Transportation
Water Systems
Total
Central East Oakland 23 2 0 153 1 61 18 0 258
Coliseum/Airport 72 2 0 113 0 12 24 1 224
Downtown 154 3 0 101 1 39 24 1 323
East Oakland Hills 19 1 0 26 0 25 14 1 86
Eastlake/Fruitvale 25 2 1 145 2 54 40 1 270
Glenview/ Redwood
Heights 2 2 0 23 0 19 19 0 65
North Oakland Hills 52 3 0 17 0 18 16 0 106
North Oakland/Adams
Point 31 2 2 149 7 42 79 0 312
West Oakland 81 9 1 149 1 23 74 5 343
Total 459 26 4 876 12 293 308 9 1,987
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-23
Figure 4-8. Community Lifelines in the City of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-24
4.6.1 Safety and Security
Safety and security lifelines include law enforcement/security (e.g., police stations, correctional facilities, site security), fire service, search and rescue, government service (e.g., emergency operation centers, government offices, schools), and community safety (e.g., flood control, protective actions). The City identified the following facilities as safety and security lifelines: correctional facilities, emergency operation centers, fire stations, government offices, Head Start centers, historic/cultural resources, law enforcement/police stations, libraries, recreational centers, and schools (see Table 4-10). In total, there are 296 Safety and Security lifelines in the City of Oakland (see Table 4-11 and Figure 4-9).
Table 4-10. Safety and Security Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland Sub-Area
Correctional
Facilities
EOC
Fire Station
Government
Offices
Head Start
Centers
Historic/Cultural
Resources
Law
Enforcement
Public Library
Police Station
Post Office
Recreation
Center
Schools
Central East Oakland 1 0 5 0 9 0 0 5 1 2 4 37
Coliseum/Airport 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1* 1 1 1 4
Downtown 1 2 2 7 1 3 0 3 3 4 3 11
East Oakland Hills 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 19
Eastlake/Fruitvale 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 2 2 1 8 36
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 12
North Oakland Hills 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 10
North Oakland/Adams Point 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 5 1 4 3 24
West Oakland 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 2 11
Total 2 4 27 7 19 3 1 18 8 17 26 164
Sources: (Alameda County 2023); (California Department of Education 2025); (City of Oakland 2017) *Facility has a public library and a senior center
Table 4-11. Safety and Security Lifelines in the City of Oakland Sub-Area Safety and Security
Central East Oakland 64
Coliseum/Airport 11
Downtown 40
East Oakland Hills 25
Eastlake/Fruitvale 55
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 18
North Oakland Hills 18
North Oakland/Adams Point 42
West Oakland 22
Total 296
Sources: (Alameda County 2023); (California Department of Education 2025); (City of Oakland 2017)
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-25
4.6.2 Food, Hydration, Shelter
Food, hydration, and shelter lifelines
include food (e.g., grocery stores, food
banks), hydration (e.g., water supply
chain, bottled water distribution),
shelter, and agriculture. There are 4
food, hydration, shelter community lifelines in the City of Oakland. The City identified the following facilities as food, hydration, and shelter lifelines: animal
shelters and senior centers (see Table 4-12). In total, there are 4 Safety and Security lifelines in the City of Oakland (see Table 4-13 and Figure 4-10).
Table 4-12. Animal Shelters and Senior Centers in the City of Oakland Sub-Area
Animal
Shelter
Senior
Center
Central East Oakland 0 0
Coliseum/Airport 0 0*
Downtown 0 0
East Oakland Hills 0 0
Eastlake/Fruitvale 1 0
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 0
North Oakland Hills 0 0
North Oakland/Adams Point 0 2
West Oakland 0 1
Total 1 3
Source: (City of Oakland 2017)
* The senior center in this sub-area is located in a library building and noted in Table 4-10 Table 4-13. Food, Hydration, Shelter Lifelines in the City of Oakland Sub-Area
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Central East Oakland 0
Coliseum/Airport 0
Downtown 0
East Oakland Hills 0
Eastlake/Fruitvale 1
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0
North Oakland Hills 0
North Oakland/Adams Point 2
West Oakland 1
Total 4
Source: (City of Oakland 2017)
Community lifelines exist within the
City, but GIS data was not available
for a spatial analysis or mapping.
Many of these facilities, including
grocery stores, are part of the general
building stock analysis. Shelters, food
distribution centers, and cooli ng
centers are included in the safety and
security lifeline category (e.g., library,
religious institution).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-26
Figure 4-9 Safety and Security Lifelines in the City of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-27
Figure 4-10 Food, Hydration, Shelter Lifelines in the City of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-28
4.6.3 Health and Medical
Health and medical lifelines include medical care (e.g., hospitals, pharmacies, long-term care), public health (e.g., health surveillance, behavioral health, labs), patient movement (e.g., emergency medical service), fatality movement, and medical supply chain. The City identified the following facilities as health and medical lifelines: dialysis centers, hospitals, and VA health systems (see Table 4-14). In total, there are 12 health and medical lifelines in the City of Oakland (see Table 4-15 and Figure 4-11).
Table 4-14. Health and Medical Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland Sub-Area
Dialysis
Centers Hospitals
VA Health
Systems
Central East Oakland 1 0 0
Coliseum/Airport 0 0 0
Downtown 0 0 1
East Oakland Hills 0 0 0
Eastlake/Fruitvale 1 1 0
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 0 0
North Oakland Hills 0 0 0
North Oakland/Adams Point 4 3 0
West Oakland 0 0 1
Total 6 4 2
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); (Alameda County 2023)
Table 4-15. Health and Medical Lifelines in the City of Oakland Sub-Area Health and Medical
Central East Oakland 1
Coliseum/Airport 0
Downtown 1
East Oakland Hills 0
Eastlake/Fruitvale 2
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0
North Oakland Hills 0
North Oakland/Adams Point 7
West Oakland 1
Total 12
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); (Alameda County 2023)
4.6.4 Energy
Energy lifelines include power grid (e.g., generation systems, transmission systems, distribution systems) and fuel (e.g., refineries, fuel storage, pipelines, gas stations) . The City identified the following facilities as energy lifelines:
natural gas stations, power plants, and substations (see Table 4-17). In total, there are 26 energy lifelines in the City of Oakland (see Table 4-18 and Figure 4-12).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-29
Table 4-16. Energy Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland Sub-Area
Natural Gas
Station Power Plant Substation
Central East Oakland 0 0 2
Coliseum/Airport 1 0 1
Downtown 0 1 2
East Oakland Hills 0 1 0
Eastlake/Fruitvale 1 0 1
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 0 2
North Oakland Hills 0 0 3
North Oakland/Adams Point 0 0 2
West Oakland 1 3 5
Total 3 5 18
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); (CA Energy Commission 2025) Table 4-17. Energy in the City of Oakland
Sub-Area Energy
Central East Oakland 2
Coliseum/Airport 2
Downtown 3
East Oakland Hills 1
Eastlake/Fruitvale 2
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 2
North Oakland Hills 3
North Oakland/Adams Point 2
West Oakland 9
Total 26
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); (CA Energy Commission 2025) City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-30
Figure 4-11 Health and Medical Lifelines in the City of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-31
Figure 4-12 Energy Lifelines in the City of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-32
4.6.5 Communication
Communication lifelines include infrastructure (e.g., wireless, cable systems, television/radio, internet) , alerts/warnings/messages, 911 and dispatch, responder communications, and finance (e.g., banks and electronic payment processing). The City identified the following facilities as communication lifelines: AM transmission towers, FM transmission towers, land mobile broadcast towers, land mobile commercial towers, microwave service towers, and sirens (see Table 4-18). In total, there are 459 communication lifelines in the City of Oakland (see Table 4-19 and Figure 4-12).
Table 4-18. Communication Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland Sub-Area
AM
Transmission
Tower
FM
Transmission
Tower
Land Mobile
Broadcast
Tower
Land Mobile
Commercial
Tower
Microwave
Service Tower
Siren
Central East Oakland 0 0 0 0 20 3
Coliseum/Airport 0 0 1 0 70 1
Downtown 0 0 6 6 140 2
East Oakland Hills 0 0 0 0 10 9
Eastlake/Fruitvale 0 0 0 0 23 2
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 0 0 0 0 2
North Oakland Hills 0 3 5 7 30 7
North Oakland/Adams Point 0 0 1 0 30 0
West Oakland 4 0 2 3 70 2
Total 4 3 15 16 393 28
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); (HIFLD 2024); (HIFLD 2024) Table 4-19. Communication Lifelines in the City of Oakland Sub-Area Communication
Central East Oakland 23
Coliseum/Airport 72
Downtown 154
East Oakland Hills 19
Eastlake/Fruitvale 25
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 2
North Oakland Hills 52
North Oakland/Adams Point 31
West Oakland 81
Total 459
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); (HIFLD 2024); (HIFLD 2024)
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-33
4.6.6 Transportation
Transportation lifelines include highway/roadway/motor vehicle (e.g., roads, bridges), mass transit, railway (e.g., freight, passenger), aviation, and maritime.
The City identified the following facilities as transportation lifelines: airports, BART stations, city bridges, ferries, heliports, port facilities, rail stations, and state bridges (see Table 4-18). In total, there are 308 transportation lifelines in the City of Oakland (see Table 4-21 and Figure 4-14).
Table 4-20. Transportation Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland Sub-Area
Airport
BART Station
Ferry Facility
Heliport*
Port Facility
Rail Station
State Bridge
Central East Oakland 0 1 9 0 0 1 1
Coliseum/Airport 1 0 10 0 0 0 0
Downtown 0 3 10 1 2 2 1
East Oakland Hills 0 0 2 0 1 0 0
Eastlake/Fruitvale 0 1 6 0 0 6 0
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
North Oakland Hills 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
North Oakland/Adams Point 0 2 1 0 1 0 0
West Oakland 0 1 5 0 0 26 0
Total 1 8 49 1 4 35 2
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); (Alameda County 2025); (Caltrans 2024) *Other heliports in the City are included in the lifeline where they are located (ex., hospital) Table 4-21. Transportation Lifelines in the City of Oakland Sub-Area Transportation
Central East Oakland 18
Coliseum/Airport 24
Downtown 24
East Oakland Hills 14
Eastlake/Fruitvale 40
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 19
North Oakland Hills 16
North Oakland/Adams Point 79
West Oakland 74
Total 308
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); (Alameda County 2025); (Caltrans 2024)
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-34
Figure 4-13 Communication Lifelines in the City of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-35
Figure 4-14 Transportation Lifelines in the City of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-36
4.6.7 Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials lifelines include facilities and HAZMAT , pollutants, or contaminants. The City identified the following facilities as hazardous materials lifelines: chemical hazards and hazardous materials (see Table 4-22).
In total, there are 876 hazardous materials lifelines in the City of Oakland (see Table 4-23 and Figure 4-15).
Table 4-22. Hazardous Materials Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland Sub-Area
Chemical
Hazard
Hazardous
Materials
Central East Oakland 3 150
Coliseum/Airport 0 113
Downtown 0 101
East Oakland Hills 0 26
Eastlake/Fruitvale 1 144
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 23
North Oakland Hills 0 17
North Oakland/Adams Point 0 149
West Oakland 1 148
Total 5 871
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); (CA DTSC 2025); (CA DTSC 2024) Table 4-23. Hazardous Materials Lifelines in the City of Oakland Sub-Area Hazardous Materials
Central East Oakland 153
Coliseum/Airport 113
Downtown 101
East Oakland Hills 26
Eastlake/Fruitvale 145
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 23
North Oakland Hills 17
North Oakland/Adams Point 149
West Oakland 149
Total 876
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); (CA DTSC 2025); (CA DTSC 2024)
4.6.8 Water Systems
Water systems lifelines include potable water infrastructure (e.g., intake, treatment, storage, distribution) and wastewater management (e.g., collection, storage, treatment, discharge ). The City identified the following facilities as water system lifelines: potable water treatment facilities, utility facilities, and wastewater treatment facilities (see Table 4-24). In total, there are nine water system lifelines in the City of Oakland (see Table 4-25 and Figure 4-16).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-37
Table 4-24. Water Systems Lifelines, by Type, in the City of Oakland Sub-Area
Potable Water
Treatment Facility Utility Facility
Wastewater
Treatment
Facility
Central East Oakland 0 0 0
Coliseum/Airport 0 0 1
Downtown 0 1 0
East Oakland Hills 1 0 0
Eastlake/Fruitvale 0 1 0
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 0 0
North Oakland Hills 0 0 0
North Oakland/Adams Point 0 0 0
West Oakland 0 4 1
Total 1 6 2
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); (City of Oakland 2021) Table 4-25. Water Systems Lifelines in the City of Oakland Sub-Area Water Systems
Central East Oakland 0
Coliseum/Airport 1
Downtown 1
East Oakland Hills 1
Eastlake/Fruitvale 1
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0
North Oakland Hills 0
North Oakland/Adams Point 0
West Oakland 5
Total 9
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); (City of Oakland 2021) City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-38
Figure 4-15 Hazardous Materials Lifelines in the City of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-39
Figure 4-16 Water Systems Lifelines in the City of Oakland
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-40
4.7 ECONOMY
4.7.1 Industry, Businesses, and Institutions
The 2019-2023 ACS data identified 232,417 civilian employed persons over the age of 16 in Oakland’s labor force. Table 4-26 summarizes the breakdown of industry types in the City and how many residents of Oakland are employed by each industry. Of Oakland’s employed residents, the “ Educational services, and health care and social assistance ” industry employed the most people at 22.3%. The second largest employment sector was the “Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services” industry, which accounted for 20.3% of the total employed persons in Oakland.
The City’s workforce holds a variety of types of jobs as shown in Table 4-27, with the largest sector (51.3%) working in management, business, science, and arts occupations, followed by
22.79% in the educational services, and health care and social assistance sector (Census Reporter n.d.).
Table 4-26. Number of City Residents Employed, by Industry Industry Sector Number Percentage
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 1,155 0.50% Construction 14,253 6.14%
Manufacturing 16,584 7.14%
Wholesale trade 3,989 1.72%
Retail trade 18,807 8.10%
Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 16,183 6.97% Information, finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing
17,794 7.66%
Professional, scientific, management, administration 47,147 20.30% Educational, health and social services 51,824 22.31%
Arts, entertainment, recreation, and services 22,845 9.83% Other services 12,245 5.27%
Public administration 9,225 3.97%
Armed Forces 245 0.10%
Source (Census Reporter n.d.)
Note: The table above captures the number of City residents employed by each industry regardless of where their employer is located.
Table 4-27. Jobs by Occupation in the City of Oakland
Occupation Sector Number Percentage
Management, business, science, and arts occupations 119,918 51.60% Services occupations 37,878 16.30%
Sales and office occupations 37,390 16.10%
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance
occupations
13,813 5.90%
Production, transportation, and material moving 23,151 10.00% Military Specific Occupation 143 0.10%
Source: (Census Reporter n.d.)
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Oakland Profile Black & Veatch 4-41
4.7.2 Employment Trends
According to the 5-year American Community Survey (2 023), about 232,417, or 64.1 percent of the City of Oakland’s population 16 years old or older is in the labor force. Of the working- age population, 49.5 percent of men and 50.5 percent of women are in the labor force.
The 2023 U.S. Census Bureau data shows 47.6 percent of the City’s population work and live in Oakland; 52.4 percent commute to other places. In 20 23, 46.4 percent of Oakland commuters spent more than 30 minutes travelling to work.
Based on the American Community Survey 2019-2023 5-year estimates data profiles from the U.S. Census Bureau, the unemployment rate for California in 2023 was approximately
6.4%. In contrast, the City of Oakland reported a slightly lower unemployment rate of 4.1%.
Figure 4-17 illustrates the unemployment rates for Oakland in relation to the State.
Figure 4-17 Recent Unemployment Rates for California and the City of Oakland Source: (U.S. Census 2025)
Part 2 - Risk
Assessment
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Hazards of Concern Black & Veatch 5-1
5. HAZARDS OF CONCERN
5.1 WHAT IS A HAZARD OF CONCERN?
Defining the hazards that present the greatest risk to the Planning Area is the first step in assessing overall risk to the community. The CPT and SC reviewed available information to determine what types of hazards may affect the Planning Area, how often they can occur, and their potential severity.
For the 2026 LHMP, the City identified the following as hazards of concern. Hazards are listed in alphabetical order, not by level of risk:
• Dam Failure
• Drought
• Earthquake
• Flood
• Landslide
• Sea-Level Rise
• Severe Weather
• Tsunami/Seiche
• Wildfire
The following sections provide details on how the City determined the hazards of concerns for this LHMP.
5.2 FEDERAL DISASTER DECLARATIONS
Federal disaster declarations are typically issued for hazard events that cause more damage state and local governments can handle without assistance from the federal government, although no specific dollar loss threshold has been established for these dec larations. A presidential disaster declaration puts federal recovery programs into motion to help disaster victims, businesses, and public entities. Some of the programs are matched by state programs. Review of presidential disaster declarations helps esta blish the probability of reoccurrence for each hazard and identify targets for risk reduction. Table 5-1 lists the federal disaster (DR), emergency (EM), and fire management assistance (FM) declarations that included Alameda County since 1954.
Table 5-1. Federal Disaster Declaration History in Alameda County Disaster
Number
Declaration
Date
Incident
Type
Title Designated Area
DR-15-CA February 5, 1954 Flood Flood & Erosion Statewide DR-47-CA December 23,
1955
Flood Flood Statewide
DR-65-CA December 29,
1956
Fire Forest Fire Statewide
DR-82-CA April 4, 1958 Flood Heavy Rainstorms & Flood Statewide DR-122-CA March 6, 1962 Flood Floods Statewide
DR-119-CA November 16,
1961
Fire Fire (Los Angeles County) Statewide
DR-145-CA February 25, 1963 Flood Severe Storms, Heavy Rains & Flooding
Statewide
DR-138-CA October 24, 1962 Flood Severe Storms & Flooding Statewide DR-169-CA April 1, 1964 Other Seismic Sea Wave Statewide City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Hazards of Concern Black & Veatch 5-2
Disaster
Number
Declaration
Date
Incident
Type
Title Designated Area
DR-161-CA December 21,
1963
Dam/Levee
Break
Flood Due To Broken Dam Statewide
DR-295-CA September 29,
1970
Fire Forest & Brush Fires Alameda County
DR-283-CA February 16, 1970 Flood Severe Storms & Flooding Alameda County EM-3023-CA January 20, 1977 Drought Drought Alameda County FM-2028-CA August 7, 1977 Fire Scarface Fire Statewide
DR-651-CA January 7, 1982 Flood Severe Storms, Flood,
Mudslides & High Tide
Alameda County
DR-677-CA February 9, 1983 Coastal
Storm
Coastal Storms, Floods, Slides
& Tornadoes
Alameda County
FM-2055-CA July 11, 1985 Fire Hidden Valley Lake Fire Statewide FM-2054-CA July 11, 1985 Fire Lexington Fire Statewide
DR-758-CA February 21, 1986 Flood Severe Storms & Flooding Alameda County FM-2065-CA September 2,
1987
Fire Stanislaus Complex Fire Statewide
FM-2071-CA September 13,
1988
Fire Forty Niner Fire Statewide
DR-845-CA October 18, 1989 Earthquake Loma Prieta Earthquake Alameda County DR-894-CA February 11, 1991 Freezing Severe Freeze Alameda County DR-919-CA October 22, 1991 Fire Oakland Hills Fire Alameda County DR-1046-CA March 12, 1995 Severe Storm Severe Winter Storms, Flooding Landslides, Mud
Flow
Alameda County
DR-1044-CA January 10, 1995 Severe Storm Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, Mud
Flows
Alameda County
DR-1155-CA January 4, 1997 Severe Storm Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud And Landslides
Alameda County
DR-1203-CA February 9, 1998 Severe Storm Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
Alameda County
EM-3248-CA September 13,
2005
Hurricane Hurricane Katrina Evacuation Alameda County
DR-1646-CA June 5, 2006 Severe Storm Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides
Alameda County
DR-1628-CA February 3, 2006 Severe Storm Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides
Alameda County
DR-4308-CA April 1, 2017 Flood Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, and Mudslides
Alameda County
DR-4305-CA March 16, 2017 Flood Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, and Mudslides
Alameda County
DR-4301-CA February 14, 2017 Severe Storm Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
Alameda County
DR-4482-CA March 22, 2020 Biological Covid-19 Pandemic Alameda County EM-3428-CA March 13, 2020 Biological Covid-19 Alameda County DR-4699-CA April 3, 2023 Severe Storm Severe Winter Storms, Straight-Line Winds, Flooding,
Landslides, and Mudslides
Alameda County
DR-4683-CA January 14, 2023 Flood Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
Alameda County
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Hazards of Concern Black & Veatch 5-3
Disaster
Number
Declaration
Date
Incident
Type
Title Designated Area
EM-3591-CA January 9, 2023 Flood Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, and Mudslides
Alameda County
Source: FEMA, 2025
5.3 NATIONAL RISK INDEX
FEMA’s National Risk Index (NRI) is a dataset and online tool developed to help illustrate risk for 18 natural hazards. The NRI was used as a starting point for natural hazard selection for this LHMP. Hazard chapters align with the NRI hazard types, except for the flood chapter which focuses on the urban flooding concern for the City. Refer to Table 5-2 for the NRI ranking of natural hazards to the Planning Area, at the county level. The SC chose to exclude hail, lightning, and tornadoes due to its ranking and the lack of histo rical impacts to the Planning Area.
Table 5-2. National Risk Index for the City of Oakland
Hazard Risk Index Included in the Plan?
Avalanche Not Applicable No
Coastal Flooding Relatively Low Yes
Cold Wave No Rating No
Drought Relatively High Yes
Earthquake Very High Yes
Hail Relatively Low No
Heat Wave Relatively Moderate Yes
Hurricane Not Applicable No
Ice Storm Not Applicable No
Landslide Relatively High Yes
Lightning Very Low No
Riverine Flooding Relatively High Yes
Strong Wind Very Low Yes
Tornado Relatively Moderate No
Tsunami Relatively Moderate Yes
Volcanic Activity Not Applicable No
Wildfire Relatively Moderate Yes
Winter Weather Very Low No
5. 4 HAZARDS OF CONCERN
Based on a review of the 2023 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the National Risk Index, and input from the Steering Committee , nine hazards, listed alphabetically, are identified as natural hazards of concern affecting Oakland and will be addressed in this plan. • Dam Failure
• Drought
• Earthquake
• Flood
• Landslide
• Sea-Level Rise
• Severe Weather
• Tsunami/Seiche
• Wildfire
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Hazards of Concern Black & Veatch 5-4
Refer to the table below for a complete comparison of hazards included in the 2023 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Alameda County Plan, and this plan.
Table 5-3. Hazard Mitigation Plan Comparison
2023 California State
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Alameda County
Hazard Mitigation 2026 Oakland LHMP Comment
Air Pollution - Wildfire
Air pollution from wildfire
smoke is a concern for the
City and is discussed in
the Wildfire chapter
Civil Disorder -
Terrorism, Active
Shooter, Cyber-
Terrorism, Civil Unrest
This local hazard aligns
with the State
Cyber Threats -
Terrorism, Active
Shooter, Cyber-
Terrorism, Civil Unrest
This local hazard aligns
with the State
Dam Failure Dam Failure Dam Failure This local hazard aligns with the State
Drought Drought Drought This local hazard aligns
with the State
Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake This local hazard aligns with the State
Electromagnetic Pulse
Attack - - Not a concern for the City
Energy Shortage - - Addressed in other plans
Epidemic/Pandemic/Vector-
Borne Disease Infectious Disease Public Health Incidents This local hazard aligns with the State
Extreme Cold or Freeze - Severe Weather This local hazard aligns with the State
Extreme Heat - Severe Weather This local hazard aligns
with the State
Geomagnetic Storm - - Not a concern for the City
Hazardous Materials
Release -
Hazardous Materials
and Radiological
Incidents
This local hazard aligns
with the State
Invasive and Nuisance
Species - - Addressed in other plans
Landslide, Debris Flows, and
Other Mass Movements Landslide Landslide This local hazard aligns with the State
Levee Failure - - Not a concern for the City
Natural Gas Pipeline
Hazards - - Addressed in other plans
Oil Spills - - Addressed in other plans
Other Potential Long-Term
Electrical Outrages - - Addressed in other plans
Public Safety Power Shutoff Public Safety Power
Shutoff - Addressed in other plans
Radiological Accidents -
Hazardous Materials
and Radiological
Incidents
This local hazard aligns
with the State
Riverine, Stream, Alluvial
Flood Flood Flood This local hazard aligns
with the State
Sea-Level Rise, Coastal
Flooding and Erosion - Sea-Level Rise This local hazard aligns with the State
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Hazards of Concern Black & Veatch 5-5
2023 California State
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Alameda County
Hazard Mitigation 2026 Oakland LHMP Comment
Severe Wind, Weather, and
Storms - Severe Weather This local hazard aligns
with the State
Snow Avalanche - - Not a concern for the City
Subsidence - - Not a concern for the City
Terrorism -
Terrorism, Active
Shooter, Cyber-
Terrorism, Civil Unrest
This local hazard aligns
with the State
Transportation accidents
Resulting in Explosions or
Toxic Releases
- - Addressed in other plans
Tree Mortality - - Addressed in other plans
Tsunami and Seiche Tsunami Tsunami/Seiche This local hazard aligns with the State
Urban Structural Fire - - Addressed in other plans
Volcano - - Not a concern for the City
Well Stimulation and
Hydraulic Fracturing - - Not a concern for the City
Wildfire Wildfire Wildfire This local hazard aligns
with the State
Incorporated in each profile Climate Change Incorporated in each profile
This local hazard aligns
with the State
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Risk Assessment Methodology and Tools Black & Veatch 6-1
6. RISK ASSESSMEN T METHODOLOGY AND TOOLS
6.1 ASSESSING RISK
In hazard mitigation planning, risk is the potential for damage or loss when natural hazards interact with people or assets, such as buildings, infrastructure, and resources. A risk assessment is a process used to identify potential hazards and analyze what could happen if a disaster or hazard occurs . It involves a data-driven analysis to identify potential hazards , what could happen if hazards occur, and determine vulnerabilities to hazards (FEMA 2023).
The risk assessment process focuses on three main elements – hazard identification, exposure identification, and vulnerability identification and loss estimation.
6.2 RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS
For this LHMP, GIS and FEMA’s Hazus software programs were used to conduct the risk assessment.
6.2.1 Mapping
GIS tools provide a mechanism to perform quantitative analysis. Hazards that have specified geographic boundaries permit analysis using GIS. These hazards include the following:
• Dam Failure
• Earthquake
• Flood
• Landslide
• Sea-Level Rise
• Tsunami
• Wildfire
6.2.2 Modeling
FEMA’s Hazus model version 6.1 was used to evaluate the following hazards:
• Dam Failure —A Level 2 user-defined analysis was performed for general building stock and critical facilities and infrastructure in inundation areas. Potential losses for the combined inundation areas of multiple dams, specific dams noted later in this section, were estimated using the Hazus flood module.
• Earthquake—A Level 2 analysis was performed to assess earthquake exposure and vulnerability for three deterministic scenarios: Calaveras (No) M6.86, Hayward M7.05, and San Andreas (Peninsula) M7.38. The Hazus methodology uses ground motion and ground failure fragility curves to estimate damage state probabilities which are then used to estimate losses at the structure level.
Local Plan Requirement A4 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(b)(3)
Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Risk Assessment Methodology and Tools Black & Veatch 6-2
• Flood—A Level 2 user-defined analysis was performed for general building stock and critical facilities and infrastructure in flood zones. The effective and preliminary FEMA flood mapping for the planning area was used to delineate flood hazard areas and estimate potential losses from the 1% - and 0.2% -annual chance flood events . To estimate damage that would result from a flood, Hazus uses pre-defined relationships between flood depth at a structure and resulting damage, with damage given as a percent of tot al replacement value. Curves defining these relationships have been developed for damage to structures and for damage to typical contents within a structure. By inputting flood depth data, estimated first floor elevations, and known property replacement cost values, dollar-value estimates of damage were generated. • Tsunami—A modified Level 2 user -defined analysis was performed for general building stock, critical facilities and infrastructure in the tsunami hazard area.
Potential losses for the hazard area were estimated using the Hazus flood module as described for flood above. Flood module parameters typically us ed in coastal flood analyses were modified to accommodate the nature of tsunamis.
Overview
FEMA developed the Hazards U.S., or Hazus, model in 1997 to estimate losses caused by earthquakes and identify areas that face the highest risk and potential for loss. Hazus was later expanded into a multi-hazard methodology with new models for estimating potential losses from hurricanes and floods. The use of Hazus for hazard mitigation planning offers numerous advantages:
• Provides a consistent methodology for assessing risk across geographic and political entities.
• Provides a way to save data so that it can readily be updated as population, inventory, and other factors change and as mitigation planning efforts evolve. • Facilitates the review of mitigation plans because it helps to ensure that FEMA methodologies are incorporated.
• Supports grant applications by calculating benefits using FEMA definitions and terminology.
• Produces hazard data and loss estimates that can be used in communication with local stakeholders.
• Is administered by the local government and can be used to manage and update an LHMP throughout its implementation.
Hazus is a GIS -based software program used to support risk assessments, mitigation planning, and emergency planning and response. It provides a wide range of inventory data, such as demographics, building stock, community lifelines, transportation and util ity lifelines, and multiple models to estimate potential losses from natural disasters. The program can be used to map hazard data, and the results of damage and economic loss estimates for buildings and infrastructure.
Level of Detail for Evaluation
Hazus provides default data for inventory, vulnerability and hazards; this default data can be supplemented with local data to provide a more refined analysis. The model can carry out City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Risk Assessment Methodology and Tools Black & Veatch 6-3
three levels of analysis, depending on the format and level of detail of information about the Planning Area:
• Level 1—All of the information needed to produce an estimate of losses is included in the software’s default data. This data is derived from national databases and describes in general terms the characteristic parameters of the Planning Area. • Level 2—More accurate estimates of losses require more detailed information about the Planning Area . To produce Level 2 estimates of losses, detailed information is required about local geology, hydrology, hydraulics and building inventory, as well as data about utilities and critical facilities. This information is needed in a GIS format. • Level 3 —This level of analysis generates the most accurate estimate of losses. It requires detailed engineering and geotechnical information to customize it for the Planning Area.
6.3 RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH
This plan evaluated risks associated with each identified hazard for Oakland. Each hazard was profiled using the following steps:
• Identify and profile each hazard – the following information is given for each hazard of concern:
o Description of the Hazard: Defining the hazard and a discussion of potential impacts.
o Location: Geographic areas most affected by the hazard. o Extent: Measuring the intensity of the hazard, warning time for preparations, and the reasonable worst-case scenario.
o Previous Occurrences: Summary of past events that have impacted the Planning Area.
o Future Conditions : Probability estimates, including potential frequency and intensity shifts caused by climate change and population and development trends.
• Determine exposure to each hazard – one of the following assessment approaches was used, depending on the type of information available for the hazard o Quantitative assessment : Performed when numerical data are available to define risk. Available numerical hazard data may include financial impact and probability.
o Qualitative assessment : Uses words to describe and categorize the likelihood and consequences of a risk when numerical data are unavailable.
• Assess the vulnerability of exposed facilities - Vulnerability of exposed structures and infrastructure was evaluated by estimating the probability of occurrence of each event and assessing structures, facilities, and systems that are exposed to each hazard. o Impact on Life, Health, and Safety (general population and Equity Priority Community population)
o Impact on General Building Stock
o Impact on Community Lifelines
o Impact on the Economy
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Risk Assessment Methodology and Tools Black & Veatch 6-4
o Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources
o Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources
• Identify potential mitigation opportunities –a range of potential opportunities for mitigating each hazard at the following scales:
o Community: Mitigation actions that can be implemented by the general public o Organizational: Mitigation actions that can be implemented by businesses and non-profits.
o Government: Mitigation actions that can be implemented by local governments.
6.4 SOURCES OF DATA USED IN RISK ASSESSMENT
Hazard information and data were collected for all hazards from a variety of sources, described in the sections below.
6.4.1 Building and Cost Data
Parcel and building information from the Alameda County Assessor were used to compile a detailed, citywide structure inventory including replacement costs. Replacement cost is the cost to replace the entire structure with one of equal quality and utility. Replacement cost is based on industry -standard c ost-estimation models published in RS Means Square Foot Costs. It is calculated using the RS Means square foot cost for a structure, which is based on the Hazus occupancy class (i.e., multi -family residential or commercial retail trade), multiplied by the square footage of the structure from the tax assessor data. The construction class and number of stories for single-family residential structures also factor in determining the square foot costs.
6.4.2 Community Lifelines
The inventory of critical facilities and infrastructure developed for the City ’s 2021 LHMP was updated utilizing the most recent versions of the source datasets as listed in Table 6-1. The facilities were categorized by FEMA’s Community Lifelines: Safety and Security; Food, Hydration, Shelter; Health and Medical; Energy; Communications; Transportation; Hazardous Material; and Water Systems. To protect individual privacy and the securit y of assets, information in this plan is presented in aggregate, without details about specific individual properties or facilities.
6.4.3 Population
2020 Census block -level data, provided with Hazus, was used to estimate the total population in each planning area . This data was also used to calculate the exposed population, displaced population and shelter needs for each hazard scenario.
Equity Priority Communities
The City of Oakland used the identified Environmental Justice Communities ( EJC) from the City’s General Plan Environmental Justice Element to determine the Equity Priority Communities exposed to and at risk from natural hazards. As part of the General Plan Environmental Justice Element, the City developed a screening analysis to identify EJC that consists of a composite set of indicators (quantitative metrics of EJ issues). Each indicator is scored and then combined to identify the topmost cumulatively burdened communities City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Risk Assessment Methodology and Tools Black & Veatch 6-5
(City of Oakland 2023) . Refer to the Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan for further details on the how the City identified the EJC.
For this LHMP update, the composite score of each census tract was divided into three categories (91-100, 81-90, and ≤80). Populations in these categories are recognized as priority communities that are most affected by the hazard.
6.4.4 Hazus Data Inputs
The following hazard datasets were used for the Hazus analyses conducted for the risk assessment:
• Dam Failure—Dam failure inundation area, and associated inundation depth grids, provided by California Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). Combined dam inundation areas and depth grids data were developed for the City’s 2021 LHMP from this source data and were utilized for the analysis of this hazard. No data for additional dams, or updated versions of the data incorporated into the 2021 combined data, were available from CA DWR. The combined inundation depth grids use the maximum depth were inundation areas overlap. The inundation areas for the following dams are included: Central, Cabot, Dunsmuir, Lake Temescal, and New Upper San Leandro. • Earthquake—ShakeMap data from the USGS Building Seismic Safety Council 2014 Event Set were used for the analysis of this hazard. This set of ShakeMap earthquake scenarios is the authoritative USGS collection for the continental United States. The scenario fault ruptures are derived from the latest National Seismic Hazard Model.
Landslide susceptibility data from the California Geological Survey (CGS) and liquefaction susceptibility data from USGS were also incorporated into the Hazus model to replace the default data.
• Flood—The effective FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM), and the flood depth grids developed for the City ’s 2021 LHMP risk assessment , were used to estimate the potential losses from the 0.2%- and 1%-annual-chance flood events. The effective flood mapping for Peralta Creek was replaced with Preliminary FIRM data provided by FEMA Region 9.
• Tsunami—Tsunami hazard area data provided by the California Department of Conservation were used for the analysis of this hazard. A depth grid developed using the hazard area data and the USGS 1/3 arc -second digital elevation model was integrated into the Hazus model.
6.4.5 Other Local Hazard Data
Local sources used in the risk and vulnerability assessment include the following:
• Landslide—An exposure analysis was conducted using deep -seated landslide susceptibility data from CGS. This data differentiates areas based on rock strength and steepness of slopes combined to create susceptibility classes. For the purposes of the exposure analysis, the classes were grouped as follows: High – Susceptibility Classes VII, VIII, and IX; Very High – Susceptibility Class X.
• Sea-Level Rise—Sea-level rises of 0.8 ft (2050) and 4.9 feet (2100 Intermediate-High), with 100-year storm surge and shallow groundwater rise, data were downloaded from San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ’s (BCDC) Regional City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Risk Assessment Methodology and Tools Black & Veatch 6-6
Shoreline Adaptation Plan Atlas Open Data portal. The portal provides coastal hazard data for sea level rise scenarios based on the California Sea Level Rise Guidance (2024) statewide averages. These data were compiled from BCDC’s Adapting to Rising Tides (ART) sea level rise and USGS’ Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) shallow groundwater rise datasets.
• Wildfire—An exposure analysis was conducted using fire hazard severity zones data provided the City . These zones were mapped based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors including winds. The zones are classified as Very High fire hazard.
o In February 2025, the State Fire Marshal released maps for the Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The State Fire Marshal map proposed to remove large portions of the Oakland Hills that had been designated as Very Fire Hazard Severity Zone and rezone as moderate and high severity zones or would not be labeled with any severity zone designation. The City did not agree with the decision by CAL FIRE to reduce the land area in Oakland. By adopting our own map, the City is demonstrating and pro tecting its long -standing interest in proactive prevention efforts in neighborhoods known to be at greatest risk because of a multitude of hazards. City Council adopted an ordinance to designate the Oakland Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
6.4.6 Data Source Summary
Table 6-1 describes the data used for spatially-based exposure and vulnerability assessments.
Table 6-1. Data Source Summary
Data Source Date(s) Format(s)
City of Oakland Parcels City of Oakland 2025 Digital (GIS) format Building footprints Open Street Map 2025 Digital (GIS) format Building replacement costs RS Means 2024 Digital (tabular) format
Population data Hazus v6.1 2020 Digital (GIS) format
Environmental Justice (EJ) Communities City of Oakland 2023 Digital (GIS) format California Dam Breach Inundation Maps,
Approved Inundation Boundaries
DIVISION OF SAFETY OF DAMS (DSOD)
CA DWR 2025 Digital (GIS) format
Dam failure inundation depth grids
developed for the 2021 Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan
City of Oakland 2021 Digital (GIS) format
Calaveras (No) M6.86 ShakeMap
M 6.9 Scenario Earthquake - Calaveras
(No)
USGS Earthquake
Hazards Program
website
2017 Digital (GIS) format
Haywired M7.05 ShakeMap
M 7.1 Scenario Earthquake - Haywired
M7.05 Scenario
USGS Earthquake
Hazards Program
website
2018 Digital (GIS) format
San Andreas (Peninsula) M7.38
M 7.4 Scenario Earthquake - San Andreas
(Peninsula)
USGS Earthquake
Hazards Program
website
2017 Digital (GIS) format
Maps of Quaternary deposits and
liquefaction susceptibility in the central
San Francisco Bay region, California
(USGS Open File Report 06-1037)
USGS 2006 Digital (GIS) format
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Risk Assessment Methodology and Tools Black & Veatch 6-7
Data Source Date(s) Format(s)
Maps of Quaternary Deposits and
Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central
San Francisco Bay Region, California
Shear-wave Velocity in Upper 30m of
Surficial Geology (Vs30) / NEHRP Soils
Earthquake Shaking Potential for
California
CGS 2015 Digital (GIS) format
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map
(effective 12/21/2018; last LOMR
11/20/2024)
FEMA Flood Map Service Center | Search
All Products
FEMA 2024 Digital (GIS) format
Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(issued 6/28/2024)
FEMA Flood Map Service Center | Search
All Products
FEMA 2024 Digital (GIS) format
Flood depth grids developed for the 2021
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
City of Oakland 2021 Digital (GIS) format
Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
depth grids
FEMA Region 9 Provided 2025 Digital (GIS) format
CGS Map Sheet 58: Susceptibility to
Deep-Seated Landslides in California
MS58 Deep-Seated Landslide
Susceptibility - Overview
CGS 2018 Digital (GIS) format
Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan
(RSAP) Coastal Flood Hazards - 0.8 ft
(2050) SLR Scenario
Coastal Flood Hazards | RSAP Open Data
BCDC 2025 Digital (GIS) format
Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan
(RSAP) Coastal Flood Hazards - 4.9 ft
(2100 Intermediate-High) SLR
Coastal Flood Hazards | RSAP Open Data
BCDC 2025 Digital (GIS) format
Tsunami Hazard Area Map, Alameda
County
CA Tsunami Hazard Area - Overview
CA Dept of
Conservation
2022 Digital (GIS) format
USGS 1/3 Arc Second Digital Elevation
Model (DEM)
GIS Data Download | U.S. Geological
Survey
USGS 2025 Digital (GIS) format
Fire Severity Zone in Local Responsibility
Areas (LRA)
City of Oakland Provided 2025 Digital (GIS) format
Community Lifelines Inventory
developed for the 2021 Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan
City of Oakland 2021 Digital (GIS) format
Post Offices
Post Offices | Alameda County Open
Data Hub
Alameda County 2023 Digital (GIS) format
California Public Schools 2024-25
California Public Schools 2024-25 |
California State Geoportal
CA Department of
Education 2025 Digital (GIS) format
California Private Schools 2024-25
California Private Schools 2023-24 |
California State Geoportal
CA Department of
Education 2025 Digital (GIS) format
Dialysis Centers
Dialysis Centers | Alameda County Open
Data Hub
Alameda County 2023 Digital (GIS) format
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Risk Assessment Methodology and Tools Black & Veatch 6-8
Data Source Date(s) Format(s)
California Power Plants
California Power Plants | California State
Geoportal
CA Energy
Commission 2025 Digital (GIS) format
Land Mobile Broadcast Towers HIFLD 2024 Digital (GIS) format Land Mobile Commercial Towers HIFLD 2024 Digital (GIS) format Microwave Service Towers HIFLD 2024 Digital (GIS) format State Bridges
State Highway Bridges | California State
Geoportal
Caltrans 2024 Digital (GIS) format
Hazardous Waste Tracking System -
Active Facilities
Hazardous Waste Tracking System -
Active Facilities | California State
Geoportal
CA DTSC 2025 Digital (GIS) format
6.5 DATA LIMITATIONS
Loss estimates, exposure assessments, and hazard-specific vulnerability evaluations rely on the best available data and methodologies. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology and arise in part from incomplete scientific knowledge conc erning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment.
Uncertainties also result from the following:
1. Approximations and simplifications necessary to conduct the study
2. Incomplete or dated inventory, demographic, or economic parameter data
3. The unique nature, geographic extent, and severity of each hazard
4. Mitigation measures already employed by the City
5. The amount of advance notice residents have to prepare for a specific hazard event
6. Uncertainty of climate change projections
Hazus currently represents the industry’s best management practice for assessing risk in support of hazard mitigation planning. However, the Hazus model is limited by the availability of data to support its working components. The model makes assumptions when data are not available. These model limitations can lead to an understatement or overstatement of risk.
These factors can result in a range of uncertainty in loss estimates, possibly by a factor of two or more. Therefore, potential exposure and loss estimates are approximate. These results do not predict precise results and should be used to understand relat ive risk. Over the long term, the City will collect additional data to update and refine existing inventories to assist in estimating potential losses.
Potential economic loss is based on the present value of the general building stock utilizing best available data. The City acknowledges significant impacts may occur to critical facilities and infrastructure as a result of these hazard events causing great economic loss. However, monetized damage estimates to critical facilities and infrastructure, and economic impacts were not quantified and require more detailed loss analyses.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-1
7. DAM FAILURE
7.1 HAZARD PROFILE
7.1.1 Description of the Hazard
Definition and Classification of Dams
A dam is an artificial barrier that can store water, wastewater, or liquid -borne materials for many reasons—flood control, human water supply, irrigation, livestock water supply, energy generation, containment of mine tailings, recreation, or pollution con trol. Many dams fulfill a combination of these functions. In California, dams are regulated by the State of California Division of Safety of Dams. Additional regulatory oversight of dams is cited in Chapter 18 and described in Appendix C (Federal & State Agencies, Programs & Regulations).
The California Water Code (Division 3) defines a dam as a ny artificial barrier, together with appurtenant works, which does or may impound or divert water, and that either:
• It has a height of more than 6 feet, and it impounds 50 acre-feet or more of water, or • It has a height of 25 feet or higher and impounds more than 15 acre-feet of water.
Dams can be classified according to their purpose, the construction material or methods used, their slope or cross section, the way they resist the force of the water pressure, or the means used for controlling seepage. Materials used to construct dams include earth, rock, tailings from mining or milling, concrete, masonry, steel, timber, plastic, rubber, and combinations of these.
Over time, dams decay and require maintenance to retain their level of protection. Despite efforts to provide sufficient structural integrity and to perform inspection and maintenance, problems can develop that lead to failure. In the United States, t he average age of dams is 53 years. Approximately 15,600 dams pose a significant hazard to life and property if failure occurs and about 2,000 unsafe dams are dispersed throughout the United States (FEMA 2021).
When dams fail or overtop, they can cause catastrophic impacts and lead to major flooding (Association of State Dam Safety Officials 2021) . While most dams have storage volumes small enough that failures would have little or no consequences, the failure of dams with large storage amounts could cause significant flooding downstream (FEMA 2013). Partial or full failure of dams has the potential to cause massive destruction to the ecosystems and communities located downstream.
Cause of the Hazard
Partial or full failure of a dam can occur because of one or a combination of the following reasons (FEMA 2016):
Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(i)
Include a description of the type, location, and extent for the identified hazards of concern and include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and the probability of future hazard events.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-2
• Overtopping that can be caused by extreme flood events, inadequate spillway design, debris blockage.
• Prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding.
• Deliberate acts of sabotage (terrorism).
• Structural failure of materials used in dam construction. • Movement and/or failure of the foundation supporting the dam. • Settlement and cracking concrete or embankment dams.
• Piping and internal erosion of soil in embankment dams. • Inadequate or negligent operation, maintenance, and upkeep. • Failure of upstream dams on the same waterway.
• Earthquake (liquefaction/landslides).
Many dam failures in the United States have been secondary results of other disasters. The most common causes are earthquakes, landslides, extreme storms, equipment malfunction, structural damage, foundation failures, and sabotage. Poor construction, lack of maintenance and repair, and deficient operational procedures are preventable or correctable by a program of regular inspections. Terrorism and vandalism are serious concerns that all operators of public facilities must plan for; these threats are under continuous review by public safety agencies.
Planning Requirements
State of California
All dams whose inundation areas may impact the Planning Area have emergency action plans (EAPs) on file. The EAPs must include the following (Cal OES 2021):
• Emergency notification flow charts.
• Information on a four-step response process.
• Description of agencies’ roles and actions in response to an emergency incident. • Description of actions to be taken in advance of an emergency. • Inundation maps.
• Additional information such as revision records and distribution lists.
After the EAPs are approved by the state, the law requires dam owners to send the approved EAPs to relevant stakeholders. Local public agencies can then adopt emergency procedures that incorporate the information in the EAP in a manner that conforms to local needs and includes methods and procedures for alerting and warning the public and other response and preparedness related items (Cal OES 2021).
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Dams that fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) also have specified planning requirements. FERC has the largest dam safety program in the United States. It cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to ensure and promote dam safety and, more recently, homeland security. FERC requires licensees to prepare EAPs and conducts training sessions on how to develop and test these plans. The plans are designed to serve as an early warning system if there is a potential for, or a sudden release of water from, a dam failure or accident to the dam. The plans include operational procedures that may be used, such as reducing reservoir levels and reducing downstream City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-3
flows and procedures for notifying affected residents and agencies responsible for emergency management. These plans are frequently updated and tested to ensure that in emergency situations everyone knows what to do, thus saving lives and minimizing property damage.
FEMA Guidance for Flood Mapping
FEMA’s Federal Guidelines for Inundation Mapping of Flood Risks Associated with Dam Incidents and Failures is part of the National Dam Safety Program, a partnership of states, federal agencies, and other stakeholders formed to encourage individual and community responsibility for dam safety. Under this program, states are responsible for regulating non- federal dams. The guidelines provide information for federal and state agencies, local governments, dam owners, and emergency management officials to use for reducing flood hazards and the resulting potential for economic damage and loss of life. It is a resource for developing state-specific guidelines for dam safety and as a reference manual for mapping dam breach inundation zones (FEMA 2013).
Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams
FEMA’s Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams grant program provides assistance for eligible rehabilitation activities that reduce dam risk and increase community preparedness.
For the purposes of the HHPD program, the term “rehabilitation” means the repair, replacement, reconstruction, or removal of a dam that is carried out to meet applicable state dam safety and security standards (FEMA 2020).
Summary of Potential Impacts
Dam failure can be catastrophic to all life and property downstream. California’s Division of Safety of Dams has developed a hazard potential classification system for state -jurisdiction dams, as shown in Table 7-1. This system is modified from federal guidelines, which recommend three-tier classification. The California system adds a fourth hazard classification of “extremely high.” Dams classified as extremely high hazard may impact highly populated areas or critical infrastructure or have short evacuation warning times.
Table 7-1. State of California Downstream Hazard Potential Classification Hazard
Classification
Potential Downstream Impacts on Life and Property
Low No probable loss of human life and low economic and environmental losses.
Losses are expected to be principally limited to the Owner’s property.
Significant No probable loss of human life but can cause economic loss, environmental damage, impacts to critical facilities, or other significant impacts.
High Expected to cause loss of at least one human life.
Extremely High Expected to cause considerable loss of human life or would result in an inundation area with a population of 1,000 or more.
Source: (DWR Division of Safety of Dams 2021)
Cascading Hazard Impacts
Cascading impacts are the impacts that result when one type of hazard event triggers one or more other hazard events, which may in turn trigger still others. The notable cascading impacts associated with dam failure are flooding, landslides, bank erosion, and destruction City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-4
of habitat (Cal OES 2023) . Notable cascading impacts from dam failures include the following:
• Potential to impact multiple downstream jurisdictions. • Loss of power associated with facilities that provide hydropower. • Loss of water supply.
• Damage to agricultural lands.
• Impacts on multiple jurisdictions (Cal OES 2023).
7.1.2 Location
The State of California Division of Dam Safety (DSOD) and the USACE both maintain databases of dams in California. The DSOD lists only dams under state regulation, while the USACE National Inventory of Dams (NID) includes all dams under state or federal regulation.
Based on an analysis of state and federal dam data, Table 7-2 lists the dams that have the potential to impact the City of Oakland should they fail. The list includes all state- or federal- regulated high hazard dams with mapped inundation areas at least partly within the Oakland city limits. Tyson Lake Dam in the City of Piedmont does not have inundation mapping and therefore cannot be analyzed for potential impacts to the City of Oakland (City of Piedmont 2025).
Table 7-2. State or Federally Regulated High /Extremely High Hazard Dams in Alameda County with Potential to Impact Oakland
Name
Hazard
Class1
Water
Course Owner Year Built
Dam
Type
Crest
Length
(feet)
Height
(feet)
Storage
Capacity
(acre-feet)
Drainage
Area
(sq. mi.)
Condition
Assessment
Central Extremely
High Off stream EBMUD
1910
(reconstructed
1961)
Earth 929 55 472 N/A Satisfactory
Chabot Extremely
High
San
Leandro
Creek
EBMUD
1875
(seismically
upgraded, 2017 Earth 500 135 10,350 41.4 Satisfactory
Dunsmuir
Reservoir
Extremely
High Off stream EBMUD
1968
(rehabilitated,
2005)
RECTa 2,275
43 197 N/A Satisfactory
New Upper
San Leandro
Extremely
High
San
Leandro
Creek
EBMUD 1977 Earth 1,430 182 38,905 29.95 Satisfactory
Lake
Temescal
Extremely
High
Temescal
Creek
East Bay
Regional
Park
District
1869 Earth 650 116 200 2.7 Satisfactory
Sources: (USACE 2025); (State of California 2024)
1 Low - No probable loss of human life and low economic and environmental losses. Losses are expected to be principally limited to the owner’s property
Significant - No probable loss of human life but can cause economic loss, environmental damage, impacts to critical facilities, or other significant impacts.
High - Expected to cause loss of at least one human life.
Extremely High - Expected to cause considerable loss of human life or would result in an inundation area with a population of 1,000 or more.
a Reinforced concrete tank
The figure below presents the combined dam inundation areas in the City. It is important to note that the inundation from a singular dam failure event would be limited to the area City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-5
downstream of the specific dam that has failed and would not result in flooding for the entire combined dam inundation areas presented in Figure 7-1.
Figure 7-1. Dam Inundation Areas in the City of Oakland
7.1.3 Extent
The Stanford University study of dam failures nationwide found that many failures were of small dams, with limited flooding or downstream effect. More than 96 percent of the failures
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-6
did not result in life-safety consequences or significant property damage (Stanford University 2018). However, dam failure can be catastrophic to all life and property downstream. If a dam failure is severe, a large amount of water will enter the downstream body of water and overflow the stream banks for miles.
Measuring Intensity
Any dam has the potential to adversely affect downstream areas and lives, and many dams, should they fail, can also affect the delivery of essential utilities or flood control. The risk that a dam poses to communities can be split into three components, as shown in Table 7-3 (FEMA 2022).
Table 7-3. Dam Failure Risk to Communities
Risk Type Description
Non-Breach Risk
The risk in the reservoir pool area and downstream floodplain due to normal operation of the dam (e.g., large spillway flows within the design capacity that exceed channel capacity) or “overtopping of the dam without breaching” scenarios.
Incremental Risk
The risk that can be attributed to the presence of a dam should the dam breach or undergo component malfunction or mis-operation, where the consequences are over and above those that would occur without dam breach. The consequences typically are due to downstream inundation, but significant consequences in the pool area upstream of the dam can be caused by loss of the pool.
Residual Risk
The risk that remains after decisions related to a specific dam safety issue are made and prudent actions have been taken to address the risk. It is the remote risk associated with a condition that was judged to not be a credible dam safety issue.
Source: (FEMA 2022)
California’s dam hazard ratings, as described in Table 7-1, describe the potential consequences of dam failure. For the dams assessed in this plan, with hazard ratings of extremely high, complete failure is expected to cause loss of at least one human life and inundate an area with a population of 1,000 or more o r community lifelines whose inundation poses a significant threat to public safety. In addition, dam failures can also be measured in volume of water released and the depth and acreage of flooded areas.
Warning Time
Warning time for dam failure depends on the cause of the failure. In events of extreme precipitation or massive snowmelt, evacuations can be planned with sufficient time. In the event of a structural failure due to earthquake, it is possible that there would be no warning time. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program has several dam -safety related earthquake programs, including dam -specific earthquake monitoring programs in California to help monitor safety concerns following seismic events.
A dam’s structural type affects warning time. Earthen dams do not tend to fail completely or instantaneously. Once a breach is initiated, discharging water erodes the breach until the reservoir is empty or the erosion stops. Concrete dams also tend to begi n with a partial breach. The time of breach formation ranges from a few minutes to a few hours (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2025).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-7
Worst -Case Scenario
A worst-case dam failure scenario for the City of Oakland would be the “probable maximum flood” for the New Upper San Leandro Dam. The probable maximum flood is defined as the hypothetical flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of reasonable possible meteorological and hydrologic conditions. Given that nearly 13% of Oakland’s building stock is vulnerable to dam failure inundation, this is a pressing issue for the City (California Department of Water Resources 2025).
7.1.4 Previous Occurrences
Declarations
Federal Declarations
Between 1954 and 2025, the federal government declared that Alameda County experienced one disaster (DR) related to dam failure (FEMA 2025).
Table 7-4. Federal Disaster Declarations for Dam Failure Title Event Date(s) Disaster Number Declaration Date
Flood Due to Broken Dam December 21, 1963 DR-161-CA December 21, 1963 Source: (FEMA 2025)
State Proclamations
Between 1954 and 2025, California included Alameda County in one state-proclaimed dam failure disaster (California Department of Transportation 2025).
Table 7-5. State Disaster Proclamation for Dam Failure
Event Name Disaster Number Proclamation Date
Bradford Levee Failure 83-05 December 9, 1983
Source: (California Department of Transportation 2025)
United States Department of Agriculture Declarations
Between 2012 and 2025, United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA) has not included Alameda County in declarations relating to dam failure (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2025).
Summary of Significant Events
According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, “no one knows precisely how many dam failures have occurred in the United States, but they have been documented in every state. The historical record indicates that California has had about 45 failures of non - federal dams; however, none of the failures occurred within Alameda County or the City of Oakland. Below is a partial list of significant dam failures in California. • Oroville Dam, 2017 - In February 2017, heavy rain in Northern California caused the water level to rise to a dangerous level in the Oroville Dam in the Sierra Nevada foothills. The state released water down the main spillway to relieve the pressure. A crack appeared in the spillway and grew into a 250-foot crater. Officials shut off water to the main spillway, but the reservoir continued to fill. The State released small amounts of water, which further eroded the spillway’s hole. The erosion threatened to undercut the dam, which could send a 30 -foot wall of water downstream; 188,000 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-8
people were evacuated. Officials further released 100,000 cubic feet per second of water down the main spillway, damaging it further. The dam held, and the reservoir eventually dropped below 850 feet (City of Oakland 2021). • Pacoima Dam, 1994 - The Pacoima Dam in Los Angeles County was damaged during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The dam received enormous ground accelerations, which reached a peak level of twice the force of gravity. The dam’s location was approximately 8 miles from the epicenter. Thirteen additional dams in the greater Los Angeles area moved or cracked during the earthquake, however, none were severely damaged, in part due to completion of retrofitting pursuant to the 1972 State Dam Safety Act (City of Oakland 2021).
• Multiple Dams, San Fernando Earthquake, 1971 - The February 9, 1971, San Fernando earthquake damaged the following dams (City of Oakland 2021):
o Lower San Fernando Dam—Perched above the densely populated San Fernando Valley, the 142-foothigh, 2,100-foot-long Lower San Fernando Dam held a reservoir
1.6 miles long, and up to 130 feet deep. The quake shook loose a massive slide in the upstream slope of the Lower San Fernando Dam that lowered the crest about 30 feet and carried away much of upstream concrete facing of the dam. Eighty thousand people were evacuated from an 11 -square-mile area while the water behind the earthen dam was lowered over a three-day period. The dam could not be repaired to safely hold its water supply and the $33 million Los Angeles Dam was built to replace it in 1975-76.
o Van Norman Dam —Van Norman Lake reportedly sank 1 foot, causing the evacuation of several thousand people from their homes south of the dam in north Los Angeles. A 60 -foot section of the concrete dam at the lake’s southern edge collapsed, and portions were reported as still crumbling during the evacuation. The dam held back more than 6 billion gallons of water.
o Hansen Dam —The Hansen Dam, located in north Los Angeles, suffered cracks during the earthquake.
• Baldwin Hills Reservoir Collapse, 1963 - On December 14, 1963, the dam at the head of Cloverdale Road broke in the Baldwin Hills section of Los Angeles. Lost homes, ruined property, and even death resulted from a river of rushing water from the broken dam. Automobiles, fragments of houses, and chunks of concrete were carried along the flood path and deposited on the ruins of Village Green. Eighteen people were rescued by helicopter and flown out to a safety (City of Oakland 2021). • St. Francis Dam, 1928 - The most catastrophic dam failure in California’s history was that of the St. Francis Dam in Los Angeles County in March 1928. This failure resulted in the deaths of more than 450 people and destruction of nearly 1,000 homes and buildings. Numerous roads a nd bridges were destroyed or damaged beyond repair.
California’s Division of Safety of Dams came into existence as a direct result of this catastrophe (City of Oakland 2021).
Recent Events
From January 2020 through October 2025, state dam safety programs reported 74 dam failures and 136 incidents in the United States —episodes that, without intervention, would likely have resulted in dam failure” (Association of State Dam Safety Officials 2025). No recent dam failure events have been reported in Alameda County or the City of Oakland since the 2021 LHMP.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-9
7.1.5 Future Conditions
Future hazard conditions, including frequency and severity of future events, is discussed in the sections below.
Probability
Large-scale dam failure events are infrequent and usually coincide with events that cause them, such as earthquakes and excessive rainfall. A Stanford University study found an average of about 10 dam failures per year nationwide over a period of record fr om 1848 through 2017 (Stanford University 2018).
Since no recorded failures have occurred on a dam that impacted the Planning Area, no estimate of frequency or probability of future occurrence can be developed based on the historical record. However, the risk of failure increases as dams age (Association of State Dam Safety Officials 2024).
Climate Change
All dams face a “residual risk” of failure, which represents the risk that conditions may exceed those for which the dam was designed. For example, dams may be designed to withstand a “probable maximum precipitation,” defined as the greatest depth of preci pitation that can occur over a specific area, given the most extreme theoretically possible meteorological conditions. The chance of a precipitation event of a greater magnitude than that represents residual risk for such dams. This represents a theoretical probability of future occurrence for a dam failure event, though the probability of an event exceeding the assumed maximum is not generally calculated as part of dam design.
Probability of dam failure could increase with changing climate conditions. Increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme rain events could increase the probability that dams will fail or overtop. Although it is unclear how climate change may affect the probability of catastrophic dam failure, a changing hydrograph is likely to change the probability of these design failures. The DSOD has indicated that climate change may result in the need for increased safety precautions to address higher winter runoff, frequent fluctuations of water levels, and increased potential for sedimentation and debris accumulation from changing erosion patterns and increases in wildfires. According to the DSOD, climate change also will affect the ability of dam operators to predict extreme flood events (DWR 2022).
Potential Future Impacts
According to population projections by the California Department of Finance, Alameda County’s population is expected to increase to 1.84 million by 2050. This represents an 11.5 percent increase from the 2025 population of 1.65 million (California Department of Finance 2025). While the City is completely built out in the dam failure inundation area, redevelopment may increase the population and structural value exposed to the hazard.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-10
7.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
7.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability
To assess the City’s vulnerability to the dam failure hazard, dams rated as extremely high or high hazard with mapped inundation areas are combined into a single inundation area. This includes the following dams: Central, Chabot, Dunsmuir, Lake Temescal, and New Upper San Leandro. The data for individual dams was originally provided by CA DWR and USACE, and developed into a combined inundation area for the City’s LHMP update. While the combined dam inundation areas are used to analyze risk, it is unlikely that all dams will fail at once; however, all populations, structures, infrastructure, and community lifel ines located in the combined inundation areas are vulnerable.
7.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
Populations exposed to the dam failure hazard are estimated based on data for the Census- defined blocks that lie at least partially within the mapped dam failure inundation zone.
Because many of those Census blocks extend outside the inundation zone, the estimates are greater than the actual exposed popu lations, but they provide reasonable relative data for use in mitigation planning.
Table 7-6 summarizes the estimated population located within the combined dam failure inundation area. Based on the analysis, approximately 14.3% of the City’s population (63,194) live within the hazard area.
Table 7-6. Estimated Number of Persons in the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area
Sub-Areas
Estimated
Population1 Population Exposed2 % Population
Central East Oakland 105,554 42,912 40.7%
Coliseum/Airport 4,879 4,879 100.0%
Downtown 21,616 0 0.0%
East Oakland Hills 31,326 904 2.9%
Eastlake/Fruitvale 101,468 3,034 3.0%
Glenview/ Redwood
Heights 32,929 0 0.0%
North Oakland Hills 24,816 0 0.0%
North Oakland/Adams
Point 85,380 10,877 12.7%
West Oakland 32,669 588 1.8%
Total 440,637 63,194 14.3%
Sources: (CA DWR n.d.); (USACE n.d.)
Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(ii) The plan must include a description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards of concern and include an overall summary of the hazard’s impact on the community. The impacts need to include the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the hazard areas, and estimate of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures, and a description of land uses and development trends.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-11
Notes: (1) Population calculated using 2020 Census data from Hazus v6.1. (2) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the estimated population.
Equity Priority Communities
For this LHMP update, the composite score of each census tract is divided into three categories (91 -100, 81 -90, and ≤80) based on social vulnerabilities . Populations in these categories are recognized as communities facing social vulnerabilities creating additional barriers in the face of natural hazards (Equity Priority Communities) . The table below summarizes the Equity Priority Communities population exposed to the combined dam failure inundation areas. Potential impacts to the Equity Priority Communities after a dam failure incident include loss of life and homes, access to drinking water and food, long-term power outages, inability to evacuate, and lack of resources to recover (National Academies Press 2012).
Table 7-7. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members in the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area
Sub-Areas
Equity Priority
Community
Thresholds1
EPC Population
Exposed2
% of Total
Population
Exposed to the
Hazard3
Central East Oakland
91-100 24,290 56.6%
81-90 6,511 15.2%
≤80 5,423 12.6%
Coliseum/Airport
91-100 4,879 100.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
Downtown
91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
East Oakland Hills
91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
Eastlake/Fruitvale
91-100 993 32.7%
81-90 1,273 41.9%
≤80 272 9.0%
Glenview/ Redwood Heights
91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
North Oakland Hills
91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
North Oakland/Adams Point
91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 2,398 0.0%
≤80 0 22.0%
West Oakland
91-100 242 0.0%
81-90 346 41.2%
≤80 0 58.8%
Totals
91-100 30,162 47.7%
81-90 8,026 12.7%
≤80 8,439 13.4%
Sources: (CA DWR n.d.); (USACE n.d.); (City of Oakland 2023) City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-12
Notes: (1) These thresholds are determined by the City of Oakland to be the most burdened communities in the City in the General Plan EJ Element.
(2) Population, by census tract, within the EPC threshold exposed to the hazard. (3) EPC population exposed compared with total population in sub area.
7.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock
Dam failure can result in significant damage to structures in the combined dam failure inundation area . Table 7-8 displays the estimated number of buildings located in the combined dam failure inundation areas , with Table 7-9 presenting the totals based on occupancy class. In total, 13,780 buildings (13% of total) in the City are located in the combined dam failure inundation area . The majority of buildings that are exposed are residential buildings (12,458).
Table 7-8. Estimated Number of Buildings in the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area Sub-Areas Total Buildings1 Buildings Exposed1 % Buildings Central East Oakland 22,271 8,611 38.7%
Coliseum/Airport 1,229 1,219 99.2%
Downtown 5,087 0 0.0%
East Oakland Hills 10,993 334 3.0%
Eastlake/Fruitvale 17,046 484 2.8%
Glenview/ Redwood
Heights 11,192 0 0.0%
North Oakland Hills 10,125 0 0.0%
North Oakland/Adams
Point 21,103 2,976 14.1%
West Oakland 6,497 156 2.4%
Total 105,543 13,780 13.1%
Sources: (CA DWR n.d.); (USACE n.d.)
Notes: (1) Values based off of 2025 tax assessor data provided by Alameda County.
Table 7-9. Estimated Number of Buildings, by Occupancy Class, in the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area
Sub-Areas
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agriculture
Religion
Government
Education
Total
Central East Oakland 7,935 384 174 1 41 56 20 8,611
Coliseum/Airport 934 176 72 0 7 27 3 1,219
Downtown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
East Oakland Hills 323 8 0 0 1 2 0 334
Eastlake/Fruitvale 389 74 7 0 2 8 4 484
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Oakland Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Oakland/Adams Point 2,758 180 8 0 9 16 5 2,976
West Oakland 119 10 26 0 0 0 1 156
Total 12,458 832 287 1 60 109 33 13,780
Sources: (CA DWR n.d.); (USACE n.d.)
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-13
Notes: (1) Values based off of 2025 tax assessor data provided by Alameda County.
7.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines
Community lifelines located within the combined dam failure inundation areas are the most at risk of experiencing damage if a dam failure were to occur. Transportation lifelines may be compromised if flooded, resulting in road closures, restricted access to certain areas of the city, and prolonged emergency response times. Additionally, communication networks, along with food, water, shelter, and energy su pplies, could be affected, potentially causing power outages, water shortages, and infrastructure damages.
Table 7-10 summarizes the number of community lifelines, by category, which are located within and exposed to the combined dam failure inundation area. In total 485 community lifelines are located in the combined dam failure inundation area.
Table 7-10. Community Lifelines Located in the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area Sub-Areas
Communications
Energy
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Hazardous
Materials
Health and
Medical
Safety and
Security
Transportation
Water Systems
Total
Central East Oakland 18 2 0 93 1 23 10 0 147
Coliseum/Airport 69 2 0 105 0 11 21 1 209
Downtown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
East Oakland Hills 0 0 0 4 0 1 3 0 8
Eastlake/Fruitvale 0 2 0 51 1 2 5 0 61
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Oakland Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Oakland/Adams Point 2 1 0 29 1 4 2 0 39
West Oakland 2 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 21
Total 91 7 0 301 3 41 41 1 485
Sources: (CA DWR n.d.); (USACE n.d.)
7.2.5 Impact on the Economy
Direct damage from dam failure can include varying degrees of damage to structures and infrastructure. Indirect economic losses from dam failure include the cost to rebuild assets, cost to respond and recover, downstream damages, and long -term costs due to environmental damage (Department of Homeland Security 2011).
Table 7-11 displays the estimated exposed value to the combined dam failure inundation area in the City. Approximately $17.2 billion in total building value (structure and contents) is located in the combined dam failure inundation area (13.3% of the total City building value).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-14
Table 7-11. Estimated Exposed Building Values to the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area Sub-Areas
Total Building
Value1
Value
Structure
Exposed1
Value Contents
Exposed1
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents) Exposed1 % Total
Central East Oakland $17,986,229,601 $4,634,290,531 $3,826,537,207 $8,460,827,738 47.0% Coliseum/Airport $5,646,390,094 $2,323,626,849 $2,242,797,613 $4,566,424,462 80.9% Downtown $21,475,904,408 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
East Oakland Hills $8,434,796,515 $130,402,622 $71,303,212 $201,705,834 2.4% Eastlake/Fruitvale $20,713,824,637 $428,231,411 $316,764,374 $744,995,785 3.6% Glenview/ Redwood
Heights $7,699,736,380 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
North Oakland Hills $9,022,389,851 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
North Oakland/
Adams Point $26,981,073,354 $1,770,678,415 $1,349,251,329 $3,119,929,744 11.6% West Oakland $11,010,987,509 $68,553,457 $51,384,262 $119,937,719 1.1% Total $128,971,332,346 $9,355,783,285 $7,858,037,995 $17,213,821,280 13.3% Sources: (CA DWR n.d.); (USACE n.d.)
Notes: (1) Values based off of 2025 tax assessor data provided by Alameda County.
Table 7-12 presents the Hazus generated results for anticipated damage in the combined dam failure area. An event that results in full failure of all dams could result in $5.9 billion in total value damage (structure and contents) of 4.6% of the City’s total value. However, an event of this magnitude would be considered very unlikely.
Table 7-12. Estimated Damages to Buildings in the Combined Dam Failure Inundation Area Sub-Areas
Total Building
Value1
Value Structure
Damaged
Value Contents
Damaged
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents)
Damaged
% Total
Value
Damaged
Central East
Oakland $17,986,229,601 $1,451,125,341 $2,257,360,854 $3,708,486,195 20.6% Coliseum/Airport $5,646,390,094 $616,225,449 $1,313,926,866 $1,930,152,315 34.2% Downtown $21,475,904,408 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
East Oakland Hills $8,434,796,515 $74,139,152 $43,179,866 $117,319,018 1.4% Eastlake/Fruitvale $20,713,824,637 $47,993,124 $71,419,999 $119,413,123 0.6% Glenview/ Redwood
Heights $7,699,736,380 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
North Oakland Hills $9,022,389,851 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
North Oakland/
Adams Point $26,981,073,354 $22,639,419 $37,125,795 $59,765,214 0.2% West Oakland $11,010,987,509 $65,602 $142,109 $207,710 0.0% Total $128,971,332,346 $2,212,188,086 $3,723,155,489 $5,935,343,575 4.6% Sources: (CA DWR n.d.); (USACE n.d.)
Notes: (1) Values based off of 2025 tax assessor data provided by Alameda County.
7.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources
Depending on severity, dam failure events affecting the City of Oakland could bring devastating loss of life, property damage, and business disruption to the area in and around historical and cultural landmarks. All historic and cultural landmarks within t he City combined dam failure inundation area are considered vulnerable to the effects of a dam failure event.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-15
7.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources
Dam failures can cause downstream flooding and can transport large volumes of sediment and debris. Other examples of environmental impacts include pollution from septic system failures, pollution of potable water supplies, changes in configurations of stre ams, loss of wildlife habitats, and degradation of wetlands (FEMA 2012).
7.2.8 Land Uses and Development Trends
New development or redevelopment anywhere in the combined dam failure inundation areas exposes that development to the dam failure hazard.
7.3 MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES
Table 7-13 presents a range of potential opportunities for mitigating the dam failure hazard.
Table 7-13. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Dam Failure Hazard Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
Manipulate the Hazard
• None • Remove dams
• Harden dams
• Remove dams
• Harden dams
Reduce Exposure and Vulnerability
• Relocate out of dam
failure inundation
areas
• Elevate home to
appropriate levels
• Replace or
rehabilitate dams
with deficiencies
• Flood-proof facilities
within dam failure
inundation areas
• Replace earthen dams with hardened
structures
• Relocate critical facilities out of dam failure
inundation areas
• Consider open space land use in
designated dam failure inundation areas
• Adopt higher floodplain standards in
mapped dam failure inundation areas
• Retrofit critical facilities within dam failure
inundation areas
• Restore and reconnect floodplains that
intersect dam failure inundation areas that
have been degraded by development and
structural flood control
• Use soft approaches for stream bank
restoration and hardening. Soft approaches
can include but are not limited to the
introduction of large woody debris into a
system
• Acquire property within dam failure
inundation areas, remove or relocate
structures, and preserve these areas as
open space in perpetuity
• Preserve floodplain storage capacity by
limiting or prohibiting the use of fill within
the floodplain
Build Local Capacity
• Learn about risk
reduction for the
dam failure hazard
• Educate employees
on the probable
impacts of a dam
failure
• Map dam failure inundation areas
• Enhance emergency operations plan to
include a dam failure component
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Dam Failure Black & Veatch 7-16
Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
• Learn the evacuation
routes for a dam
failure event
• Become educated
about early warning
systems and the
• dissemination of
warnings
• Develop a continuity
of operations plan
• Institute monthly communications checks
with dam operators
• Inform the public on risk reduction
techniques
• Adopt real-estate disclosure requirements
for the re-sale of property located within
dam failure inundation areas
• Consider the probable impacts of climate
change in assessing the risk associated
with the dam failure hazard
• Establish early warning capability
downstream of listed high-hazard dams
• Consider the residual risk associated with
protection provided by dams in future land
use decisions
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-1
8. DROUGHT
8.1 HAZARD PROFILE
8.1.1 Description of the Hazard
Defining the Hazard
Drought is defined as the deficiency in precipitation over an extended period, resulting in a water shortage (NOAA 2024). The severity of a drought depends on the degree of moisture deficiency, the duration, and the size and location of the affected area.
The occurrence of drought is a normal phase in the climate cycle of most regions, originating from a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a season or more.
This leads to a water shortage for some activity, group, or environmental sector. Drought can be characterized based on the following (National Drought Mitigation Center 2025):
• Meteorological measurements such as rainfall deficit compared to normal or expected rainfall
• Agricultural impacts due to reduced rainfall and water supply (e.g., crop loss, herd culling, etc.)
• Hydrological measurements of stream flows, groundwater, and reservoir levels relative to normal conditions
• Direct and indirect socio -economic impacts on society and the economy (e.g., increased unemployment due to failure of an industry because of drought) Cause of the Hazard
Droughts are climatic patterns that occur over long periods of time as the result of many causes. Global weather patterns that produce persistent, upper-level high-pressure systems along the West Coast result in warm, dry air and reduced precipitation. Ano malies of precipitation and temperature may last from several months to several decades. How long they last depend on interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans, soil moisture and land surface processes, topography, internal dynamics, and the accum ulated influence of global weather systems.
Droughts originate from a deficiency of precipitation resulting from an unusual weather pattern. If the weather pattern lasts a short time (a few weeks or a couple of months), the drought is considered short -term. If the weather pattern becomes entrenched and the precipitation deficits last for several months or years, the drought is considered long-term. It is possible for a region to experience a long-term pattern that produces drought, and to have short-term changes that result in wet spells within the l ong-term pattern. Likewise, it is possible for a long-term wet pattern to be interrupted by weather spells that result in short- term drought.
Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(i)
Include a description of the type, location, and extent for the identified hazards of concern and include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and the probability of future hazard events.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-2
Summary of Potential Impacts
Drought can have a widespread impact on the environment and the economy, although it typically does not result in loss of life or damage to structures, as do other natural disasters.
The National Drought Mitigation Center uses three categories to describe likely drought impacts (National Drought Mitigation Center 2025):
• Economic Impacts —These impacts of drought cost people (or businesses) money.
Farmers’ crops are destroyed; low water supply necessitates spending on irrigation or drilling of new wells; water -related businesses (such as sales of boats and fishing equipment) may experience reduced revenue.
• Environmental Impacts —Plants and animals depend on water. When a drought occurs, their food supply can shrink, and their habitat can be damaged. • Social Impacts —Social impacts include public safety, health, conflicts between people when there is not enough water to go around, and changes in lifestyle.
The demand that society places on water systems and supplies —such as expanding populations, irrigation, and environmental needs—contributes to drought impacts. Drought can lead to difficult decisions regarding the allocation of water, as well as stringent water use restrictions, water quality problems, and inadequate water supplies for fire suppression.
There are also issues such as growing conflicts between agricultural uses of surface water and in -stream uses, surface water and groundwater interrelationsh ips, and the effects of growing water demand on uses of water.
Vulnerability of an activity to drought depends on its water demand and the water supplies available to meet the demand. The impacts of drought vary between sectors of the community in both timing and severity:
• Water supply —The water supply sector encompasses urban and rural drinking water systems that are affected when a drought depletes groundwater supplies due to reduced recharge from rainfall or reduce d surface water supplies due to climate change and reduced snowpack.
• Agriculture and commerce —Impacts on the agriculture and commerce sectors include the reduction of crop yield and livestock sizes due to insufficient water supply for crop irrigation and maintenance of ground cover for grazing. • Environment, public health, and safety —The environmental, public health, and safety sector focuses on wildfires that are both detrimental to the forest ecosystem and hazardous to the public. It also includes the impact of desiccating streams, such as the reduction of in-stream habitats for native species.
Cascading Hazard Impacts
The cascading impact most commonly associated with drought is wildfire. A prolonged lack of precipitation dries out vegetation, which becomes increasingly susceptible to ignition as the duration of the drought extends.
Drought is also often accompanied by extreme heat, exposing people to the risk of sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion. Pets and livestock are also vulnerable to heat- related injuries.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-3
8.1.2 Location
The entirety of the City of Oakland is exposed and vulnerable to drought. The effects of drought depend on the climate zone, the type of water supply available, and water users’ ability to manage drought impacts (Cal OES 2023).
EBMUD is the primary water purveyor for the City of Oakland. EBMUD’s water system serves approximately 1.4 million people in a 332 -square-mile area extending from Crockett on the north to San Lorenzo and the San Ramon Valley on the south (encompassing the major cities of Oakland and Berkeley) and from the east San Francisco Bay on the west to Walnut Creek on the east. EBMUD’s water supply begins at the Mokelumne River watershed in the Sierra Nevada and extends 90 miles to the East Bay (EBMUD 2025). Therefore, drought impacting the Mokelumne River watershed would impact the City’s water supply.
EBMUD’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), are directly applicable to the City of Oakland with respect to the measures that would be implemented in the event of a drought, or any water shortage for that matter.
The U.S. Drought Monitor is a map that is updated weekly to show the location and intensity of drought across the country. The drought monitor uses a five-category system to describe the drought and its potential impacts (see Figure 8-1). Drought impacting the planning area or the Mokelumne River watershed would impact the City. Refer to Figure 4-3 for watersheds in the City of Oakland.
Figure 8-1 U.S. Drought Monitor Map of California
Source: (U.S. Drought Monitor 2025)
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-4
8.1.3 Extent
The severity of any given drought depends on the degree of moisture deficiency, the duration, and the size and location of the affected area. The longer the duration of the drought and the larger the area impacted, the more severe the potential impacts.
Measuring Intensity
Several quantitative methods are used for measuring drought in the United States. How these indices measure drought depends on the drought classification and the region being considered.
United States Drought Monitor
The U.S. Drought Monitor assesses multiple numeric measures of drought to depict the drought conditions and locations across the United States. The U.S. Drought Monitor uses five drought intensity categories, D0 through D4, to identify areas of drought. Th ese categories are shown on Figure 8-2.
Figure 8-2 . U.S. Drought Monitor Categories
Source: (U.S. Drought Monitor 2024)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Drought Indices National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has developed several indices to measure drought impacts and severity and to map their extent and locations (Figure 8-3) (U.S. Drought Monitor 2025) (NOAA 2025):
• The Crop Moisture Index measures short-term drought weekly to assess impacts on agriculture.
• The Palmer Z Index measures short-term drought on a monthly scale.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-5
• The Palmer Drought Severity Index is based on long -term weather patterns. The intensity of drought in a given month is dependent on current weather plus the cumulative patterns of previous months. Weather patterns can change quickly, and the Palmer Drought Severity Index can respond fairly rapidly. • The Palmer Hydrological Drought Index quantifies hydrological effects (reservoir levels, groundwater levels, etc.), which take longer to develop and last longer. This index responds more slowly to changing conditions than the Palmer Drought Index. • The Standardized Precipitation Index considers only precipitation. A value of zero indicates the median precipitation amount; the index is negative for drought and positive for wet conditions. The Standardized Precipitation Index is computed for time scales ranging from 1 month to 24 months.
Figure 8-3 Example Local and National Drought Index Maps (September -October 2025) Sources: (U.S. Drought Monitor 2025) (NOAA 2025)
Maps of these indices show drought at a given point in time and are not necessarily indicators of the Planning Area’s long-term susceptibility to drought.
Warning Time
Droughts are climatic patterns that occur over long periods of time. Only generalized warning can take place due to the numerous variables that scientists have not pieced together well enough to make accurate and precise predictions.
Empirical studies conducted over the past century have shown that meteorological drought is never the result of a single cause. It is the result of many causes, often synergistic in nature; these include global weather patterns that produce persistent, upp er-level high-pressure systems along the West Coast with warm, dry air resulting in less precipitation.
At this time, scientists do not know how to predict drought more than a month in advance for most locations. Predicting drought depends on the ability to forecast precipitation and temperature. Anomalies of precipitation and temperature may last from sever al months to several decades.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-6
Worst -Case Scenario
An extreme multi-year drought can impact the region with little warning. Combinations of low precipitation and unusually high temperatures could occur over several consecutive years. Intensified by such conditions, extreme wildfires could break out throughout Alameda County, as seen with the 2025 Palisades and Eaton Fires in Southern California, increasing the need for water. Surrounding communities, also in drought conditions, could increase their demand for water supplies relied upon in the City of Oakland, causing social and political conflicts. If such conditions persisted for several years, the economy of Alameda County and Oakland could experience setbacks, especially in water dependent industries.
8.1.4 Previous Occurrences
The following sections provide a review of previous drought occurrences in Alameda County.
Declarations
Federal Declarations
Between 1954 and 2025, t here has been one federal declaration for drought for Alameda County (FEMA 2025).
Table 8-1. FEMA Declarations for Drought
Title Event Date(s) Disaster Number Declaration Date
Drought January 20, 1977 EM-3025 January 20, 1977
Source: (FEMA 2025)
State Proclamations
Between 1954 and 2025, California included Alameda County in three state-proclaimed drought disasters (California Department of Transportation 2025).
Table 8-2. State Disaster Proclamations for Drought
Event Name Disaster Number Proclamation Date
1976 Drought - February 9, 1976
Drinking Water Shortage 2014-03 September 18, 2024
Drought – Tree Mortality 2015-05 October 30, 2015
Source: (California Department of Transportation 2025)
USDA Declarations
Between 2012 and 2025, USDA included Alameda County in 13 drought-related declarations (USDA 2025).
Table 8-3. USDA Disaster Declarations for Drought
Event Name Designation Number Effective Dates
Drought S3248 October 1, 2011 – Continuing
Drought S3379 January 1, 2012 – Continuing
Drought – FAST TRACK S3547 May 7 - July 1, 2013
Drought – FAST TRACK S3558 June 4 – July 29, 2013
Drought – FAST TRACK S3569 May 25 – August 9, 2013
Drought – FAST TRACK S3784 January 1, 2015 – N/A
Drought S3943 January 2, 2015 – Continuing
Drought – FAST TRACK S3952 January 1, 2016 – N/A
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-7
Event Name Designation Number Effective Dates
Drought – FAST TRACK S4144 January 1, 2017 – N/A
Drought – FAST TRACK S4163 October 1, 2016 – N/A
Drought – FAST TRACK S4697 April 21, 2020 – N/A
Drought – FAST TRACK S5146 October 1, 2021 – N/A
Drought – FAST TRACK S5371 October 1, 2022 – N/A
Source: (USDA 2025)
Summary of Significant Events
Drought is an ongoing hazard that has shaped California’s history. In the mid -1800s, the Great Drought contributed to the demise of the cattle rancho system. Then in the 1920s and 1930s, dry conditions were prevalent in California and throughout the nation during the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. Later in the 20th century, significant droughts impacting water supplies occurred in the mid-1970s and mid - to early -1990s. Recent multi -year droughts occurred in 2012 to 2016, and 2020 to early 2022. Drought conditions rose again in Alameda County in September 2024 and are ongoing at the time of writing (U.S. Drought Monitor 2025). Recent drought periods are described as follows:
• 1976 to 1977 Drought - California had a severe drought due to lack of rainfall during the winters of 1976 and 1977. 1977 was the driest period on record in California to that time, with the previous winter recorded as the fourth driest. The cumulative impact led to widespread wa ter shortages and severe water conservation measures throughout the state. Only 37 percent of the average Sacramento Valley runoff was received. A federal disaster declaration was declared, which included Alameda County.
• 1987 to 1992 Drought - California received precipitation well below average levels for four consecutive years. By February 1991, all 58 counties in California were suffering from drought conditions. Urban areas as well as rural and agricultural areas were impacted.
• 2007 to 2009 Drought - The governor proclaimed a statewide drought emergency on June 4, 2008 after spring 2008 was the driest spring on record and snowmelt runoff was low. On February 27, 2009, the governor proclaimed a state of emergency for the entire state as the severe drought conditions continued widespread impacts and the largest court-ordered water restriction in state history (at the time). • 2012 to 2017 Drought - The 2012 -2016 California drought led to the most severe moisture deficits in the last 1,200 years and a 1 -in-500 year low in Sierra snowpack.
Importantly, paleoclimatic records show that mega -droughts spanning multiple decades have occurred in California’s past . The 2012 -2016 record low snowpack resulted in $2.1 billion in economic losses, 21,000 jobs lost in the agricultural and recreational sectors statewide and exacerbated an ongoing trend of groundwater overdraft (California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment 2018). The period from 2012 to 2014 ranked as the driest three consecutive years for statewide precipitation. o 2014 set new climate records for statewide average temperatures and for record - low water allocations in the State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project. o 2013 set minimum annual precipitation records for many communities. o On January 17, 2014, the governor declared a state of emergency for drought throughout California. This declaration followed release of a report that stated that California had had the least amount of rainfall in its 163 -year history. Californians City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-8
were asked to voluntarily reduce their water consumption by 20 percent. Drought conditions worsened into 2015. On April 1, 2015, following the lowest snowpack ever recorded, the governor announced actions to save water, increase enforcement to prevent wasteful water use, streamline the state’s drought response, and invest in new technologies to make California more drought -resilient. The governor directed the State Water Resources Control Board to implement mandatory water reductions in cities and towns acr oss California to reduce water usage by 25 percent on average.
o The statewide hydrologic drought from 2012 through 2016 included the driest four- year statewide precipitation on record (2012 – 2015) and the smallest Sierra - Cascades snowpack on record (2015, with 5 percent of average). It was marked by extraordinary heat : 2014, 2015 , and 2016 were California’s first, second and third warmest year in terms of statewide average temperatures. o On April 7, 2017 , the governor ended the drought state of emergency in most of California, following unprecedented water conservation and plentiful winter rain and snow.
• 2020 to 2022 Drought - The most recent multi-year drought in California lasted from 2020-2022. Drought conditions were exacerbated by the repeated presence of La Niña during winters. Additionally, the average temperature over this time period was 3.5 degrees above the twentieth -century average. The overall effect was devastating to the state’s agricultural industry, where an estimated $1.1 billion of revenue , and approximately 8,700 jobs were lost (Medellín-Azuara 2022).
Recent Events
For the 2026 LHMP update, drought events that impacted the City of Oakland since January 2020 are listed in the table below. For events prior to January 2020, refer to the 2021 LHMP.
Table 8-4. Recent Drought Events Impacting the City of Oakland Date(s) of
Event
Event
Type
FEMA / State
Declaration
Number (if
applicable)
Alameda
County
included in
declaration? Description
2020-2023 Drought S4697, S5146,
S5371
Yes Drought conditions were exacerbated by the
repeated presence of La Niña during winters.
Additionally, the average temperature over
this time period was 3.5 degrees above the
twentieth-century average. The overall effect
was devastating to the state’s agricultural
industry, where an estimated $1.1 billion of
revenue, and approximately 8,700 jobs were
lost. The drought ended after record-
breaking levels of precipitation in late 2022.
Sources: (FEMA 2025); (NOAA NCEI 2025); (Cal OES 2025); (Medellín-Azuara 2022).
8.1.5 Future Conditions
Future hazard conditions, including frequency and severity of future events, is discussed in the sections below.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-9
Probability
Drought has a high probability of occurrence in the City. From January 2000 to September 2025, some part of Alameda County experienced a U .S. Drought Monitor rating of D 0 (abnormally dry) or higher in 798 out of 1,349 weeks—nearly 60% of the weeks (refer to Figure 8-2) (U.S. Drought Monitor 2025). The Planning Area has also been included in USDA drought disaster declarations in 9 of the last 14 years. Historical drought data for the Planning Area indicate there have been four significant multi -year droughts in the last 35 years (1987 to 2024), amounting to a severe drought every 9 years on average.
Climate Change
Climate change is already impact ing the City of Oakland, and it is expected to continue impacting the City. Warmer and drier conditions will reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack and make precipitation more variable with more intense dry spells between heavy rainfall events. As the City’s water supply begins at the Mokelumne River Watershed in the Sierra Nevada, reductions to the Sierra Nevada snowpack and increases in dry spells could increase the risk of drought. These impacts will lead to water shortages and contribute to more frequent and severe wildfires.
With a warmer climate, droughts could become more frequent, more severe, and longer lasting. The Fourth National Climate Assessment Report for the United States indicates that “rising air and water temperatures and changes in precipitation are intensifying droughts.
Changes in the relative amounts and timing of snow and rainfall are leading to mismatches between water availability and needs in some regions . Groundwater depletion is exacerbating drought risk” (USGCRP 2018).
Because changes in precipitation patterns are still uncertain, the potential impacts and likelihood of drought are uncertain. CA DWR has noted impacts of climate change on statewide water resources by charting changes in snowpack, sea level, and river flow. As temperatures rise and more precipitation comes in the form of rain instead of snow, these changes will likely continue or gr ow even more significantly. CA DWR estimates that parts of the state will experience a 48 to 65 percent loss in snowpack by the end of the century compared to historical averages (CA DWR 2021). Increasing temperatures may also increase net evaporation from reservoirs.
Potential Future Impacts
According to population projections by the California Department of Finance, Alameda County’s population is expected to increase to 1.84 million by 2050. This represents an 11.5 percent increase from the 2025 population of 1.65 million (California Department of Finance 2025). While the City is mostly built out, redevelopment may increase the population and structural value exposed to the hazard.
Increase in population and continued development are likely to add additional stressors to the City’s water supply. Climate change is likely to result in more severe drought events in the future. The City of Oakland has a General Plan that includes landscaping goals and policies that deal with issues of water supply and the protection of water resources. This plan provides the capability at the local level to protect future development from the impacts of drought.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-10
8.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
8.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability
To understand the potential impacts and risk drought can have on the City of Oakland, a qualitative assessment was done to evaluate what assets are exposed or vulnerable to drought. The following discusses City’s vulnerability to drought.
8.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
The entire population of the City ( 440,637) is exposed to drought events. Some drought- related health effects are experienced in the short -term and can be directly observed and measured. However, the slow rise or chronic nature of drought can result in longer term, indirect health impacts that are not always easy to anticipate o r monitor. Health impacts include drinking water quantity and quality, increased recreational risks, effects on air quality, compromised food and nutrition, and increased rate of illnesses and diseases (see Figure 8-4) (CDC 2024).
Figure 8-4 How Drought Can Affect Health
Source: CDC n.d.
Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(ii) The plan must include a description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards of concern and include an overall summary of the hazard’s impact on the community. The impacts need to include the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the hazard areas, and estimate of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures, and a description of land uses and development trends.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-11
Equity Priority Communities
For this LHMP update, the composite score of each census tract is divided into three categories (91 -100, 81 -90, and ≤80) based on social vulnerabilities . Populations in these categories are recognized as communities facing social vulnerabilities creating additional barriers in the face of natural hazards (Equity Priority Communities). Overall, everyone in the City of Oakland is at risk and can be impacted by drought. However, some groups are more vulnerable than others, especially those in Equity Priority Communities. These groups face greater health problems, limited access to drinking water, more financial difficulties, and increased environmental stress during drought events (CDC 2024).
Table 8-5. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Drought Sub-Areas
Equity Priority
Community
Thresholds1
EPC Population
Exposed2
% of Total
Population
Exposed to the
Hazard3
Central East Oakland 91-100 34,939 33.1%
81-90 23,907 22.6%
≤80 25,659 24.3%
Coliseum/Airport 91-100 4,879 100.0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 0 0%
Downtown 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 15,144 70.1%
East Oakland Hills 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 0 0%
Eastlake/Fruitvale 91-100 17,933 17.7%
81-90 13,346 13.2%
≤80 17,531 17.3%
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 0 0%
North Oakland Hills 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 0 0%
North Oakland/Adams Point 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 20,378 23.9%
West Oakland 91-100 2,553 7.8%
81-90 8,882 27.2%
≤80 20,979 64.3%
Totals 91-100 60,304 13.7%
81-90 46,135 10.5%
≤80 99,691 22.6%
Source: (City of Oakland 2023)
Notes: (1) These thresholds are determined by the City of Oakland to be the most burdened communities in the City in the General Plan EJ Element.
(2) Population, by census tract, within the EPC threshold exposed to the hazard. (3) EPC population exposed compared with total population in sub area.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-12
8.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock
The general building stock will not be directly affected by drought conditions. Droughts can have significant impacts on landscapes, which could cause a financial burden to property owners. Droughts can also increase wildfire risk, with the risk to life and property greatest where forests are adjacent to urbanized areas. All assets in and adjacent to this zone are considered vulnerable to wildfire. Refer to Chapter 15 (Wildfire) for the wildfire risk assessment.
8.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines
While drought events generally do not impact buildings, they can potentially impact critical facilities and community lifelines that are associated with potable water supplies and agriculture-related facilities. The community lifelines most likely to be impacted by drought in the City include food, hydration, shelter and energy. • Food, Hydration, Shelter impacts from drought can include reduced water supply for drinking, sanitation, and firefighting and crop failures and livestock losses reduce food availability.
• Energy impacts include decline in hydropower generation , and higher energy demands that lead to stress on the grid and increase risk of power outages.
8.2.5 Impact on the Economy
A prolonged drought can have a serious economic impact on a community. For instance, drought affects water supply. When drought conditions persist with little to no relief, water restrictions may be put into place by local or state agencies. These restrict ions may include placing limitations on when or how frequently lawns can be watered, car washing services, or any other recreational/commercial outdoor use of water supplies. In exceptional drought conditions, watering of lawns and crops may not be an option. If crops are not able to receive water, farmland will dry out and crops will die. This can lead to crop shortages, which, in turn, increases the price of food in all communities including those that do not directly grow crops.
Increased demand can also result in shortages and higher water costs. Industries, such as landscaping companies, which rely on water for business could be impacted the most.
Although most businesses will still be operational, they may be impacted aesthetically if their landscaping cannot be maintained.
8.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources
Limited water supply and the cascading effects of drought (such as increased wildfire risk and decreased availability of electricity) can make the maintenance of important resources such as libraries and museums more difficult. People may not be able to access these resources during a drought due to the social effects of drought. Droughts can also impact lakes, rivers, and parks used for recreation within the City, limiting its access to residents.
8.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources
Drought can significantly impact ecosystems and natural resources . Environmental losses from drought are associated with damage to plants, animals, wildlife habitat, and air and water quality; forest and range fires; degradation of landscape quality; loss of biodiversity; City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-13
and soil erosion. Some of the effects are short-term and conditions quickly return to normal following the end of the drought. Other environmental effects linger for some time or may even become permanent. Wildlife habitat may be degraded through the loss of wetlands, lakes and vegetation. The degradation of landscape quality, including increased soil erosion, may lead to a more permanent loss of biological productivity (City of Oakland 2021).
Drought generally does not affect groundwater sources as quickly as surface water supplies, but groundwater supplies generally take longer to recover. Reduced precipitation during a drought means that groundwater supplies are not replenished at a normal ra te. This can lead to a reduction in groundwater levels and problems such as reduced pumping capacity or wells going dry. Shallow wells are more susceptible than deep wells. However, the groundwater basin is being sustainably managed under the East Bay Plai n Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan, and pumping capacities in wells have been maintained, even during recent droughts. Reduced replenishment of groundwater can also affect streams. Streamflow within the planning area comes from surface runoff and, to a lesser extent, groundwater Reduced groundwater levels may result in less water enter ing the streams. However, the creeks within the planning area are partially or fully culverted and therefore have limited interactions with groundwater. (Cal OES 2023) Water quality often declines as pollutant concentrations rise, and reduced streamflow can lead to stagnation and lower dissolved oxygen levels.
8.3 MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES
Table 8-6 presents a range of potential opportunities for mitigating the drought hazard.
Table 8-6. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Drought Hazard Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
Manipulate the Hazard
• None • None • Stormwater and floodplain
management
• Identify alternative water
sources
Reduce Exposure and Vulnerability
• Drought-resistant
landscapes
• Reduce water system losses
• Modify plumbing systems
• (through water saving kits)
• Drought-resistant
landscapes
• Reduce private water system
losses
• Water use conflict
regulations
• Reduce water system losses
• Distribute water saving kits
• Implement/expand water
reuse projects
• Promote and use reclaimed
water supplies
Build Local Capacity
• Practice active water
conservation
• Practice active water
conservation
• Public education on drought
resistance and alternative
water supplies”.
• Expand recycled water
network
• Identify alternative water
supplies for times of
drought; mutual aid
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Drought
Black & Veatch 8-14
Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
agreements with alternative
suppliers
• Develop drought
contingency plan
• Develop criteria “triggers” for
drought-related actions
• Improve accuracy of water
supply forecasts
• Modify rate structure to
influence active water
conservation techniques
• Increase emergency storage
capacity
• Increase capacity for stored
surface water to create
habitats and ecosystems for
aquatic species
• Promote and use active
groundwater recharge
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-1
9. EARTHQUAKE
9.1 HAZARD PROFILE
9.1.1 Description of the Hazard
Defining the Hazard
An earthquake is the vibration of the earth’s surface following a release of energy in the earth’s crust. This energy can be generated by a sudden dislocation of the crust or by a volcanic eruption. Most destructive quakes are caused by dislocation of the crust. The crust may first bend and then, when the stress exceeds the strength of the rocks, break and snap to a new position. In the process of breaking, vibrations called “seismic waves” are generated.
These waves travel outward from the source of the earthquake at varying speeds.
According to the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, an earthquake hazard is anything associated with an earthquake that may affect people’s normal activities. This includes the following:
• Surface Faulting —Displacement that reaches the earth’s surface during slip along a fault. Commonly occurs with shallow earthquakes, those with an epicenter less than 20 kilometers.
• Ground Motion (shaking)—The movement of the earth’s surface from earthquakes or explosions. Ground motion or shaking is produced by waves that are generated by sudden slip on a fault or sudden pressure at the explosive source and travel through the earth and along its surface.
• Landslide —A movement of surface material down a slope. • Liquefaction —A process by which water ‐saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts as a fluid. Earthquake shaking can cause this effect. • Tectonic Deformation —A change in the original shape of a material due to strain.
Cause of the Hazard
Tectonic Plates
The Earth’s crust, which is the rigid outermost shell of the planet, is broken into seven or eight major tectonic plates (depending on how they are defined) and many minor plates.
Where the plates meet, they move in one of three ways along their mutual bou ndary:
convergent (two plates moving together), divergent (two plates moving apart), or transform (two plates moving parallel to one another). Earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain - building, and oceanic trench formation occur along these plate boundaries. Subduction is a geological process that takes place at convergent boundaries of tectonic plate, in which one plate moves under another. Regions where this process occurs are known as subduction zones, and they have the potential to generate highly damaging earthquakes (USGS 2025).
Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(i)
Include a description of the type, location, and extent for the identified hazards of concern and include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and the probability of future hazard events.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-2
California is seismically active because of movement of the North American Plate, east of the San Andreas Fault, and the Pacific Plate to the west, which includes the state’s coastal communities. The transform (parallel) movement of these tectonic plates a gainst one another creates stresses that build as the rocks are gradually deformed. The rock deformation, or strain, is stored in the rocks as elastic strain energy. When the strength of the rock is exceeded, rupture occurs along a fault. The rocks on oppo site sides of the fault slide past each other as they spring back into a relaxed position. The strain energy is released partly as heat and partly as elastic waves called seismic waves. The passage of these seismic waves produces the ground shaking in earthquakes (USGS 2016).
Seismic Fault Lines
Geologists have found that earthquakes reoccur along faults, which are zones of weakness in the earth’s crust. When a fault experiences an earthquake, there is no guarantee that all the stress has been relieved. Another earthquake can still occur. In fact, relieving stress along one part of a fault may increase it in another part.
Faults are more likely to have future earthquakes if they have more rapid rates of movement, have had recent earthquakes along them, experience greater total displacements, and are aligned so that movement can relieve the accumulating tectonic stresses. Geologists classify faults by their relative hazards. “Active” faults, which represent the highest hazard, are those that have ruptured to the ground surface during the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years). “Potentially active” faults are those that displaced layers of rock from the Quaternary period (the last 1,600,000 years) (USGS 2022).
Determining if a fault is “active” or “potentially active” depends on geologic evidence, which may not be available for every fault. The majority of the seismic hazards are on well -known active faults. However, inactive faults, where no displacements have been recorded, also have the potential to reactivate or experience displacement along a branch sometime in the future. An example of a fault zone that has been reactivated is the Foothills Fault Zone. The zone was considered inactive until evidence of an e arthquake (approximately 1.6 million years ago) was found near Spenceville, California. Then, in 1975, an earthquake occurred on another branch of the zone near Oroville, California (now known as the Cleveland Hills Fault).
The California Geological Survey indicates that increased earthquake activity throughout California may cause tectonic movement along currently inactive fault systems (California Geological Survey 2018).
Summary of Potential Impacts
The greatest earthquake threat in the United States is along tectonic plate boundaries and seismic fault lines located in the central and western states; however, the Eastern United States does face moderate risk to less frequent, less intense earthquake events. Figure 9-1 shows relative seismic risk for the United States.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-3
Figure 9-1 USGS National Seismic Hazard Map
Source: (USGS 2018)
Cascading Hazard Impacts
Cascading impacts are the impacts that result when one type of hazard event triggers one or more other hazard events, which may, in turn, trigger still others. The following are notable cascading impacts associated with earthquakes beyond the hazards associated with ground shaking (Cal OES 2023):
• Surface Fault Rupture —When a fault rupture extends to the earth’s surface, the displacement can catastrophically damage structures or utilities. Fissuring, settlement, and permanent horizontal and vertical ground shifting often accompany large earthquakes. Such displacement can significantly increase damage and may be a contributing cause of damage.
• Fires—Fires following earthquakes may result from multiple causes, including overturned burning candles, sparking from downed power lines, and broken gas pipelines. Fires after earthquakes may severely strain fire departments that must respond to multiple simultaneous ignitions. Impaired communications, water supply, transportation, and other demands such as structural collapses, hazardous materials releases, or medical emergencies affect fire department response. • Liquefaction—Ground settlement during liquefaction can cause damage when the amount of settlement varies significantly across the length of a structure. Liquefaction can occur in susceptible soils below bodies of water. It can severely damage dams,
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-4
bridges, wharves, piers, and other structures at ports and harbors, as well as underwater utility lines.
• Landslides—Landslides caused by earthquakes can be widespread over the area of the highest shaking intensity and at greater distances if hillsides are susceptible.
Earthquake-induced landslides can significantly damage structures and transportation and utility lifelines.
• Tsunami— Fault rupture and earthquake -induced landslides along the coast and offshore can trigger tsunamis that can cause flooding in low-lying coastal areas. • Dam or Levee Failure—Earthquake ground shaking in and around dams and levees can affect the performance of these structures. The type of foundation the dam or levee is constructed on (such as peat or alluvium) will influence its performance during a seismic event or under certain static loading conditions. • Power Outages—Earthquakes can cause significant impacts associated with loss of power. Earthquakes of all sizes can damage electrical facilities and power lines, impacting community lifelines that rely on power to maintain their critical functions. • Hazardous Materials Release —Earthquakes can result in collapsed buildings and severed pipelines, leading to the release of hazardous materials, which may include oil spills, the release of gases, and runoff of hazardous materials.
9.1.2 Location
The location of an earthquake is commonly described by its focal depth and the geographic position of its epicenter. The focal depth of an earthquake is the depth from the Earth’s surface to the region where an earthquake’s energy originates (the focus or hypocenter). The epicenter of an earthquake is the point on the Earth’s surface directly above the hypocenter.
Faults
A direct relationship exists between a fault’s length and location and its ability to generate damaging ground motion at a given site. Small, local faults produce lower magnitude quakes, but ground shaking can be strong, and damage can be significant in areas close to the fault. Large regional faults can generate earthquakes of great magnitudes but, because of their distance and depth, they may result in only moderate shaking in an area.
Oakland is within a region that is well known for its many active faults. The Hayward Fault is the major tectonic boundary that runs along the East Bay Hills. Figure 9-2 shows the regional faults closest to the City.
• The San Andreas fault is a continental transform fault that extends roughly 800 miles through California. It forms the tectonic boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate, and its motion is right -lateral strike-slip (horizontal). The fault divides into three segments, each with different characteristics and a different degree of earthquake risk. The San Andreas Fault has the potential for experiencing a major to great event, with a magnitude up to 8.1.
• The Hayward Fault runs along the foot of the East Bay hills. USGS studies show that Hayward Fault quakes have repeatedly jolted the region in the past and that the fault may be ready to produce an earthquake of magnitude 6.8 to 7.0.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-5
• The Calaveras Fault system stretches 80 miles from south of Hollister to the Danville- Walnut Creek area. Based on present creep rates, the fault can be divided into two overall segments: the Calaveras segment south of the Calaveras Reservoir and the San Ramon segment between Sunol and Danville.
Most researchers believe that strain accumulated along the Calaveras south of Calaveras Reservoir is transferred to the Hayward fault on the Mission Hills fault. Despite the apparent lessened activity on the northernmost trace of the Calaveras segment, it does appear to have spawned a Magnitude 6.9 earthquake on July 3, 1861, causing continuous ground rupture 6 to 8 miles long between the Amador Valley and Danville.
The San Ramon segment is the dominant structural feature of the Amador and San Ramon Valleys, forming their western boundaries and creating the structural barrier that comprises the Livermore Basin. This segment of the fault is typified by minor seismic ac tivity and an apparently low slip rate. In much of the segment, its surface trace is uncertain because it appears to be buried beneath massive ancient landslides, earth/debris flow deposits and colluvium.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Soils
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) soil types define locations that will be significantly impacted by an earthquake. NEHRP Soils B and C typically can sustain low-magnitude ground shaking without much effect. Areas with NEHRP Soils D, E and F are most commonly affected by ground shaking.
Figure 9-3 shows NEHRP soil classifications within the City.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when loosely packed, water -logged sediments at or near the ground surface lose their strength in response to strong ground shaking. This makes the materials behave like a liquid, damaging building foundations and causing pipes to leak or break and paved surfaces to buckle. Liquefaction beneath buildings and other structures can cause significant damage during earthquakes . Figure 9-4 shows the areas of liquefaction susceptibility in the City.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-6
Figure 9-2 Earthquake Faults
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-7
Figure 9-3 City of Oakland NEHRP Seismic Site Class
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-8
Figure 9-4 City of Oakland Liquefaction Susceptibility
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-9
9.1.3 Extent
Measuring Intensity
Earthquakes are typically classified in one of two ways: by the amount of energy released, measured as magnitude; or by the impact on people and structures, measured as intensity.
Magnitude
An earthquake’s magnitude is a measure of the energy released at the source of the earthquake. Magnitude is commonly expressed by ratings on the moment magnitude scale (Mw), the most common scale used today (USGS n.d.) . This scale is based on the total moment release of the earthquake (the product of the distance a fault moved, and the force required to move it). The scale is as follows:
• Great—Mw > 8
• Major—Mw = 7.0 – 7.9
• Strong—Mw = 6.0 – 6.9
• Moderate—Mw = 5.0 – 5.9
• Light—Mw = 4.0 – 4.9
• Minor—Mw = 3.0 – 3.9
• Micro—w < 3
Ground Motion
Earthquake hazard assessment is based on expected ground motion. During an earthquake when the ground is shaking, it also experiences acceleration. The peak acceleration is the largest increase in velocity recorded by a particular station during an earthquake. Estimates are developed of the annual probability that certain ground motion accelerations will be exceeded; the annual probabilities can then be summed over a time period of interest.
The most commonly mapped ground motion parameters are horizontal and vertical peak ground accelerations (PGA) for a given soil type. PGA is a measure of how hard the earth shakes, or accelerates, in a given geographic area. Instruments called accelerographs record levels of ground motion due to earthquakes at stations throughout a region. PGA is measured in g (the acceleration due to gravity) or expressed as a percent acceleration force of gravity (%g). These readings are recorded by state and federal agencies that monitor and predict seismic activity.
Maps of PGA values form the basis of seismic zone maps that are included in building codes such as the International Building Code. Building codes that include seismic provisions specify the horizontal force due to lateral acceleration that a building shou ld be able to withstand during an earthquake. PGA values are directly related to these lateral forces that could damage “short period structures” (e.g. , single-family dwellings). Longer period response components determine the lateral forces that damage la rger structures with longer natural periods (apartment buildings, factories, high-rises, bridges). Table 9-1 also lists damage potential and perceived shaking by PGA factors, compared to the Mercalli scale.
Intensity
The most commonly used intensity scale is the modified Mercalli intensity scale. Ratings of the scale as well as the perceived shaking and damage potential for structures are shown in Table 9-1. The modified Mercalli intensity scale is generally represented visually using a USGS product called a ShakeMap, which shows the expected ground shaking at any given location City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-10
produced by an earthquake with a specified magnitude and epicenter. An earthquake has only one magnitude and one epicenter, but it produces a range of ground shaking at sites throughout the region, depending on the distance from the earthquake, the rock an d soil conditions at sites, and variations in the propagation of seismic waves from the earthquake due to complexities in the structure of the earth’s crust.
Table 9-1. Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison Modified
Mercalli Scale Perceived Shaking
Potential Structure Damage
Estimated PGA a
(%) Resident Buildings
Vulnerable
Buildings
I Not felt None None <0.17%
II Weak None None 0.17%-1.4%
IV Light None None 1.4%-3.9%
V Moderate Very Light Light 3.9%-9.2%
VI Strong Light Moderate 9.2%-18%
VII Very Strong Moderate Moderate/Heavy 18%-34%
VIII Severe Moderate/Heavy Heavy 34%-65%
IX Violent Heavy Very Heavy 65%-124%
X-XII Extreme Very Heavy Very Heavy >124%
a PGA measure in percent of g, where g is the acceleration of gravity (Explained Below) Source: (USGS 2011) (USGS 2025b)
ShakeMaps
The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program produces maps called ShakeMaps that map ground motion and shaking intensity following significant earthquakes. ShakeMaps focus on the ground shaking caused by the earthquake, rather than on characteristics of the earthquake source, such as magnitude and epicenter.
A ShakeMap shows the extent and variation of ground shaking immediately across the surrounding region following significant earthquakes. Such mapping is derived from peak ground motion amplitudes recorded on seismic sensors, with interpolation where data a re lacking based on estimated amplitudes. Color -coded instrumental intensity maps are derived from empirical relations between peak ground motions and Modified Mercalli intensity. In addition to the maps of recorded events, the USGS creates the following (USGS 2022a):
• Scenario ShakeMaps of hypothetical earthquakes of an assumed magnitude on known faults.
• Probabilistic ShakeMaps , based on predicted shaking from all possible earthquakes over a 10,000-year period. In a probabilistic map, information from millions of scenario maps is combined to make a forecast for the future. The maps indicate the ground motion at any given point t hat has a given probability of being exceeded in a given timeframe, such as a 100-year (1 percent annual chance) event.
The earthquake scenarios modeled for the risk assessment are shown in the following figures:
• Figure 9-5 Calaveras M6.86 Scenario
• Figure 9-6 Hayward M7.05 Scenario
• Figure 9-7 San Andreas Peninsula M7.38 Scenario
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-11
Figure 9-5. Calaveras M6.86 Earthquake Scenario
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-12
Figure 9-6. Hayward M7.05 Scenario
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-13
Figure 9-7. San Andreas Peninsula M7.38 Scenario
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-14
National Seismic Hazard Map
National maps of earthquake shaking hazards provide information for creating and updating seismic design requirements for building codes, insurance rate structures, earthquake loss studies, retrofit priorities and land use planning. After thorough review o f the studies, professional organizations of engineers update the seismic -risk maps and seismic design requirements contained in building codes (Brown, et al. 2001) . The USGS updated the National Seismic Hazard Maps in 2018. New seismic, geologic, and geodetic information on earthquake rates and associated ground shaking are incorporated into these revised maps (Figure 9-1).
Liquefaction and Soil Types
Soil liquefaction occurs when water -saturated sands, silts or gravelly soils are shaken so violently that the individual grains lose contact with one another and float freely in the water, turning the ground into a pudding -like liquid. Building and road fo undations lose load - bearing strength and may sink into the ground (USGS 2025a).
The NEHRP creates maps based on soil characteristics to help identify locations subject to liquefaction. NEHRP soil types define the locations that will be significantly impacted by an earthquake. Table 9-2 summarizes NEHRP soil classifications. NEHRP Soils B and C typically can sustain ground shaking without much effect, dependent on the earthquake magnitude.
The areas that are commonly most affected by ground shaking have NEHRP Soils D, E , and F. In general, these areas are also most susceptible to liquefaction.
According to Figure 9-3, NEHRP soil types C, D, and E are located in the City of Oakland.
Table 9-2. NEHRP Soil Classification System
NEHRP Soil
Type Description
Mean Shear Velocity
to 30 m (m/s)
A Hard Rock 1,500
B Firm to Hard Rock 760-1,500
C Dense Soil/Soft Rock 360-760
D Stiff Soil 180-360
E Soft Clays <180
F Special Study Soils (liquefiable soils, sensitive clays, organic soils, soft clays > 36 m thick)
-
Warning Time
While there is no current reliable way to predict the day or month an earthquake will occur, there are tools in place that can help with earthquake warnings. Cal OES’s Earthquake Early Warning California (MyShake), developed in partnership with UC Berkeley and USGS ShakeAlert, is the country’s first publicly available, statewide warning system that provides seconds or tens of seconds to take cover or other prev entive measures before shaking occurs, depending on the location of the event. The system uses dat a from motion sensors and Global Navigation Satellite System across the State to detect earthquakes before humans can feel them and to notify Californians of an earthquake in advance. Individuals can download the MyShake App on their phones to receive eart hquake warnings (Cal OES 2023).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-15
Worst -Case Scenario
With the abundance of fault exposure in California, the potential scenarios for earthquake activity are many. Any earthquake above a magnitude of 5.0 or greater on faults near the City would have significant impacts. With the added potential for liquefaction throughout the city, structural failure of buildings, damage to utilities such as water pipes, and sources of power are inevitable. Potential warning systems could give approximately 40 seconds notice that a major earthquake is about to occur but would not provide enough warning other than to duck, cover and hold on for personal safety.
9.1.4 Previous Occurrences
Declarations
Federal Declarations
Between 1954 and 2025, t here ha s been one earthquake-related federal declaration for Alameda County (FEMA 2025).
Table 9-3. FEMA Declarations for Earthquakes
Title Event Date(s) Disaster Number Declaration Date
1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake October 17 –
December 18,
1989
DR-845 October 18, 1989
Source: (FEMA 2025)
State Proclamations
Between 1954 and 2025, California included Alameda County in one state-proclaimed earthquake disasters (California Department of Transportation 2025).
Table 9-4. State Disaster Proclamations for Earthquake
Event Name Disaster Number Proclamation Date
Loma Prieta Earthquake 89-05 October 18 – October 30, 1989 Source: (California Department of Transportation 2025), (Cal OES 2023) USDA Declarations
Between 2012 and 2025, USDA included Alameda County in no declarations related to earthquake (USDA 2025).
Summary of Significant Events
• 1868 Hayward Earthquake - On October 21, 1868, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake struck the San Francisco Bay Area along the Hayward fault. It was considered the “Great Earthquake” until 1906. Although the region was sparsely populated, the quake on the Hayward Fault was one of the most d estructive in California’s history. It destroyed downtown Hayward, killing five people and injuring 30, and caused damage throughout the area. San Francisco suffered $350,000 in property damage (USGS 2018).
• 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake - Alameda County and the City of Oakland have been impacted by one earthquake receiving a major federal disaster declaration—the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. The Loma Prieta Earthquake was a 6.9 magnitude earthquake that struck the Bay Area for 20 seconds on Tuesday, October 17, 1989. The City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-16
epicenter was on the San Andreas fault roughly 56 miles south of San Francisco and 10 miles northeast of Santa Cruz, near Mt. Loma Prieta in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
The focal depth was 11 miles (typical California earthquake focal depths are 4 to 6 miles) (California Department of Conservation 2025).
o This earthquake ruptured the southernmost 30 miles of the break that caused the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. A magnitude 5.2 aftershock occurred 2 or 3 minutes after the main shock. In the week following the earthquake, 20 aftershocks of magnitude 4.0 or greater and more than 300 of magnitude 2.5 or greater were recorded. The aftershock zone stretched 25 miles, from north of Los Gatos near Highway 17 to south of Watsonville near Highway 101 (California Department of Conservation 2025).
o This earthquake killed 63 people, injured 3,757, and displaced 12,053. Notable damage included the collapse of the elevated Cypress Structure section of Interstate 880 in Oakland, the collapse of a section of roadbed on the Bay Bridge, and extensive damage to downtown Santa Cruz and San Francisco’s Marina District. The Bay Bridge was unusable for a month. Damage and business interruption estimates reached as high as $10 billion, with direct damage estimated at $6.8 billion. The earthquake damaged 18,306 hou ses and destroyed 963. It damaged 2,575 businesses and destroyed 147 (California Department of Conservation 2025).
• 2007 Alum Rock Earthquake - The Alum Rock Earthquake was a 5.6 magnitude event that occurred 5 miles from Alum Rock, California on October 30, 2007. The quake was located at a depth of about 5 miles on the Calaveras Fault. The event caused strong shaking in the epicentral region with over 60,000 felt reports, extending beyond Santa Rosa to the northwest, the Sierras to the east, and King City to the south. Ground shaking also reached San Francisco and Oakland. Effects included broken windows and shelving, b ut no major damage or loss of life was reported. The quake was the largest to hit the Bay Area at that time since the Loma Prieta earthquake. • 2014 South Napa Earthquake - The Napa Valley was shaken by a magnitude 6.0 earthquake on August 24, 2014. This was the largest in the San Francisco Bay Area in over 25 years, and the first since the Magnitude-7.9 earthquake in 1906 to rupture on the surface. The South Napa Earthquake occurred in the West Napa Fault Zone and caused extensive damage through both ground shaking and surface cracking.
Ongoing fault movement along the surface continued for several months and caused further damage to foundations and structures. One person was killed and 200 injured, and total damage in the southern Napa Valley and Vallejo areas was in the range of $362 million to $1 billion. The quake was felt widely throughout the region, with people reporting its effects more than 200 miles south of Napa and as far east as the Nevada border. Amtrak suspended service through the Bay Area so tracks could be inspected.
Recent Events
For the 2026 LHMP update, earthquake events of magnitude 5.0 or greater (pre -2021) and
4.0 greater (post -2021) that have occurred within 100 miles of the City of Oakland since January 1980 are listed in the table below. For events prior to January 2000, refer to the 2021 LHMP.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-17
Table 9-5. Recent Earthquake Hazard Events Within 100 Miles of Oakland Date(s) of
Event
FEMA /
State
Declaration
Number (if
applicable)
Alameda
County
included in
declaration? Magnitude Epicenter Location Fault Line
January 24,
1980
N/A N/A 5.8 7.5 miles southeast of
Mount Diablo, in Livermore
Valley
Greenville-
Mount Diablo
January 27,
1980
N/A N/A 5.4 7 miles south of 1/24/1980
epicenter
Greenville-
Mount Diablo
April 4, 1984 N/A N/A 6.2 9.9 miles northeast of San
Jose
Calaveras
January 26,
1986
N/A N/A 5.5 6.2 miles southeast of
Hollister
San Andreas
March 31, 1986 N/A N/A 5.7 Alum Rock, CA N/A
June 13, 1988 N/A N/A 5.3 10 miles northeast of San
Jose
Calaveras
June 27, 1988 N/A N/A 5.3 Los Gatos, CA San Andreas
August 8, 1989 N/A N/A 5.4 Los Gatos, CA San Andreas
October 17,
1989
DR-845, 89-
05 Yes 6.9 56 miles south of San
Francisco
San Andreas
April 18, 1990 N/A N/A 5.4 Watsonville, CA San Andreas
October 31,
2007
N/A N/A 5.45 Alum Rock, CA Calaveras
August 24, 2014 N/A N/A 6.02 South Napa, CA West Napa
June 2, 2022 N/A N/A 4.14 4.3 miles NW of Bay Point,
CA
N/A
October 25,
2022
N/A N/A 5.06 9.3 miles east-southeast of
Alum Rock, CA Calaveras
September 22,
2025
N/A N/A 4.29 1.2 miles ESE of Berkeley,
CA
N/A
Source: (Southern California Earthquake Data Center 2025); (Cal OES 2025); (FEMA 2025)
9.1.5 Future Conditions
Future hazard conditions, including frequency and severity of future events, is discussed in the sections below.
Probability
California experiences hundreds of earthquakes each year, most with magnitudes below 3.0 and minimal damage. Earthquakes that cause moderate damage to structures occur several times a year. According to the USGS, a strong earthquake measuring greater than Magnitude 5.0 occurs statewide every 2 to 3 years, and major earthquakes of more than Magnitude 7.0 occur once a decade. The San Andreas Fault has the potential for experiencing major to great events.
Based on the most recent earthquake forecast model for California, scientists estimate that in the next 30 years the San Francisco Bay Area has a 72 percent probability of an earthquake of Magnitude 6.7 or greater, a 51 percent probability of an earthquake of Magnitude 7 or greater, and a 23 percent probability of an earthquake of Magnitude 7.5 (USGS n.d.).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-18
The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3) predicts the probability of an earthquake of Magnitude 6.7 or greater over the next 30 years as shown on Figure 9-8 (Southern California Earthquake Center 2017) . The UCERF3 also defined the following recurrence intervals for the deterministic earthquake scenarios used for the risk assessment in this LHMP:
• Calaveras M6.86
• Hayward M7.05
• San Andreas Peninsula M7.38
Figure 9-8 UCERF3 Earthquake Probability
Climate Change
It is unknown whether climate change has a direct impact on earthquake probability or severity. However, cascading hazards related to earthquakes are exacerbated by climate change. Increasing air temperatures and extreme weather events can affect soil integrity and affect erosion, sedimentation, landslide , and wildfire occurrence associated with earthquakes.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-19
Due to rising sea levels, w ater supplies along the shoreline will experience an increase in groundwater levels and salinity intrusions. This will cause costly damage to below - or at- grade infrastructure and increase the risk of earthquake induced liquefaction (Adapting to Rising Tides n.d.).
Potential Future Impacts
According to population projections by the California Department of Finance, Alameda County’s population is expected to increase to 1.84 million by 2050. This represents an 11.5 percent increase from the 2025 population of 1.65 million (California Department of Finance 2025). While the City is mostly built out, redevelopment may increase the population and structural value exposed to the hazard.
Since all of the Planning Area is located within earthquake hazard zones, all future development will, to some extent, be exposed to the earthquake hazard. The City of Oakland strictly enforce s seismic building codes and design standards to prevent loss of life and property from earthquakes. Public education, cooperation with the development community, and individual preparedness are essential.
9.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
9.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability
A probabilistic assessment was conducted for three earthquake scenarios (Calaveras M6.86, Hayward M7.05, and San Andreas Peninsula M7.38) through a Level 2 analysis in Hazus to analyze the earthquake hazard and provide a range of loss estimates in the City of Oakland.
These scenarios are identified as those with the greatest potential impacts to the City and/or those most likely to occur based on probabilities assigned by the USGS. As earthquake intensity increases, impacts in the City also increase.
9.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
The entire City of Oakland can experience an earthquake; however, the degree of impact depends on many factors including the age and type of construction of buildings, the soil types buildings are located on, and the intensity of the earthquake. Those living and working in the City may experience direct and indirect impacts of earthquakes, from business and road closures iso lating populations to disruptions in the operation of community lifelines, critical facilities, and utilities.
The entire population of the City (440,637) is exposed to earthquake events. While the overall risk to public safety and potential loss of life from low -magnitude earthquakes in the City is minimal, there is an increased risk for individuals within buildings due to possible structural Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(ii) The plan must include a description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards of concern and include an overall summary of the hazard’s impact on the community. The impacts need to include the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the hazard areas, and estimate of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures, and a description of land uses and development trends.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-20
damage. Furthermore, individuals walking beneath building embellishments and chimneys face a heightened risk, as these elements may become dislodged and fall during an earthquake.
As a result of a significant earthquake event, residents may be displaced or require temporary and long term sheltering. The number of people requiring shelter is generally less than the number displaced as some displaced persons use hotels or stay with family or friends following a disaster event. Table 9-6 summarizes the estimated number of displaced households and persons seeking short -term sheltering caused by the three earthquake scenarios. These numbers are estimated using FEMA’s Hazus risk analysis platform.
Table 9-6. Estimated Earthquake Impact on Persons and Households Sub-Area
Calaveras M6.86 Hayward M7.05
San Andreas
Peninsula M7.38
Displaced
Households
Short-Term
Shelter
Displaced
Households
Short-Term
Shelter
Displaced
Households
Short-Term
Shelter
Central East Oakland 105 100 552 517 42 40
Coliseum/Airport 0 0 0 0 0 0
Downtown 136 57 1,309 548 138 60
East Oakland Hills 1 0 21 10 0 0
Eastlake/Fruitvale 50 27 645 337 31 16
Glenview/ Redwood
Heights
1 0 25 9 0 0
North Oakland Hills 2 1 203 77 0 0
North Oakland/Adams
Point
89 32 1,354 479 51 19
West Oakland 17 10 214 137 19 12
Total 400 228 4,324 2,115 280 147
Source: (USGS 2025d); (CGS 2025)
Note: Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 6.1.
Equity Priority Communities
For this LHMP update, the composite score of each census tract is divided into three categories (91 -100, 81 -90, and ≤80) based on social vulnerabilities . Populations in these categories are recognized as communities facing social vulnerabilities creating additional barriers in the face of natural hazards (Equity Priority Communities). Overall, everyone in the City of Oakland is at risk and can be impacted by earthquakes. However, some groups are more vulnerable than others, especially those in Equity Priority Communities. Earthquake hazards pose significant risks populations facing barriers that limit their ability to prepare for and respond effectively to warnings. Research on the ShakeAlert early warning system highlights that technological solutions alone are insufficient . Equitable communication strategies are essential to ensure all communities benefit from mitigation efforts. Individuals, such as those in Equity Priority Communities, may experience challenges related to language, accessibility, cultural norms, resource limitations, and trust in authorities, which can reduce the effectiveness of emergency messaging. To address these disparities, City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-21
mitigation planning should incorporate inclusive outreach, culturally appropriate education, and accessible warning systems. By pairing technology with equity -focused communication, jurisdictions can reduce disproportionate impacts and strengthen resilience among at-risk populations (Jenkins, et al. 2022).
Earthquakes strike rapidly, leaving people with only seconds to protect themselves. Those with physical disabilities or movement limitations may need to take specific precautions before, during, and after earthquakes. Public information campaigns and community resources can help protect individuals with disabilities from the impacts of disaster (FEMA 2020).
Table 9-7. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Earthquake Sub-Areas
Equity Priority
Community
Thresholds1
EPC Population
Exposed2
% of Total
Population
Exposed to the
Hazard3
Central East Oakland 91-100 34,939 33.1%
81-90 23,907 22.6%
≤80 25,659 24.3%
Coliseum/Airport 91-100 4,879 100.0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 0 0%
Downtown 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 15,144 70.1%
East Oakland Hills 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 0 0%
Eastlake/Fruitvale 91-100 17,933 17.7%
81-90 13,346 13.2%
≤80 17,531 17.3%
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 0 0%
North Oakland Hills 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 0 0%
North Oakland/Adams Point 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 20,378 23.9%
West Oakland 91-100 2,553 7.8%
81-90 8,882 27.2%
≤80 20,979 64.3%
Totals 91-100 60,304 13.7%
81-90 46,135 10.5%
≤80 99,691 22.6%
Source: (City of Oakland 2023)
Notes: (1) These thresholds are determined by the City of Oakland to be the most burdened communities in the City in the General Plan EJ Element.
(2) Population, by census tract, within the EPC threshold exposed to the hazard. (3) EPC population exposed compared with total population in sub area.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-22
9.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock
The entire building stock of the City of Oakland is considered at risk and exposed to earthquakes. A building’s construction determines how well it can withstand the force of an earthquake. Unreinforced masonry buildings are most at risk during an earthquake because the walls are prone to collapse outward, whereas steel and wood buildings absorb more of the earthquake’s energy. Additional attributes that affect a building’s capability to withstand an earthquake’s force include its age, number of stories, an d quality of construction. Hazus considers building construction and age of building as part of the analysis. Because a custom general building stock was used for this Hazus analysis, the building ages and building types from the inventory were incorporated into the Hazus model.
Potential building damage was evaluated by Hazus across the following damage categories:
none, slight, moderate, extensive, and complete. Table 9-8 provides definitions of these five categories of damage for a light wood-framed building. Definitions for other building types are included in the Hazus technical manual documentation.
Table 9-8. Example of Structural Damage State Definitions for a Wood, Light Frame Building Damage
Category
Description
Slight
Small plaster or gypsum-board cracks at corners of door and window openings and wall-ceiling intersections; small cracks in masonry chimneys and masonry veneer
Moderate
Large plaster or gypsum-board cracks at corners of door and window openings; small diagonal cracks across shear wall panels exhibited by small cracks in stucco and gypsum wall panels; large cracks in brick chimneys; toppling of tall masonry chimneys.
Extensive
Large diagonal cracks across shear wall panels or large cracks at plywood joints; permanent lateral movement of floors and roof; toppling of most brick chimneys; cracks in foundations; splitting of wood sill plates and/or slippage of structure over foundations; partial collapse of “room-over-garage” or other “soft-story” configurations; small foundations cracks.
Complete
Structure may have large permanent lateral displacement, may collapse, or be in imminent danger of collapse due to cripple wall failure or the failure of the lateral load-resisting system; some structures may slip and fall off the foundations; large foundation cracks.
Source: (FEMA 2022)
Damages for all building types in the City, as a result of the three earthquake scenarios, were estimated for the City using Hazus.
Table 9-9. Estimated Building Damages (Structures and Contents) from Earthquakes Sub-Area Total RCV
Calaveras M6.86 Hayward M7.05
San Andreas Peninsula
M7.38
Estimated
Total Damage
% of
RCV
Estimated
Total Damage
% of
RCV
Estimated
Total Damage
% of
RCV
Central East
Oakland $17,986,229,601 $961,451,174 5.3% $3,374,996,005 18.8% $449,629,370 2.5% Coliseum/ Airport $5,646,390,094 $486,582,189 8.6% $846,472,435 15.0% $488,011,773 8.6% Downtown $21,475,904,408 $658,434,419 3.1% $2,274,960,980 10.6% $707,517,507 3.3% East Oakland Hills $8,434,796,515 $378,415,055 4.5% $862,171,904 10.2% $195,540,225 2.3% Eastlake/ Fruitvale $20,713,824,637 $794,767,913 3.8% $3,028,541,428 14.6% $595,976,890 2.9% City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-23
Sub-Area Total RCV
Calaveras M6.86 Hayward M7.05
San Andreas Peninsula
M7.38
Estimated
Total Damage
% of
RCV
Estimated
Total Damage
% of
RCV
Estimated
Total Damage
% of
RCV
Glenview/ Redwood
Heights $7,699,736,380 $352,619,611 4.6% $1,075,459,833 14.0% $206,365,743 2.7% North Oakland Hills $9,022,389,851 $431,601,365 4.8% $1,498,758,018 16.6% $245,075,744 2.7% North Oakland/
Adams Point $26,981,073,354 $762,782,274 2.8% $2,940,352,167 10.9% $462,093,442 1.7% West Oakland $11,010,987,509 $512,860,347 4.7% $1,270,253,610 11.5% $592,547,473 5.4% Total $128,971,332,346 $5,339,514,348 4.1% $17,171,966,379 13.3% $3,942,758,169 3.1% Source: (Hazus v6.1 2023)
9.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines
The entire City is vulnerable to earthquakes, including all community lifelines. Table 9 -10 summarizes the number of community lifelines, by category, which are located within and exposed to the very high and high liquefaction susceptibility area. In total 505 community lifelines are located in the very high and high liquefaction susceptibility area.
Table 9-10. Community Lifelines Located in the Very High & High Liquefaction Susceptibility Area Planning Area
Communications
Energy
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Hazardous
Materials
Health and
Medical
Safety and
Security
Transportation
Water Systems
Total
Central East Oakland 5 1 0 31 0 1 4 0 42
Coliseum/Airport 66 0 0 98 0 6 12 0 182
Downtown 43 1 0 17 0 6 9 0 76
East Oakland Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Eastlake/Fruitvale 2 0 0 19 0 2 7 1 31
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
North Oakland Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Oakland/Adams Point 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 5
West Oakland 51 7 0 59 0 1 45 4 167
Total 167 9 1 226 0 18 79 5 505
Sources: (CA DWR n.d.); (USACE n.d.)
Time to Restore Community Lifelines to Functionality
Hazus estimates the time to restore community lifelines to fully functional use. Results are presented as probability of being functional at specified time increments: 1, 3, 7, 14, 30 and 90 days after the event. For example, Hazus may estimate that a facility has 5 percent chance of being fully functional at Day 3, and a 95 percent chance of being fully functional at Day 90.
The analysis of community lifelines in the planning area was performed for the assessed earthquake scenarios. The results are summarized in Figure 9-9 through Figure 9-11. These figures show the average functionality for all community lifelines in each category.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-24
Figure 9-9. Average Community Lifeline Functionality by # of Days Post -Event, Hayward Fault Scenario
Figure 9-10. Average Community Lifeline Functionality by # of Days Post -Event, Calaveras Fault Scenario
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-25
Figure 9-11. Average Community Lifeline Functionality by # of Days Post -Event, San Andreas Fault Scenario
9.2.5 Impact on the Economy
Large-scale earthquakes can inflict significant economic damage, including direct losses from destroyed property and infrastructure, and indirect impacts like disruptions to businesses and supply chains, potentially leading to long -term economic hardship. The scenario earthquakes modeled for this risk assessment estimate as much as 13% of the total replacement cost value of the City could be damaged from earthquakes. That is 13% of the tax base, the economic engine for the City. Each of these earthquake scenarios would have regional impacts that would stress regional resources that would impact recovery times for the City.
Hazus estimates the volume of debris that may be generated as a result of an earthquake event to enable the study region to prepare and rapidly and efficiently manage debris removal and disposal (FEMA 2020). Table 9-11 summarizes the overall estimated debris generated as a result of these events for the City.
Table 9-11. Estimated Debris Generated by Earthquake Scenarios Scenario
Structure Debris
(tons)
Calaveras M6.86 531,829
Hayward M7.05 2,618,373
San Andreas Peninsula M7.38 393,535
Source: (Hazus v6.1 2023)
Note: Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 6.1.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-26
Potential building damage was evaluated by Hazus across the following damage categories:
none, slight, moderate, extensive, and complete. Table 9-12 provides definitions of these five categories of damage for a light wood-framed building. Definitions for other building types are included in the Hazus technical manual documentation (FEMA 2025).
Table 9-12. Example of Structural Damage State Definitions for a Wood, Light Frame Building Damage
Category Description
Slight
Small plaster or gypsum-board cracks at corners of door and window openings and wall-ceiling intersections; small cracks in masonry chimneys and masonry veneer
Moderate
Large plaster or gypsum -board cracks at corners of door and window openings; small diagonal cracks across shear wall panels exhibited by small cracks in stucco and gypsum wall panels; large cracks in brick chimneys; toppling of tall masonry chimneys.
Extensive
Large diagonal cracks across shear wall panels or large cracks at plywood joints; permanent lateral movement of floors and roof; toppling of most brick chimneys; cracks in foundations; splitting of wood sill plates and/or slippage of structure over foundat ions; partial collapse of “room -over-garage” or other “soft-story” configurations; small foundations cracks.
Complete
Structure may have large permanent lateral displacement, may collapse, or be in imminent danger of collapse due to cripple wall failure or the failure of the lateral load -resisting system; some structures may slip and fall off the foundations; large foundation cracks.
Source: (FEMA 2022)
Building damage as a result of the three earthquake scenarios were estimated for each sub- area using Hazus. Table 9-13 summarizes the estimated building and content losses caused by these scenarios.
Table 9-13. Estimated Building Damages (Structure and Contents) from Earthquakes Sub-Area
Calaveras M6.86 Hayward M7.05 San Andreas Peninsula M7.38 Total
Replacement Cost
Value
Estimated Total
Damage
% of
Replacement
Cost Value
Estimated Total
Damage
% of
Replacement
Cost Value
Estimated
Total Damage
% of
Replacement
Cost Value
Central East
Oakland $17,986,229,601 $961,451,174 5.3% $3,374,996,005 18.8% $449,629,370 2.5% Coliseum/Airport $5,646,390,094 $486,582,189 8.6% $846,472,435 15.0% $488,011,773 8.6% Downtown $21,475,904,408 $658,434,419 3.1% $2,274,960,980 10.6% $707,517,507 3.3% East Oakland Hills $8,434,796,515 $378,415,055 4.5% $862,171,904 10.2% $195,540,225 2.3% Eastlake/Fruitvale $20,713,824,637 $794,767,913 3.8% $3,028,541,428 14.6% $595,976,890 2.9% Glenview/
Redwood Heights $7,699,736,380 $352,619,611 4.6% $1,075,459,833 14.0% $206,365,743 2.7% North Oakland
Hills $9,022,389,851 $431,601,365 4.8% $1,498,758,018 16.6% $245,075,744 2.7% North
Oakland/Adams
Point
$26,981,073,354 $762,782,274 2.8% $2,940,352,167 10.9% $462,093,442 1.7% West Oakland $11,010,987,509 $512,860,347 4.7% $1,270,253,610 11.5% $592,547,473 5.4% Total $128,971,332,346 $5,339,514,348 4.1% $17,171,966,379 13.3% $3,942,758,169 3.1% Source: (Hazus v6.1 2023)
9.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic and cultural buildings in the City of Oakland are vulnerable to structural damage from earthquakes. This damage can affect buildings, monuments, and other structures, with City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-27
older buildings that do not meet modern building codes being particularly at risk. Artifacts, artwork, and historical documents housed within these buildings are also susceptible to damage or destruction. The costs of repair and restoration can be substant ial, leading to significant economic impacts on the City.
9.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources
According to USGS, earthquakes can cause damage to the surface of the Earth in various forms depending on the magnitude and distribution of the event. Surface faulting is one of the major seismic components to earthquakes that can create wide ruptures in the ground.
Ruptures can have a direct impact on the landscape and natural environment because it can disconnect habitats for miles isolating animal species or tear apart plant roots (USGS n.d.).
Facilities holding hazardous materials are of particular concern because of possible isolation of neighborhoods surrounding them. Hazardous material releases can occur during an earthquake from fixed facilities or transportation -related incidents. During a n earthquake, structures storing these materials could rupture and leak into the surrounding area or an adjacent waterway, having a disastrous effect on the environment. Transportation corridors can be disrupted during an earthquake, leading to the release of materials to the surrounding environment (City of Oakland 2021).
Furthermore, ground failure as a result of soil liquefaction can have an impact on soil pores and retention of water resources. The greater the seismic activity and liquefaction properties of the soil, the more likely drainage of groundwater can occur which depletes groundwater resources. In areas where there is higher pressure of groundwater retention, the pores can build up more pressure and make soil behave more like a fluid rather than a solid increasing risk of localized flooding and deposition or accumulation of silt (USGS n.d.).
9.3 MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES
Table 9-14 presents a range of potential opportunities for mitigating the earthquake hazard.
Table 9-14. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Earthquake Hazard Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
Manipulate the Hazard
• None • None • None
Reduce Exposure and Vulnerability
• Locate outside of hazard
area (off soft soils)
• Retrofit structure
(anchor house structure
to foundation)
• Secure household items
that can cause injury or
damage (such as water
heaters, bookcases, and
other appliances)
• Build to higher design
• Locate or relocate
critical functions
outside hazard area
where possible
• Build redundancy for
critical functions and
facilities
• Retrofit critical
buildings and areas
housing critical
functions
• Locate critical facilities or functions
outside hazard area where possible
• Harden infrastructure
• Provide redundancy for critical
functions
• Adopt higher regulatory standards
• Perform seismic retrofits for
vulnerable critical buildings and areas
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Earthquake Black & Veatch 9-28
Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
Build Local Capacity
• Practice “drop, cover,
and hold”
• Develop household
mitigation plan, such as
creating a retrofit
savings account,
communication
capability with outside,
72-hour self-sufficiency
during an event
• Keep cash reserves for
reconstruction
• Become informed on
the hazard and risk
reduction alternatives
available
• Develop a post-disaster
action plan for your
household
• Adopt higher standard
for new construction;
consider “performance-
based design” when
building new structures
• Keep cash reserves for
reconstruction
• Inform your employees
on the possible impacts
of earthquake and how
to deal with them at
your work facility.
• Develop a continuity of
operations plan
• Provide better hazard maps
• Provide technical information and
guidance
• Enact tools to help manage
development in hazard areas (e.g., tax
incentives, information)
• Include retrofitting and replacement
of critical system elements in capital
improvement plan
• Develop strategy to take advantage of
post-disaster opportunities
• Warehouse critical infrastructure
components such as pipe fittings,
valves, pumps, power line, and road
repair materials
• Solidify supplemental power supply to
tanks and pump stations (generator
program)
• Develop and adopt a continuity of
operations plan
• Initiate triggers guiding
improvements (such as <50%
substantial damage or
improvements)
• Further enhance seismic risk
assessment to target high hazard
buildings for mitigation opportunities
• Develop a post-disaster action plan
that includes grant funding and
debris removal components
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-1
10. FLOOD
10.1 HAZARD PROFILE
10.1.1 Description of the Hazard
Defining the Hazard
Flooding is any overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry, due to rain, ocean waves, or the failure of a dam or levee (NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory 2023). Floods are the most common of all weather -related natural disasters. Areas near rivers or streams are at risk from floods during heavy rain or periods of upstream snowmelt. In urban areas, where buildings, highways, driveways, and parking lots reduce the ground’s ability to absorb rainfall, the resulting increase in runoff can overwhelm constructed storm drain systems, resulting in flooding on nearby roads and buildings. The City of Oakland is typically exposed to the following flood types, with each further described below:
• Riverine (inland) flooding.
• Flash flooding.
• Urban and stormwater flooding.
• Coastal flooding.
Riverine (Inland) Flooding
Riverine flooding, or fluvial flooding, is when streams and rivers exceed the capacity of their natural or constructed channels to accommodate water flow and water overflows the banks, spilling out into adjacent low-lying, dry land. This occurs when the flow of a river exceeds the bank sides and causes damage or obstruction to a nearby floodplain. Riverine flooding can turn into a flash flood if the river is at or above its flood stage and if the soil is saturated (FEMA 2019).
Flash Flooding
A flash flood is a rapid inundation of low -lying areas caused by heavy rain associated with severe thunderstorms, tropical systems, or melting water from ice or snow. Flash flooding also occurs far away from water bodies when a large volume of water cannot be absorbed by the soil or storm water systems and travels overland unimpeded (NWS 2019).
Urban Stormwater Flooding
Flooding is categorized as urban/stormwater flooding (NOAA 2022). Local urban drainage systems collect stormwater and rising groundwater from rainfall that produces runoff in developed areas. Water that does not evaporate or become absorbed by the ground is carried by conduits to waterways such as creeks, rivers, or the ocean. These systems have two purposes: 1) to control stormwater runoff during periods of heavy rainfall; and 2) to control stormwater runoff from more frequently occurring, less significant storms. Flooding Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(i)
Include a description of the type, location, and extent for the identified hazards of concern and include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and the probability of future hazard events.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-2
occurs when runoff exceeds system capacity, or because systems are blocked from illegal dumping, tidal flows, and/or lack of maintenance. Stormwater systems are typically designed to use gravity to drain excess water from roads, yards, and developed areas. However, their efficiency depends on the difference in water levels —known as the head difference — between the storm drain system and the receiving waterbody (NOAA 2022).
During low tide, the head difference is large, meaning water can flow freely from storm drains into nearby waterbodies. Stormwater moves quickly through outfall pipes, reducing standing water and minimizing flood risks (NOAA 2022).
During high tide, the head difference is small or nonexistent, significantly slowing down drainage. In extreme cases, high water levels can cause backflow, where water from the receiving body enters the storm drain system rather than flowing out. This can result in flooding, even on sunny days without rain (NOAA 2022).
These tidal influences can create temporary closed basins, where stormwater has nowhere to drain. This leads to prolonged standing water in streets, yards, and sometimes even homes, increasing the risk of property damage and infrastructure strain. Sea leve l rise, extreme weather events, and king tides exacerbate this issue (NOAA 2022).
Coastal Flooding
Coastal areas can experience various kinds of flooding including storm surge and sea -level rise. The combination of these events can result in the total perceived coastal flooding event (cumulative, firsthand experience of flooding). Refer to Chapter 12 for details on sea-level rise.
Cause of the Hazard
Most flooding in California is the result of heavy precipitation over one or two days. Short streams and steep watersheds emptying onto lowlands that may be heavily populated produce large volumes of water in short periods and can result in damage to structures and infrastructure. While rare, the problem is sometimes compounded by the denuding of large areas of watershed by fire during the previous season (Western Regional Climate Center 2023). The following are several types of flooding presented and defined by CA DWR:
• Riverine Flooding can be caused by excessive runoff from heavy rainfall and accumulation of water flowing over broad flat areas, levee failure, and channel erosion. • Flash Flooding is typically caused by intense rainfall. Flash floods can also occur from the collapse of a manmade structure.
• Urban and Stormwater Flooding occurs when a drainage system backs up during or after a storm.
• Coastal Flooding happens when ocean waves are significantly larger than normal. If a storm event corresponds with a higher than normal tide, extensive flooding can occur. Winds blowing in an onshore direction (from the sea toward the land) can cause the water to “pile up” against the coast, overtopping natural and manmade flood protection structures like sea walls (CA DWR 2019).
The land area susceptible to being inundated or flooded by water from any source (e.g., river, stream, lake, estuary) is referred to as a floodplain. The floodplain includes the floodway and the floodway fringe to convey the flood event and provide flood w ater storage. These areas form a complex physical and biological system that not only supports a variety of natural City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-3
resources but also provides natural flood and erosion control. However, not all flooding occurs in such areas. Flash and localized flooding often occur outside of designated floodplain areas.
Summary of Potential Impacts
Floods have the potential for numerous severe impacts (Cal OES 2023) , including the following:
• Injuries and deaths occur.
• Residences, businesses, and personal property are damaged. • Critical infrastructure is damaged and could be out of service for long periods. • Vital services become isolated or are closed.
• Jobs are lost or put at risk when businesses are dislocated or closed. • The economy can be disrupted due to damage to commercial and industrial buildings.
• Water supplies and water quality are affected.
• Communities are displaced.
• Natural resources and public access are damaged or eliminated. • Usable land is lost through erosion, contamination, or other flood-related means. • The transport of hazardous materials and debris could impact human and animal health and the environment.
Cascading Hazard Impacts
The most problematic secondary hazard for flooding is bank erosion. In many cases, the threat and effects of erosion are worse than actual flooding. This is especially true on the upper courses of rivers where there are steep gradients. Floodwater in these reaches may pass quickly and without much damage, but scour the banks, edging properties closer to the floodplain or causing them to fall in.
Flooding is also responsible for hazards such as landslides when high flows over -saturate soils on steep slopes, causing them to fail. Hazardous materials spills are also a secondary hazard of flooding if storage tanks rupture and spill into streams, rivers, or drainage sewers.
Flooding can also result in utility failures and the spread of disease.
10.1.2 Location
FEMA defines flood hazard areas through statistical analyses of records of river flow, storm tides, and rainfall; information obtained through consultation with the community; floodplain topographic surveys; and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. The combined flood hazard areas for coastal and riverine flooding are delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are official maps of a community on which the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration has delineated special flood hazard areas (SFHAs). The SFHA is the land area on a digital FIRM covered by floodwaters of the “base flood,” which is the flood with a 1 percent chance of occurrence in any given year (also called the 1 percent annual chance flood). Localized flooding and stormwater flooding are not included in FEMA FIRMs (FEMA 2025).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-4
The primary areas of flooding in Oakland are along the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay, Oakland Estuary, and San Leandro Bay. Flooding is also associated with Lake Merritt and Glen Echo Creek, as well as Arroyo Viejo, Lion, Sausal, and Peralta creeks. The areas close to these bodies of water are at the most risk of being impacted by flood events. Most of the City’s developed shoreline is not within the effective 1% annual chance flood hazard area , except the north part of the Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport. No growth areas are located in areas within the effective 1% annual chance flood hazard area (City of Oakland n.d.).
Locations of flood zones in the City as depicted on the FEMA 2018 effective DFIRMs are illustrated on Figure 10-1.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-5
Figure 10-1 FEMA Flood Hazard Areas
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-6
10.1.3 Extent
The severity of a flooding event is typically determined by a combination of several major factors, including stream and river basin topography and physiography; precipitation and weather patterns; recent soil moisture conditions; and the degree of vegetative clearing and impervious surface (Harris 2001).
Measuring Intensity
In the case of the riverine flood hazard, once a river
reaches flood stage, the flood extent or severity
categories used by the NWS include minor flooding,
moderate flooding, and major flooding. Each
category has a definition based on property damage
and public threat:
• Minor Flooding —minimal or no property damage, but possibly some public threat or inconvenience.
• Moderate Flooding —some inundation of structures and roads near streams. Some evacuations of people and/or transfer of property to higher elevations are necessary. • Major Flooding —extensive inundation of structures and roads. Significant evacuations of people and/or transfer of property to higher elevations (NOAA 2021).
The NWS also categorizes coastal flooding into three levels of severity: minor, moderate, and major. The classifications measure how much water levels exceed average astronomical high tide for that location (NOAA NOS n.d.):
• Minor High Tide Flooding —water levels reach 0.55 meters (1.8 feet) above average high tide. This minor flooding is mostly disruptive, causing stormwater backups and road closures.
• Moderate High Tide Flooding —0.85 meters (2.8 feet) above average high tide. This can cause more disruption and damage homes and businesses. • Major Flooding —1.20 meters (3.9 feet) above average high tide. Floods of this severity are destructive, may lead to evacuations, and often require repairs to infrastructure and property.
Warning Time
Most floods are preceded by a warning period that allows emergency managers to communicate the need to prepare for the event. A flood may last from minutes to days (O'Connor, Grant and Costa 2002) . Warnings issued through official sources, such as the National Weather Service (NWS) and the Storm Prediction Center, provide the most reliable and timely preparedness information, but the exact flood location and depth depends on the amount, duration, and location of rainfall.
Currently, there is no measurement
used to further define the frequency
and severity of stormwater/urban
flooding.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-7
The NWS uses the following advisory, watch, and warnings when flooding conditions are anticipated (NWS 2025):
• Flood Advisory —Issued
when flooding is forecast
to occur, generally within
the next 6 hours, but is
not expected to
substantially threaten life
and property.
• Flash Flood Warning —
Issued when flash
flooding is imminent,
generally within the next
6 hours. This is usually
based on observed heavy
rainfall (measured or
radar estimated) for dangerous small stream or urban flooding, but may also be issued for significant dam or levee failures that have occurred or are imminent. • Areal Flood Warning —Issued when widespread general flooding is forecast to occur throughout an identifiable geographic area.
• Coastal Flood Advisory —Issued when minor tidal flooding is forecast to occur along coastal areas.
• Coastal Flood Warning —Issued when at least moderate tidal flooding is forecast to occur along coastal areas.
• Storm Surge Watch —Issued when there is potential of life -threatening inundation (3 feet or greater at ground level) from rising water moving inland from the shoreline somewhere within the specified area, generally within 48 hours, in association with a tropical, subtropical, or post-tropical cyclone.
• Storm Surge Warning —Issued when there is danger of life -threatening inundation (3 feet or greater at ground level) from rising water moving inland from the shoreline somewhere within the specified area, generally within 36 hours, in association with a tropical, subtropical, or post-tropical cyclone.
Worst -Case Scenario
The worst-case scenario for flooding in the City of Oakland would be a combination of coastal flooding and flash and localized flooding from rainfall . Given the City’s location in the San Francisco Bay, this would likely result in severe bank erosion and property damage in the floodplains.
10.1.4 Previous Occurrences
The following sections provide a review of previous flood occurrences in Alameda County which may or may not have had impacts within the City of Oakland.
Figure 10-2 Flood Watches and Warnings
Source: (NWS n.d.)
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-8
Declarations
Federal Declarations
Between 1954 and 2025, The federal government declared that Alameda County experienced 13 flood disasters (DR) or emergencies (EM) (FEMA 2025).
Table 10-1. Federal Disaster Declarations for Flood
Title Event Date(s) Disaster Number Declaration Date
Flood & Erosion February 5, 1954 DR-15-CA February 5, 1954 Flood December 23, 1955 DR-47-CA December 23, 1955
Heavy Rainstorms & Flood April 4, 1958 DR-82-CA April 4, 1958 Floods March 6, 1962 DR-122-CA March 6, 1962
Severe Storms & Flooding October 24, 1962 DR-138-CA October 24, 1962 Severe Storms, Heavy Rains, &
Flooding February 25, 1963 DR-145-CA February 25, 1963
Severe Storms & Flooding February 16, 1970 DR-283-CA February 16, 1970 Severe Storms, Flood,
Mudslides, & High Tide
December 19, 1981 –
January 8, 1982 DR-651-CA January 7, 1982
Severe Storms & Flooding February 12 – March
10, 1986 DR-758-CA February 21, 1986
Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, and Mudslides January 18 – 23, 2017 DR-4305-CA March 16, 2017 Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, and Mudslides February 1 – 23, 2017 DR-4308-CA April 1, 2017 Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
December 27, 2022 –
January 31, 2023 DR-4683-CA January 14, 2023
Severe Winter Storms,
Flooding, and Mudslides January 8 – 31, 2023 EM-3591-CA January 9, 2023 Source: (FEMA 2025)
State Proclamations
Between 1950 and 2025, California included Alameda County in 21 state-proclaimed flood disasters (Cal OES 2025).
Table 10-2. State Disaster Proclamations for Flood
Event Name Disaster Number Proclamation Date
1950 Floods 50-01 November 21, 1950
1955 Floods ─ December 22, 1955
1958 April Storms & Floods ─ April 2, 1958
1962 Floods and Rains ─ October 17, 1962
1970 Northern California Flooding ─ January 27, 1970, February 3, 1970, 1982 Winter Storms ─ January 5 – 9, 1982
1982-83 Floods 82-18 December 8, 1982 – March 21, 1983
Bradford Levee Failure 83-05 December 9, 1983, January 18, 1984 1986 Storms 86-01 February 18, 1986 – March 12, 1986
1995 Winter Storms (Northern CA) 95-01 Varies from January 9, 1995 – February 17, 1995
1995 Severe Winter Storms 95-01, 95-02, 95-03, 95-
04 January 6, 1995 – March 14, 1995
1995 Late Winter Storms (Northern CA) 95-03 Varies from March 12 – 24, 1995 Winter Storms 97-01 Varies from January 2 – 31, 1997
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-9
Event Name Disaster Number Proclamation Date
State Road Damage ─ January 1, 2003
2005/06 Winter Storms 2006-01 January 12, 2006
Spring Storms 2006 2006-03 April 10, 2006
2008 January Storms 2008-01 January 5, 2008
December 2022-January 2023 Storms N-1-23, N-2-23, N-10-23 January 4, 2023 February-March 2024 Storms –
additional four counties
N-6-23, N-7-23, N-9-23,
N-10-23
March 28, 2023
Early February 2024 Storms ─ March 22, 2024
March 2024 Storms ─ May 3, 2024
Sources: (State of California 2023) (Cal OES 2025)
USDA Declarations
Between 2012 and 2025, the USDA has not included Alameda County in declarations relating to flooding (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2025).
Summary of Significant Events
• 1962 Floods - The Pacifica Coast from central California to British Colombia experienced winds of gale or hurricane force October 10-14. Several storm fronts with heavy precipitation created severe floods in Northern California. In the coastal areas south of San Francisco Bay, the heavy runoff was concentrated in the East Bay area and in parts of the Santa Clara Valley. The City of Oakland was virtually isolated as local floodwaters and mud slides closed many access roads and streets (Rostvedt et al. 1968).
• 1982 January Flood - The storm of January 3 -5, 1982 had a stable atmospheric structure, and the layer of moist maritime air was confined to altitudes between 50 and 700 feet; this phenomenon caused the rain to fall most heavily along the lower slopes of the coastal mountains. As a result of previously occurring rainfall, streamflow in the San Francisco Bay area exceeded normal from the end of October to the end of December 1981 (Blodgett and Chin 1989).
o For most streams, the January 1982 flood was the largest since the flood of December 1955, but it was not significantly large in comparison with historic peak- flow data. Damages associated with the storm were substantial, but flooding from stream runoff was not the major problem. Greater than normal antecedent rainfall, together with the prolonged heavy rain, liquified the supersaturated soil cover and caused numerous slope failures and debris flows on steep, unstable slopes (Blodgett and Chin 1989).
• 1986 February 11-20 Floods - In 1986, a prolonged series of back-to-back Pacific storms whose origins were deeply rooted in the subtropics below Hawaii slammed into the west coast, taking aim at northern California in the middle of February 1986. A destructive combination of heavy precipitation and moderately -high snow levels lasting for nearly 10 days brought catastrophic flooding to much of northern California and also carried across the Sierra Nevada crest into western Nevada. By the time it was over, ma ny precipitation gages over much of California and western Nevada measured storms totals over half of their annual normals (California Nevada River Forecast Center 2012).
o Based on damage estimates by Cal OES and a 1999 assessment of the damages by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, dollar losses totaled $720 million statewide, of which $466 million occurred in the central valley. The loss of human life totaled 13 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-10
statewide in California with one of those in the central valley. Nearly 14,000 homes and just over 1,100 businesses were damaged or destroyed by flooding statewide, which included just over 7,000 homes and over 600 businesses located in the central valley. More than 50,000 Californians were evacuated from their homes (California Nevada River Forecast Center 2012).
• 2023 Late February and March Floods - The 2023 Water Year, in particular the period from late December through the first half of January, and then again from late February through March, brought historical precipitation and snowpack conditions to parts of California and Nevada. Many of the storm systems were characterized by cool temperatures and low snow levels, brought on by numerous moist and strong low pressure systems, including over a dozen Atmospheric Rivers (also referred to as ARs) and three bomb cyclones (a rapidly developing area of l ow pressure where the atmospheric pressure drops at least 24 millibars over a 24 -hour period) during the period from December 2022 through March 2023 (California Nevada River Forecast Center 2024).
o From December 2022 through March 2023, almost all of California and Nevada saw above-normal precipitation, with the most anomalous amounts primarily falling across central CA into central NV. According to the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) "Climate at a Glance", California saw the 7th - wettest December through March since 1895 (California Nevada River Forecast Center 2024). In the City of Oakland, over 18 inches of rain fell between December 26, 2022 and January 17, 2023, and peak wind gusts reached 72 mph . The strong winds downed trees and power lines (NWS 2023).
Recent Events
For the 2026 LHMP update, flood events that impacted the City of Oakland since January 1996 are listed in the table below. For events prior to January 1996, refer to the 2021 LHMP.
Table 10-3. Recent Flood Events Impacting the City of Oakland Date(s) of
Event
Event
Type
FEMA / State
Declaration
Number (if
applicable)
Alameda
County
included in
declaration? Description
December
25, 1997
Flash Flood DR-1155-CA
Yes Rainstorms brought flooding problems
to the Bay Area. San Lorenzo Creek,
Alameda Creek and Dry Creek all
showed moderate increases in stream
flow during the warning period. Castro
Valley Creek showed sharp increases in
stream flow.
January 13,
1998
Flash Flood DR-1203-CA
Yes Flooded basement at Whittier
Elementary School, located on East 17th
St. in Oakland.
December
13, 2002
Flood N/A N/A There were three primary episodes of
precipitation in December. The first was
a two-day storm with less than an inch
and a half accumulation at any one
location; flooding problems were not an
issue, but the rainfall helped to saturate
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-11
Date(s) of
Event
Event
Type
FEMA / State
Declaration
Number (if
applicable)
Alameda
County
included in
declaration? Description
the soil. The next and by far most serious
storm episode lasted on and off for nine
days. A very strong and moist jet stream
developed across the Pacific Ocean and
brought a series of storms into
California. Locally heavy rain pounded
the north bay counties for days.
Flooding was a serious issue, not just for
urban and small stream flooding, but for
riverine flooding as well. 24-hour rain
falls recorded at the Oakland airport for
12/13 to 12/16 were 1.17”, 1.88”, 0.2”, and
1.27”.
January 16,
2020
Flood/Heavy
Rain
N/A N/A A potent cold front swept through the
region on January 16, bringing
widespread rain, gusty winds, low
elevation snow, and thunderstorms. This
system brought widespread roadway
flooding, downed trees, small hail, and
snow as low as 2,400 feet in elevation.
Numerous flights were delayed or
canceled at San Francisco Airport due to
the weather. In Oakland, roadway
flooding occurred at I-580 W and
Coolidge Ave off ramp. Number 1 lane
was flooded from Coolidge to Grand.
December
27, 2022 –
January 31,
2023
Flood/Heavy
Rain
DR-4683 N/A Severe storms with heavy rains over
several days caused embankments to
erode, undermining road bases,
guardrails, and damaging drainage
culverts and ditches at nine sites in the
City.
Sources: (FEMA 2025); (NOAA 2025); (Cal OES 2025); (City of Oakland)
10.1.5 Future Conditions
Future hazard conditions, including frequency and severity of future events, are discussed in the sections below.
Probability
The chance of heavy flooding and flash flooding is greatest during California’s rainy season from November to April. However, the diversity of climate patterns in California makes flooding more than a seasonal risk. The following are some of the weather an d climate conditions that have a significant impact on the occurrence of flooding (Cal OES 2023):
• El Niño conditions
• La Niña conditions
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-12
• Desert monsoons
• Tropical storms
• Gulf of Alaska storms
• Atmospheric river patterns
The number of years between floods of any given size varies because of the natural variations in climate and weather events. FEMA conducts flood studies that use historical records to determine the probability of occurrence for different flood levels in a community. FEMA FIRMs identify the flood hazard area as the area that would be inundated by a flood with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year (the 1 percent annual chance flood). FIRMs also typically show the extent of the flood with a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year (0.2 percent annual chance flood). These measurements reflect statistical averages only, and it is possible for two or more floods with a 1 percent annual chance to occur in a short time period (USGS n.d.) . Table 10-4 summarizes the concept of recurrence intervals and probabilities.
Table 10-4. Recurrence Intervals and Probabilities of Occurrence Recurrence Interval (in
years)
Probability of Being Equaled
or
Exceeded in Any Given Year
Percent Chance of Being
Equaled
or Exceeded in Any Given Year
100 1 in 100 1%
50 1 in 50 2%
25 1 in 25 4%
10 1 in 10 10%
5 1 in 5 20%
2 1 in 2 50%
Source: (USGS n.d.)
Climate Change
Cal-Adapt data shows that California’s precipitation patterns are shifting as the climate warms. While overall precipitation is expected to decrease in many southern and inland regions, this does not necessarily mean less flooding. In fact, greater climate variability is projected to bring more intense, episodic rainfall to these areas. Warmer ocean temperatures are increasing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere, which can lead to heavier downpours and a higher likelihood of flash flooding (Cal OES 2023).
The timing of precipitation is also changing. Most rainfall in the State typically occurs from October through April, with runoff peaking in winter and spring . Climate studies indicate that more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, causing peak runoff to shift earlier in the season. Earlier snowmelt and increased rainfall, especially in rain-dominated watersheds, rivers can experience higher and earlier peak flows, leading to an increase flood risk during times of the year when communities typically do not expect flooding (Cal OES 2023).
Snowpack in northern and coastal mountains and the Sierra Nevada mountains is projected to be reduced and accompanied by earlier rainfall with subsequent runoff downstream, particularly in the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River watersheds that converge in the California Delta. These trends suggest the potential for increased incidence of intense flooding in the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay region (Cal OES 2023).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-13
Climate change will also increase other hazards that
contribute to flood risk, most notably wildfires.
According to California ’s Fourth Climate Change
Assessment, continued increases in greenhouse gas
emissions are expected to drive a substantial rise in
large wildfires, with a projected 50% increase in fires over 25,000 acres and a 77% increase in average area
burned by 2100. Post ‑fire landscapes are highly
vulnerable: vegetation loss and soil damage make it
easier for rain to trigger destructive debris f lows and mudflows. When storms pass over recently burned
areas, runoff can carry ash, sediment, and debris
downslope, dramatically intensifying flood impacts and
causing significant damage (see Figure 10-3) (Cal OES
2023).
Potential Future Impacts
According to population projections by the California
Department of Finance, Alameda County’s population is
expected to increase to 1.84 million by 2050. This
represents an 11.5 percent increase from the 2025
population of 1.65 million (California Department of
Finance 2025). Additionally, the population of the City of Oakland is anticipated to rise. On average, the City is expected to grow by 40% over the next 20 years (City of Oakland 2025).
As more people move into the City and redevelopment
adds new housing and businesses, a growing
population means more residents and structures are
located in areas that could be affected by flooding. Even though the City is largely built out, increased density can place more people directly in harm’s way when flood events occur.
While floodplains have previously been mapped by FEMA, the City is in the process of remapping floodplains. The City will be well-equipped to manage growth in floodplains with its flood damage prevention ordinance, its building code, and the Safety Element of its General Plan. Proper application of these tools requires accurate hazard mapping. Flood mapping shoul d be taken into account as future land use decisions are made for areas impacted by flooding (see Section 19.4 Mitigation Action Plan and Implementation).
Figure 10-3. How Wildfires Cause
Flooding
Source: (Mesa County 2025)
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-14
10.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
10.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability
Flood vulnerability in the City of Oakland is focused
within the floodplain; however, flooding also takes
place outside the floodplain during severe rainfall
events and in areas of urban flooding. A Hazus Level 2
user-defined analysis was performed for general
building stock, critical facilities and infrastructure in flood zones. Both the effective and preliminary FEMA
flood mapping were used to delineate flood hazard
areas and estimate potential losses from the 1 % and
0.2% annual chance flood events (Table 10-5). The
preliminary FIRM covers Peralta Creek only; therefore,
the effective maps were used for the remainder of the City.
Table 10-5. Flood Scenarios for the Riverine Flood Vulnerability Assessment Flood
Scenario Description
100-Year
(1%)
A 100-Year Annual Chance Flood has a 1% chance of occurring or being exceeded each year. An example of this type of event would be a flood caused by high rates of precipitation from a larger storm such as a tropical storm, atmospheric river, or a similar type of storm that rains heavily over several days, which could be about 2 inches or more of rain in one hour that results in flooding.
500-Year
(0.2%)
A 500-Year Annual Chance Flood has a 0.2% chance of occurring or being exceeded each year. The event could have about 3 inches or more of rain in one hour that results in flooding. This is the least common and most intense event of the flood events in this assessment.
10.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
Floods present threats to public health and safety. Floodwater is generally contaminated by pollutants such as sewage, human and animal feces, pesticides and insecticides, fertilizers, oil, asbestos, and rusting building materials. The following health and safety risks are commonly associated with flood events:
• Unsafe food — Floodwaters contain disease -causing bacteria, dirt, oil, human and animal wastes, and farm and industrial chemicals. They carry away whatever lies on the ground and upstream. Their contact with food items, including food crops in agricultural lands, can make that food unsafe to eat and hazardous to human health.
Power failures caused by floods damage stored food. Refrigerated and frozen foods FEMA’s Hazus program provides
software, data, methods, and
guidance for estimating risk from
natural hazards. Hazus can estimate
building damages, economic losses,
displaced households, casualties,
debris generation and more resulting
from a natural hazard event, and can
be used in all phases of emergency
management (FEMA 2025).
Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(ii) The plan must include a description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards of concern and include an overall summary of the hazard’s impact on the community. The impacts need to include the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the hazard areas, and estimate of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures, and a description of land uses and development trends.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-15
are affected during the outage periods, and thus must be carefully monitored and examined prior to consumption. Foods kept inside cardboard, plastic bags, jars, bottles, and paper packaging are subject to disposal if contaminated by floodwater.
Even though the packages do not appear to be wet, they may be unhygienic with mold contamination and deteriorate rapidly.
• Contaminated drinking/washing water and poor sanitation —Flooding impairs clean water sources with pollutants and affects sanitary toilets. Direct and indirect contact with the contaminants —whether through direct food intake, vector insects such as flies, unclean hands, or dirty plates and utensils —can result in waterborne infectious disease. Wastewater treatment plants, if flooded and caused to malfunction, can be overloaded with polluted runoff waters and sewage beyond their disposal capacity, resulting in backflows of raw sewage to homes and low -lying grounds. Private wells can be contaminated or damaged severely by floodwater, while private sewage disposal systems can become a cause of infection and illnesses if they are broken or overflow. Unclean drinking and washing water and sanitation, coupled with lack of adequate sewage treatment, can lead to disease outbreaks, including life- threatening cholera, typhoid, dysentery, and some forms of hepatitis. • Mosquitoes and animals — Prolonged rainfall and floods provide new breeding grounds for mosquitoes—wet areas and stagnant pools—and can lead to an increase in the number of mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue and West Nile fevers. Rats, other rodents, and wild animals can carry viruses and diseases. • Molds and mildews —Excessive exposure to molds and mildews can cause flood victims—especially those with allergies and asthma —to contract upper respiratory diseases and to trigger cold-like symptoms such as sore throat, watery eyes, wheezing and dizziness. Molds grow in as short a period as 24 to 48 hours in wet and damp areas of buildings and homes that have not been cleaned after flooding, such as water - infiltrated walls, floors, carpets, toilets, and bathrooms. Very small mold spores can be easily inhaled by human bodies and, in large enough quantities, cause allergic reactions, asthma episodes, and other respiratory problems. Infants, children, elderly people and pregnant women are considered most vulnerable to mold-induced health problems.
• Carbon monoxide poisoning —Carbon monoxide poisoning is a potential hazard after major floods. Carbon monoxide can be found in combustion fumes, such as those generated by small gasoline engines, stoves, generators, lanterns and gas ranges, or by burning charcoal or wood. In the eve nt of power outages following floods, flood victims tend to use alternative sources of fuels for heating, cooling, or cooking inside enclosed or partly enclosed houses, garages or buildings without an adequate level of air ventilation. Carbon monoxide builds up from these sources and poisons the people and animals inside.
• Hazards when reentering and cleaning flooded homes and buildings —Flooded buildings can pose health hazards after floodwaters recede. Electrical power systems can become hazardous. Gas leaks from pipelines or propane tanks can trigger explosions when entering and cleaning damaged buildings or working to restore utility service. Flood debris, such as broken bottles, wood, stones, and walls, may cause wounds and injuries when cleaning damaged buildings. Containers of hazardous chemicals, including pesticides, insecticides, fertilizers, car batteries, propane tanks and other industrial chemicals, may be hidden or buried under flood debris. A health City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-16
hazard can also occur when hazardous dust and mold in ducts, fans and ventilators of air-conditioning and heating equipment are circulated through a building and inhaled, such as by those engaged in cleanup.
• Mental stress and fatigue — Exposure to extreme disaster events can cause psychological distress and long-term psychological impact. The expense and effort required to repair flood -damaged homes places severe financial and psychological burdens on the people affected, in particular the unprepared and uninsured. Post - flood recovery —especially when prolonge d—can cause anxiety, anger, depression, lethargy, hyperactivity, sleeplessness, and, in an extreme case, suicide. Behavior changes may also occur in children. There is also a long -term concern among the affected that their homes can be flooded again in the future.
To estimate population exposure to the 1 % and 0.2 %
annual chance flood events, the digital flood insurance rate map (DFIRM) flood boundaries were used. Based on
the spatial analysis, there are an estimated 2,114 residents living in the 1% annual chance floodplain, or 0.5% of the City’s total population. There are an estimated 29,738
residents living in the 0.2% annual chance floodplain, or
6.7% of the City’s total population. Table 10-6 summarizes the population exposed to the flood hazard by
jurisdiction.
Table 10-6. Estimated Number of Persons in the City of Oakland Living in the 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area
1% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard Area
0.2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard Area
Sub-Area
Total
Population1
Population
Exposed2 % Total
Population
Exposed2 % Total
Central East
Oakland 105,554 640 0.6% 13,879 13.1%
Coliseum/Airport 4,879 31 0.6% 883 18.1%
Downtown 21,616 9 0.0% 895 4.1%
East Oakland Hills 31,326 50 0.2% 50 0.2%
Eastlake/Fruitvale 101,468 580 0.6% 9,657 9.5%
Glenview/
Redwood Heights 32,929 148 0.5% 214 0.7%
North Oakland
Hills 24,816 159 0.6% 178 0.7%
North
Oakland/Adams
Point
85,380 497 0.6% 1,899 2.2%
West Oakland 32,669 0 0.0% 2,084 6.4%
Total 440,637 2,114 0.5% 29,738 6.7%
Sources: (FEMA 2018); City of Oakland 2017; City of Oakland 2025 Note: (1) Population calculated using 2020 Census data from Hazus v6.1. (2) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.
A Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is
the official map of a community
which defines both the special flood
hazard areas and applicable flood
zones within a community. FIRMs are
used for floodplain management,
mitigation, and insurance purposes.
Digital FIRMs (DFIRMs) GIS-
compatible versions of FIRMs.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-17
As a result of a significant flood event, residents may be displaced or require temporary to long term sheltering. The number of people requiring shelter is generally less than the number displaced as some displaced persons use hotels or stay with family or friends following a disaster eve nt. Table 10-7 summarizes the estimated number of displaced households and people seeking short-term sheltering caused by the 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood events.
Table 10-7. Estimated Flood Impact on Persons and Households Sub-Area
1% Annual Chance Flood Event
0.2% Annual Chance Flood
Event
Displaced
Households
Short-Term
Shelter
Displaced
Households
Short-Term
Shelter
Central East Oakland 52 31 8,151 1,079
Coliseum/Airport 2 1 425 38
Downtown 3 0 419 24
East Oakland Hills 4 3 4 3
Eastlake/Fruitvale 49 22 4,351 627
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 9 2 23 3
North Oakland Hills 21 3 18 3
North Oakland/Adams Point 46 19 398 75
West Oakland 0 0 1,044 36
Total 186 81 14,832 1,889
Source: (FEMA 2018); City of Oakland 2017; City of Oakland 2025 Note: Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 6.1, and adjusted to reflect the estimated population.
Equity Priority Communities
For this LHMP update, the composite score of each census tract is divided into three categories (91 -100, 81 -90, and ≤80) based on social vulnerabilities . Populations in these categories are recognized as communities facing social vulnerabilities creating additional barriers in the face of natural hazards (Equity Priority Communities). In the City of Oakland, people that live within the 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood hazard areas are exposed and vulnerable to the flood hazard. Within the number of people exposed to flood hazards, the table below shows the Equity Priority Communities population exposed to flooding. Low- income populations, individuals with limited English proficiency, and certain minority groups are disproportionately concentrated in flood -prone areas with poorly maintained infrastructure. Low-income individuals may only be able to afford to rent or buy property in areas more prone to disaster, such as in floodplains. Renters often have less resources or agencies to prepare for or reco ver from flooding and may face housing instability after disaster. Language and culture barriers may limit access to information and resources that influence choosing where to live. Additionally, physical disabilities may reduce geographic mobility (EPA n.d.). Mobile homes are less resilient to flood damage due to lack of elevation and cost-effective construction. (Princeton University 2025).
Flooding is associated with contaminated water, the spread of diseases, and carbon monoxide poisoning related to power outages. People with disabilities who live in flood City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-18
zones or flood prone areas face greater vulnerability to health disparities (National Council on Disability n.d.)
Table 10-8. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Flood – 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area
Sub-Areas
Equity Priority
Community
Thresholds1
EPC Population
Exposed2
% of Total
Population
Exposed to the
Hazard3
Central East Oakland 91-100 9 1.3%
81-90 290 45.2%
≤80 121 18.9%
Coliseum/Airport 91-100 31 100%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 0 0%
Downtown 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 9 100%
East Oakland Hills 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 0 0%
Eastlake/Fruitvale 91-100 178 30.7%
81-90 62 10.8%
≤80 159 27.4%
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 0 0%
North Oakland Hills 91-100 0 0%
81-90 0 0%
≤80 0 0%
North Oakland/Adams Point 91-100 0 0
81-90 0 0
≤80 298 60%
West Oakland 91-100 0 0
81-90 0 0
≤80 0 0
Totals 91-100 218 10.3%
81-90 352 16.7%
≤80 587 27.8%
Sources: (FEMA 2018); City of Oakland 2017; (City of Oakland 2023) Notes: (1) These thresholds are determined by the City of Oakland to be the most burdened communities in the City in the General Plan EJ Element.
(2) Population, by census tract, within the EPC threshold exposed to the hazard. (3) EPC population exposed compared with total population in sub area.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-19
Table 10-9. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Flood – 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area
Sub-Areas
Equity Priority
Community
Thresholds1
EPC Population
Exposed2
% of Total
Population
Exposed to the
Hazard3
Central East Oakland 91-100 9,970 57.4%
81-90 1,387 10.0%
≤80 4,225 30.4%
Coliseum/Airport 91-100 883 100.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
Downtown 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 895 100.0%
East Oakland Hills 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
Eastlake/Fruitvale 91-100 5,304 54.9%
81-90 1,760 18.2%
≤80 324 3.4%
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
North Oakland Hills 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
North Oakland/Adams Point 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 1,279 67.4%
West Oakland 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 388 18.6%
≤80 1,691 81.1%
Totals 91-100 14,157 47.6%
81-90 3,535 11.9%
≤80 8,414 28.3%
Sources: (FEMA 2018); City of Oakland 2017; (City of Oakland 2023) Notes: (1) These thresholds are determined by the City of Oakland to be the most burdened communities in the City in the General Plan EJ Element.
(2) Population, by census tract, within the EPC threshold exposed to the hazard. (3) EPC population exposed compared with total population in sub area.
10.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock
After considering the population exposed and vulnerable to flooding, the general building stock was evaluated. Exposure includes those buildings located within FEMA’s SFHA. Table 10-10 summarizes the number of structures located in the 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood hazard areas. In summary, 532 buildings are located in the 1% annual chance flood hazard area, and 6,041 buildings are located in the 0.2% annual chance flood hazard area.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-20
Table 10-10. Estimated Number of Buildings Located in the SFHA
1% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard Area
0.2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard Area
Sub-Area
Total
Buildings
Buildings
Exposed2 % Total
Buildings
Exposed % Total
Central East
Oakland 22,271 149 0.7% 2,667 12.0%
Coliseum/Airport 1,229 14 1.1% 297 24.2%
Downtown 5,087 13 0.3% 229 4.5%
East Oakland Hills 10,993 17 0.2% 18 0.2%
Eastlake/Fruitvale 17,046 108 0.6% 1,584 9.3%
Glenview/ Redwood
Heights 11,192 52 0.5% 95 0.8%
North Oakland Hills 10,125 67 0.7% 76 0.8%
North
Oakland/Adams
Point
21,103 110 0.5% 463 2.2%
West Oakland 6,497 2 0.0% 612 9.4%
Total 105,543 532 0.5% 6,041 5.7%
Sources: (FEMA 2018); City of Oakland 2017; City of Oakland 2025 Note: Values based off of 2025 tax assessor data provided by Alameda County.
10.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines
Critical facilities and community lifelines at high risk to flooding are likely to experience functional downtime following a flood event, which could increase the net impact of the event. Other secondary effects of a flood include disruption of services , gas and electrical service disruption, and t ransportation systems disrupt ions. These effects can result in shortages of food, utility failures, and contamination of drinking water (Cal OES 2023).
Table 10-11. Community Lifelines Exposed to the Flood Hazard Areas Planning Area
Communications
Energy
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Hazardous
Materials
Health and
Medical
Safety and
Security
Transportation
Water Systems
Total
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area
Central East Oakland 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7
Coliseum/Airport 0 0 0 19 0 2 12 0 33
Downtown 8 0 0 2 0 1 8 0 19
East Oakland Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eastlake/Fruitvale 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
North Oakland Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Oakland/Adams Point 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 5
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-21
Planning Area
Communications
Energy
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Hazardous
Materials
Health and
Medical
Safety and
Security
Transportation
Water Systems
Total
West Oakland 14 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 23
Total 22 0 0 27 0 5 38 1 93
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area
Central East Oakland 7 1 0 76 0 10 12 0 106
Coliseum/Airport 56 0 0 79 0 4 19 1 159
Downtown 9 1 0 7 0 2 8 0 27
East Oakland Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eastlake/Fruitvale 0 0 0 29 0 6 8 1 44
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 6
North Oakland Hills 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
North Oakland/Adams Point 0 0 1 5 0 4 0 0 10
West Oakland 33 0 0 51 0 0 16 2 102
Total 105 2 1 253 0 27 63 4 455
Sources: (FEMA 2018); City of Oakland 2017; City of Oakland 2025
10.2.5 Impact on the Economy
Flood events have the potential to severely impact the economy. Both direct and indirect interruptions and losses could be significant. Table 10-12 displays the estimated exposure to the 1 percent annual chance flood event and Table 10-13 displays the estimated exposure to the 0.2 percent annual chance flood event. For the 1 percent annual chance flood event, over $1.6 billion is exposed (1.3% of total RCV). For the 0.2 percent annual chance flood event, over $12 billion is exposed (10.0% of total RCV).
Table 10-12. Estimated Exposure from the 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood Event Sub-Area Total RCV
Value
Structure
Exposed ($)
Value
Contents
Exposed ($)
Total RCV
Exposed ($) % Total
Central East
Oakland $17,986,229,601 $109,836,978 $76,384,957 $186,221,935 1.0% Coliseum/Airport $5,646,390,094 $306,143,451 $305,428,890 $611,572,341 10.8% Downtown $21,475,904,408 $71,011,724 $70,441,504 $141,453,228 0.7% East Oakland Hills $8,434,796,515 $38,706,290 $27,190,173 $65,896,463 0.8% Eastlake/Fruitvale $20,713,824,637 $144,796,011 $158,594,987 $303,390,998 1.5% Glenview/
Redwood Heights $7,699,736,380 $28,846,784 $16,157,544 $45,004,328 0.6% North Oakland
Hills $9,022,389,851 $28,639,785 $15,048,263 $43,688,048 0.5% City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-22
Sub-Area Total RCV
Value
Structure
Exposed ($)
Value
Contents
Exposed ($)
Total RCV
Exposed ($) % Total
North
Oakland/Adams
Point
$26,981,073,354 $127,862,943 $77,596,320 $205,459,263 0.8% West Oakland $11,010,987,509 $27,533,760 $41,300,640 $68,834,400 0.6% Total $128,971,332,346 $883,377,726 $788,143,277 $1,671,521,003 1.3% Sources: (FEMA 2018); City of Oakland 2017; City of Oakland 2025 Note: Values based off of 2025 tax assessor data provided by Alameda County.
Table 10-13. Estimated Exposure from the 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Event Sub-Area Total RCV
Value
Structure
Exposed ($)
Value
Contents
Exposed ($)
Total RCV
Exposed ($)
%
Total
Central East
Oakland $17,986,229,601 $2,294,634,088 $2,165,938,017 $4,460,572,105 24.8% Coliseum/Airport $5,646,390,094 $1,256,805,902 $1,283,347,241 $2,540,153,143 45.0% Downtown $21,475,904,408 $123,522,265 $102,584,690 $226,106,955 1.1% East Oakland
Hills $8,434,796,515 $39,582,074 $28,065,957 $67,648,031 0.8% Eastlake/Fruitvale $20,713,824,637 $1,349,646,114 $989,330,322 $2,338,976,436 11.3% Glenview/
Redwood Heights $7,699,736,380 $76,687,892 $51,457,941 $128,145,833 1.7% North Oakland
Hills $9,022,389,851 $30,567,434 $16,152,638 $46,720,072 0.5% North
Oakland/Adams
Point
$26,981,073,354 $419,694,154 $241,880,172 $661,574,326 2.5% West Oakland $11,010,987,509 $1,182,988,900 $1,212,172,746 $2,395,161,646 21.8% Total $128,971,332,346 $6,774,128,823 $6,090,929,722 $12,865,058,545 10.0% Sources: (FEMA 2018); City of Oakland 2017; City of Oakland 2025 Note: Values based off of 2025 tax assessor data provided by Alameda County.
Hazus estimates the volume of debris that may be generated as a result of a flood event to enable the study region to prepare and rapidly and efficiently manage debris removal and disposal (FEMA 2020). Table 10-14 summarizes the overall estimated debris generated as a result of the 1 percent and 0.2 percent annual chance flood events for the City.
Table 10-14. Estimated Debris Generated by Flood Scenarios Sub-Area
1 Percent Annual Chance
Flood Event
0.2 Percent Annual Chance
Flood Event
Structure Debris Structure Debris
Central East Oakland 594 6,451
Coliseum/Airport 49 300
Downtown 112 138
East Oakland Hills 69 89
Eastlake/Fruitvale 663 9,516
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 99 505
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-23
Sub-Area
1 Percent Annual Chance
Flood Event
0.2 Percent Annual Chance
Flood Event
Structure Debris Structure Debris
North Oakland Hills 20 34
North Oakland/Adams Point 270 685
West Oakland 0 270
Total 1,876 17,988
Source: (Hazus v6.1 2023)
Note: Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 6.1.
Hazus was used to estimate damages from the 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood events. For the 1% annual chance flood event, over $ 219 million in damages is expected (0.2% of total RCV). For the 0.2% annual chance flood event, over $1 billion in damage is anticipated (0.8% of total RCV).
Table 10-15. Estimated Damages from the 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood Event Sub-Area Total RCV (1)
Value
Structure
Damaged ($)
(2)
Value
Contents
Damaged ($)
(2)
Total Value
Damaged ($)
(2) % Total
Central East
Oakland $17,986,229,601 $0 $59,896 $59,896 0.0%
Coliseum/Airport $5,646,390,094 $79,604,982 $109,430,076 $189,035,058 3.3% Downtown $21,475,904,408 $635,612 $3,025,137 $3,660,749 0.0% East Oakland Hills $8,434,796,515 $891,263 $638,733 $1,529,996 0.0% Eastlake/Fruitvale $20,713,824,637 $5,432,320 $17,479,993 $22,912,313 0.1% Glenview/
Redwood Heights $7,699,736,380 $46,239 $22,940 $69,179 0.0% North Oakland
Hills $9,022,389,851 $51,349 $32,170 $83,519 0.0%
North
Oakland/Adams
Point
$26,981,073,354 $1,183,894 $897,938 $2,081,832 0.0%
West Oakland $11,010,987,509 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Total $128,971,332,346 $87,845,660 $131,586,882 $219,432,542 0.2% Sources: (FEMA 2018); City of Oakland 2017; City of Oakland 2025 Notes:
(1) Values based off of 2025 tax assessor data provided by Alameda County. (2) Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 6.1.
Table 10-16. Estimated Damages from the 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Event Sub-Area Total RCV (1)
Value
Structure
Damaged ($)
(2)
Value
Contents
Damaged ($)
(2)
Total Value
Damaged ($)
(2)
%
Total
Central East
Oakland $17,986,229,601 $137,100,687 $358,137,322 $495,238,009 2.8% Coliseum/Airport $5,646,390,094 $125,450,479 $173,695,164 $299,145,643 5.3% Downtown $21,475,904,408 $679,192 $3,120,963 $3,800,155 0.0% City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-24
Sub-Area Total RCV (1)
Value
Structure
Damaged ($)
(2)
Value
Contents
Damaged ($)
(2)
Total Value
Damaged ($)
(2)
%
Total
East Oakland
Hills $8,434,796,515 $989,131 $927,389 $1,916,520 0.0%
Eastlake/Fruitvale $20,713,824,637 $73,269,971 $92,919,219 $166,189,189 0.8% Glenview/
Redwood Heights $7,699,736,380 $4,825,362 $11,263,514 $16,088,876 0.2% North Oakland
Hills $9,022,389,851 $305,956 $190,048 $496,004 0.0%
North
Oakland/Adams
Point
$26,981,073,354 $5,569,374 $3,230,443 $8,799,816 0.0%
West Oakland $11,010,987,509 $21,813,352 $64,570,470 $86,383,822 0.8% Total $128,971,332,346 $370,003,503 $708,054,532 $1,078,058,035 0.8% Sources: (FEMA 2018); City of Oakland 2017; City of Oakland 2025 Notes:
(1) Values based off of 2025 tax assessor data provided by Alameda County. (2) Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 6.1.
National Flood Insurance Program
The City of Oakland has been participating in the NFIP since September 31, 1982, and has adopted and enforced floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed the requirements of the NFIP. Communities participating in the NFIP may adopt regulations that are more stringent than those contained in 44 CFR 60.3, but not less stringent. The City of Oakland Municipal Code requires new construction to be elevated to 1 foot above the base flood elevation.
Full compliance and good standing under the NFIP are application prerequisites for all FEMA grant programs for which participating jurisdictions are eligible under this plan. At the time of the preparation of this plan, the City is in good standing with NFIP requirements. However, the City’s last Community Assistance Visit (CAV), performed by FEMA on September 26, 2017, did identify five (5) property addresses in the City of Oakland that had floodplain violations, interfering with the City’s ability to be i n good standing with the program. After property owners addressed these issues, the City received communication from FEMA acknowledging that the City sufficiently resolved all deficiencies and violations identified during the CAV.
The first FIRMs in the planning area were available in May 1982. The most recent preliminary FIRMs are dated December 21, 2018. These effective FIRMs form the basis of the risk assessment outlined later in this chapter. In NFIP participating communities, s tructures permitted or built in the planning area before NFIP and related building code regulations went into effect are called “pre -FIRM” structures, and structures built afterwards are called “post-FIRM.”
Table 10-17 lists recent NFIP flood insurance statistics for the City of Oakland. As of January 14, 2026, the City has 511 NFIP flood insurance policies , 240 claims have been filed for flood damages totaling $594,471 in payments.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-25
Table 10-17. National Flood Insurance Program Statistics NFIP Criteria Statistic
Date of Entry Initial FIRM Effective Date September 30, 1982 Current Effective FIRM Date December 21, 2018
# of Flood Insurance Policies 511
Insurance In Force $185,453,653.00
Premium in Force $362,923
# of Total Loss Claims filed 240
Total Claims paid $594,471
Average Claim Paid $2,477
Data as of 01/14/2026
Repetitive Loss Properties
A repetitive loss property is defined by FEMA as an NFIP -insured property that has experienced at least 2 paid flood losses of more than $1,000 each in any 10-year period since 1978 (FEMA 2020). The government has instituted programs encouraging communities to identify and mitigate the causes of repetitive losses. Studies have found that many of these properties are outside any mapped 1 percent annual chance (100 -year) floodplain. The key identifiers for repetitive loss properties are the existence of flood insurance policies and claims paid by the policies.
According to data provided by FEMA, the City of Oakland has eight (8) identified repetitive loss properties as of January 14, 2026, (see Table 10-18). One is located inside the SFHA while the remaining seven are located outside of the SFHA. This represents an increase of one property since the completion of the 2021-2026 City of Oakland Hazard Mitigation Plan. The average claim paid for repetitive loss properties is $7,279.68. This would correlate to an approximate flood depth of less than 0.5 feet based on the USACE Flood depth Damage Curves for a 1 -story residential structure with no basement. This type of flooding would associate with “nuisance” type of flooding typically attributed to urban drainage issues.
FEMA has not identified any severe repetitive loss properties in the City of Oakland.
Table 10-18. Repetitive Loss Data
Repetitive Loss
Properties
Total
Losses
Total Building
Payments
Total Contents
Payments
Total
Payments
8 16 $99,911.39 $16,563.53 $116,474.92
At the time of this plan update, FEMA had changed its policies regarding the acquisition of information on repetitive loss properties due to implications of the Privacy Act. The “routine use” provision for acquiring this data involves certifications and assurances on how the data will be utilized by entities requesting the data. Due to the expedited timeline for this plan update process, there was not sufficient time to exercise the routine use provisions to acquire repetitive loss data for analysis and assessment. Future updates to this plan will allow for sufficient time to request this data to support the flood hazard risk assessment. An Information Sharing Access Agreement (ISAA) was processed with FEMA during this plan update process. Once that data is received from FEMA, the City will update this section of the plan via the plan maintenance strategy identified in Chapter 20 of this plan.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-26
10.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic structures were not constructed to the modern building code and are less likely to be able to withstand the forces of flooding events. This may result in structures being pushed off their foundations, collapses, and other structural failures. Hist oric structures in the floodplain are also very unlikely to be built to the modern design elevation, making them more likely to be damaged by flooding events.
10.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources
Negative Impacts
Flooding can impact the environment in negative ways. Pollution from roads, such as oil and hazardous materials, can wash into rivers and streams. During floods, these can settle onto normally dry soils, polluting them for agricultural uses. Human development, such as bridge abutments, can increase stream bank erosion, causing rivers and streams to migrate into non-natural courses (Cal OES 2023).
Many species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish live in plant communities dependent on streams, wetlands, and floodplains. Wildlife and fish are impacted when plant communities are eliminated or fundamentally altered, reducing habitat. Since water supply is a major limiting factor for many animals, riparian communities are of special importance (Cal OES 2023).
Floodwater can also alter the landscape, for instance, by eroding riverbanks and causing them to collapse. As floodwater carries material from the eroded banks, it suspends sediment in the water, which can degrade water quality and lead to harmful algae bl ooms.
Suspended sediment eventually settles out of the water in a process called sedimentation, which can clog riverbeds and streams, smother aquatic organisms, and destroy habitats.
Erosion and sedimentation have a more negative impact on ecosystems that are already degraded or heavily modified (Cal OES 2023).
Positive Impacts
While floods bring hazards, they also bring nutrients and essential components for life.
Seasonal floods can renew ecosystems. Floods transport nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic material to the surrounding land. When the water recedes, it leaves sediment and nutrients behind on the floodplain. This rich, natural fertilizer improves soil quality and has a positive effect on plant growth, thus increasing productivity in the ecosystem (Cal OES 2023).
Floods can replenish underground water sources. Floodwater gets absorbed into the ground and then percolates through layers of soil and rock, eventually reaching underground aquifers. These aquifers supply clean freshwater to springs, wells, lakes, and riv ers.
Ecosystems rely heavily on groundwater during dry spells when it may be the only freshwater supply. A good groundwater supply positively impacts soil health and leads to more productive crop and pasture lands (Cal OES 2023).
Floods can trigger breeding events, migrations, and dispersal in some species. Small seasonal floods can be beneficial to native fish stocks and can help those fish outcompete invasive species that are not adapted to the river’s cycles. Sediment deposited on riverbeds City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-27
during floods can provide a nursery site for small fish. Nutrients carried by floodwater can support aquatic food webs by boosting productivity (Cal OES 2023).
10.3 MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES
Table 10-19 presents a range of potential opportunities for mitigating the flood hazard.
Table 10-19. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Flood Hazard Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
Manipulate the Hazard
• Clear storm drains
and culverts
• Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Clear storm drains
and culverts
• Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Maintain drainage systems
• Institute low-impact development techniques on property • Structural flood control, levees, channelization, or
revetments
• Stormwater management regulations and master planning • Acquire vacant land or promote open space uses in
developing watersheds to control increases in runoff
• Restore and reconnect floodplains that have been degraded by development and structural flood control
Reduce Exposure and Vulnerability
• Locate outside of
hazard area
• Elevate utilities
above base flood
elevation
• Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Raise structures
above base flood
elevation
• Elevate items within
house above base
flood elevation
• Build new homes
above base flood
elevation
• Flood-proof
structures
• Locate outside of
hazard area
• Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Build critical
function
redundancy or
retrofit critical
buildings
• Provide
floodproofing
when new critical
infrastructure
must be located in
floodplains
• Use soft approaches for stream bank restoration and
hardening
• Locate or relocate critical facilities outside of hazard area • Acquire or relocate identified repetitive loss properties • Promote open space uses in identified high hazard areas via techniques such as: planned unit developments, easements, setbacks, greenways, sensitive area tracks
• Adopt land development criteria such as planned unit
developments, density transfers, clustering Institute low impact development techniques on property
• Acquire vacant land or promote open space uses in
developing watersheds to control increases in runoff
• Harden infrastructure, bridge replacement program
• Provide redundancy for critical functions and infrastructure • Adopt regulatory standards such as freeboard standards, cumulative substantial improvement or damage, lower
substantial damage threshold, compensatory storage, non- conversion deed restrictions
• Stormwater management regulations and master planning • Adopt “no-adverse impact” floodplain management policies that strive to not increase the flood risk on downstream communities
• Improve unpaved roads to reduce their likelihood to fail due to flooding
• Preserve floodplain storage capacity by limiting or
prohibiting the use of fill in the floodplain
• Incorporated green infrastructure into stormwater
management facilities
• Protect and/or restore riparian buffers
Build Local Capacity
• Buy flood insurance
• Develop household
plan, such as retrofit
savings,
communication
with outside, 72
hour self-sufficiency
• Keep cash reserves
for reconstruction
• Support and
implement hazard
disclosure for sale
of property in risk
zones
• Produce better hazard maps
• Provide technical information and guidance
• Enact tools to help manage development in hazard areas (stronger controls, tax incentives, and information)
• Incorporate retrofitting or replacement of critical system elements in capital improvement plan
• Develop strategy to take advantage of post-disaster
opportunities
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Flood
Black & Veatch 10-28
during and after an
event
• Solicit cost-sharing
through
partnerships on
projects with
multiple benefits
• Warehouse critical infrastructure components
• Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan
• Consider participation in the Community Rating System • Maintain and collect data to define risks and vulnerability • Train emergency responders
• Create an elevation inventory of structures in the floodplain • Develop and implement a public information strategy
• Charge a hazard mitigation fee
• Integrate floodplain management policies into other
planning mechanisms within the Planning Area.
• Consider impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the flood hazard
• Consider the residual risk associated with structural flood control in future land use decisions
• Enforce National Flood Insurance Program
• Adopt a Stormwater Management Master Plan
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-1
11. LANDSLIDE
11.1 HAZARD PROFILE
11.1.1 Description of the Hazard
Defining the Hazard
A landslide is the downward and outward movement of slope ‐forming soil, rock, and vegetation driven by gravity. Both natural and human-induced changes in the environment can trigger landslides. The following are the several types of landslides (USGS 2004):
• Rock falls are rapid movements of bedrock, which result in bouncing or rolling. • Topple is a section or block of rock that rotates or tilts before falling to the slope below. • Slides are movements of soil or rock along a distinct surface of rupture, which separates the slide material from the more stable underlying material. • Mudflows , sometimes referred to as mudslides, mudflows, lahars, or debris avalanches, are fast ‐moving rivers of rock, earth, and other debris saturated with water. They develop when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt, changing the soil into a flowing river of mud or “slurry.” • Slurry can flow rapidly down slopes or through channels and can strike with little or no warning at avalanche speeds. Slurry can travel several miles from its source, growing larger as it picks up trees, cars, and other materials along the way. As the flows reac h flatter ground, the mudflow spreads over a broad area where it can accumulate in thick deposits.
• Creep is the imperceptibly slow downward movement of slope forming rock or soil that can be accelerated during wet weather events or earthquakes.
Cause of the Hazard
Landslides are caused by a combination of geological and climate conditions and the influence of urbanization. They can be initiated by storms, earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions, or human modification of the land. Vulnerable natural conditions are affected by human development and the infrastructure that supports it. In some cases, irrigation increases the landslide potential. The following factors can contribute to slide formation (USGS 2004):
• Change in slope of the terrain
• Increased load on the land
• Shocks and vibrations
• Change in water content
• Groundwater movement
• Frost action
• Weathering of rocks
Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(i)
Include a description of the type, location, and extent for the identified hazards of concern and include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and the probability of future hazard events.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-2
• Removing or changing the type of vegetation covering slopes • Wildfire history
Areas that are generally prone to landslide hazards include previous landslide areas, the bases of steep slopes, the bases of drainage channels, and developed hillsides where leach ‐ field septic systems are used. Areas that are typically considered safe from landslides include areas that have not moved in the past, relatively flat‐lying areas away from sudden changes in slope, and areas at the top or along ridges set back from the tops of slopes.
While small landslides are frequently a result of human activity, the largest landslides are often naturally occurring phenomena with little or no human contribution. The sites of large landslides are typically areas of previous landslide movement that are periodically reactivated by significant precipitation or seismic events.
Summary of Potential Impacts
Landslides in hillside terrain can pose serious hazard to downslope property and structures.
They can disrupt roadways and other infrastructure lifelines, destroy private property, and cause flooding, bank erosion, and rapid channel migration. A slide can move rapidly down slopes or through channels and can strike with little or no warning. It can travel miles from its source, growing as it descends, picking up trees, boulders, cars, and anything else in its path. Although slides behave as fluids, they convey many times the hydraulic force of water due to the mass of material they carry.
Cascading Hazard Impacts
Landslides can cause secondary impacts such as blocking roads, which can isolate residents and businesses and delay commercial, public, and private transportation. This can result in economic losses. Other potential problems resulting from landslides are power and communication failures. Vegetation or poles on slopes can be knocked over, resulting in possible losses to power and communication lines. Landslides also have the p otential of destabilizing the foundation of structures, which may result in monetar y loss for residents.
Landslides that block rivers or streams can contribute to flooding. In addition, they also can damage rivers or streams, potentially harming water quality, fisheries, and spawning habitat.
11.1.2 Location
The City of Oakland also has areas with land movement (landslide and debris flow) potential.
These areas are primarily in the northern foothills of the city. In 2011, the California Geological Survey conducted a statewide analysis using a combination of regional rock strength and slope data to create classes of susceptibility to deep-seated landslides. The analysis assumed, in general, that susceptibility to deep -seated landslides is low on very low slopes in all rock materials and increases with slope and in weak rocks. The analysis also factored in locations of past landslides.
Figure 11-1 shows deep-seated landslide susceptibility classes (none, low, moderate, high, and very high).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-3
Figure 11-1 Landslide Susceptibility
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-4
11.1.3 Extent
Measuring Intensity
Landslides are typically a function of soil type and steepness of slope. Soil type is a key indicator for landslide potential and is used by geologists and geotechnical engineers to determine soil stability for construction standards. In general, landslide hazard areas are where the land has characteristics that contribute to the risk of the downhill movement of material, such as the following:
• A slope greater than 33 percent.
• Post-wildfire areas.
• A history of landslide activity or movement during the last 10,000 years. • Stream or wave activity, which has caused erosion, undercut a bank or cut into a bank to cause the surrounding land to be unstable.
• The presence or potential for snow avalanches.
• The presence of an alluvial fan, indicating vulnerability to the flow of debris or sediments.
• The presence of impermeable soils, such as silt or clay, mixed with granular soils, such as sand or gravel.
The best predictor of where slides might occur is the location of past movements. Past landslides can be recognized by their distinctive topographic shapes, which can remain in place for thousands of years. Most landslides recognizable in this fashion rang e from a few acres to several square miles. Most show no evidence of recent movement and are not currently active. A small proportion of them may become active in any given year, with movements concentrated within all or part of the landslide masses or aro und their edges.
The recognition of ancient dormant landslide sites is important in the identification of areas susceptible to flows and slides because they can be reactivated by earthquakes or by exceptionally wet weather. Also, because they consist of broken materials and frequently involve disruption of groundwater flow, these dormant sites are vulnerable to construction- triggered sliding.
Warning Time
Landslides can occur suddenly or slowly. The velocity of slide may range from a slow creep of inches per year to many feet per second, depending on slope angle, material, and water content. Generally accepted warning signs for landslide activity include the following (USGS 2008):
• Springs, seeps, or saturated ground in areas that have not typically been wet before • New cracks or unusual bulges in the ground, street pavements, or sidewalks • Soil moving away from foundations
• Ancillary structures such as decks and patios tilting or moving relative to the main house
• Tilting or cracking concrete floors and foundations
• Broken water lines and other underground utilities
• Leaning telephone poles, trees, retaining walls or fences • Offset fence lines
• Sunken or down-dropped roadbeds
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-5
• Rapid increase in creek water levels, possibly accompanied by increased turbidity (soil content)
• Sudden decrease in creek water levels though rain is still falling or just recently stopped
• Sticking doors and windows and visible open spaces indicating frames out of plumb • A faint rumbling sound that increases in volume as the landslide nears • Unusual sounds, such as trees cracking or boulders knocking together Some methods used to monitor landslides can provide an idea of the type of slide and the amount of time prior to failure. Assessing the geology, vegetation, and amount of predicted precipitation for an area can help in predictions of what areas are at risk during general time periods. Currently, there is no practical warning system for individual landslides, however.
The standard operating procedure is to monitor situations on a case -by-case basis and respond after an event has occurred.
Worst -Case Scenario
The worst -case scenario for landslide hazards in the Planning Area would generally correspond to a severe storm with heavy rain that caused flooding in an area that had been burned by fire. Landslides are more likely during the late winter when the water table is high.
After heavy rains from November to December, soil become saturated with water. As water seeps downward through upper soils that may consist of permeable sand and gravels and as it accumulates on impermeable silt, it will weaken and destabiliz e the slope. A short intense storm could cause saturated soil to move, resulting in landslides. As rain continues, the groundwater table rises, adding to the weakening of the slope. Gravity, poor drainage, a rising groundwater table, and poor soil exacerbate hazardous conditions.
11.1.4 Previous Occurrences
The following sections provide a review of previous landslide occurrences in Alameda County which may or may not have had impacts within the City of Oakland.
Declarations
Federal Declarations
Between 1954 and 2025, FEMA included that Alameda County in 12 disaster declarations (DR) related to landslide (FEMA 2025).
Table 11-1. Federal Disaster Declarations for Landslide Event Name Disaster Number Declaration Date
Severe storms, flooding, mudslides, and high tide DR-651-CA January 7, 1982 Severe winter storms, flooding, landslides, mud flow DR-1044-CA January 10, 1995 Severe winter storms, flooding, landslides, mud flow DR-1046-CA March 12, 1995 Severe storms, flooding, mudslides, and landslides DR-1155-CA January 4, 1997 Severe, flooding, mudslides, and landslides DR-1628-CA February 3, 2006 Severe, flooding, mudslides, and landslides DR-1646-CA June 5, 2006 Severe storms, flooding, and mudslides DR-4301-CA February 14, 2017 Severe storms, flooding, and mudslides DR-4305-CA March 16, 2017 Severe storms, flooding, and mudslides DR-4308-CA April 1, 2017 Severe storms, flooding, mudslides, and landslides DR-4683-CA January 14, 2023 Severe storms, flooding, and mudslides EM-3591-CA January 9, 2023 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-6
Event Name Disaster Number Declaration Date
Severe winter storms, straight-line winds, flooding,
landslides and mudslides
DR-4699-CA April 3, 2023
Source: (FEMA 2025)
State Proclamations
Between 1954 and 2025, California included Alameda County in zero state-proclaimed landslide disasters (Cal OES 2025).
Table 11-2. State Disaster Proclamations for Landslide
Event Name Disaster Number Proclamation Date
March 2024 Storms - May 3, 2024
Early February 2024 Storms-Additional
Counties
- March 22, 2024
Sources: (State of California 2023) (Cal OES 2025)
USDA Declarations
Between 2012 and 2025, there have been no USDA agricultural disaster declaration related to landslide for Alameda County (USDA 2025).
Summary of Significant Events
The City of Oakland has had several small -scale debris flow events over the years, as well as major landslide events. Significant events are further described in the sections below.
January 2023
A hillside north of the Oakland Zoo, collapsed multiple times over a two-week period due to the intense rainstorms and soil saturation in the region. OPW crews spent hours removing debris and sludge.
April 6, 2017
On April 6, 2017, a large section of Aitken Drive collapsed onto Banning Drive, a street running below. OFD and the Oakland Police Department (OPD) responded to the event, evacuating about six homes in the area. This event left 23 homes in the area without water service for several days. Down power lines left 401 customers in the dark. By early Friday afternoon, the number of those without power was down to 21 and all were expected to have power restored later that day. The landslide brought firefighters, OPW, PG&E, and EBMUD workers to the scene.
January 3 – 12, 2017
Three storm systems hit the Bay Area in January 2017, causing widespread damage and disruption, primarily to roads and bridges. The City of Oakland received 0.93 inches of rain , and several flights were canceled at Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport due to high winds and reduced visibility. The storm was part of a series of rainstorms starting in October that sent an above normal amount of rainfall to the Bay Area. Oakland recorded 13.54 inches from October 2016 to January 2017, which was 132 percent of the normal total. Alameda County was awarded public assistance funding based on the per capita impact.
December 17 – January 3, 2006
Heavy precipitation resulted in landslides, damaging the embankment and stormwater conveyance features at three City of Oakland sites. O PW proposed to fix the stormwater City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-7
conveyance features damaged by the landslides. FEMA authorized funds to stabilize and restore damage caused by the landslides at each site.
Recent Events
The City of Oakland has had several small -scale debris flow events over the years, as well as major landslide events. For the 2026 LHMP update, landslide events that occurred in the vicinity of the City of Oakland since January 2017 are listed in the table below. For events prior to January 2017, refer to the 2021 LHMP.
Table 11-3. Recent Landslide Events In and Near the City of Oakland Date(s) of
Event Event Type
FEMA / State
Declaration
Number (if
applicable)
Alameda
County
included in
declaration? Description
January 3 –
12, 2017
Severe
Winter
Storms,
Flooding,
and
Mudslides
DR-4301-CA Yes Three storm systems hit the Bay Area in
January 2017, causing widespread damage
and disruption, primarily to roads and
bridges. The City of Oakland received 0.93
inches of rain, and several flights were
canceled at Oakland San Francisco Bay
Airport due to high winds and reduced
visibility. The storm was part of a series of
rainstorms starting in October that sent an
above normal amount of rainfall to the Bay
Area. Oakland recorded 13.54 inches from
October 2016 to January 2017, which was 132
percent of the normal total. Alameda County
was awarded public assistance funding
based on the per capita impact.
January 18 –
23, 2017
Severe
Winter
Storms,
Flooding,
and
Mudslides
DR-4305-CA Yes Heavy precipitation and high-elevation snow brought totals to near-record or record
breaking amounts.
February 1 –
23, 2017
Severe
Winter
Storms,
Flooding,
and
Mudslides
DR-4301-CA Yes A third period of heavy precipitation for the year brought heavy precipitation to the area
causing mudslides that made roadways
throughout the County impassable.
April 6, 2017 Landslide - - A large section of Aitken Drive collapsed, and six homes were evacuated. Water and power
services were impacted.
December
27, 2022 –
January 31,
2023
Severe
Winter
Storms,
Flooding,
Landslides,
and
Mudslides
DR-4683-CA Yes An atmospheric river struck the region and brought torrential rainfall which set off
landslides and mudslides.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-8
Date(s) of
Event Event Type
FEMA / State
Declaration
Number (if
applicable)
Alameda
County
included in
declaration? Description
January 8 –
31, 2023
Severe
Winter
Storms,
Flooding,
and
Mudslides
EM-3591-CA Yes Slope failure and mudslides left homes red- tagged or yellow-tagged, and roads closed to
traffic.
February 21
– July 10,
2024
Severe
winter
storms,
straight-line
winds,
flooding,
landslides
and
mudslides
DR-4699-CA Yes An atmospheric brought heavy rainfall that triggered mudslides and landslides that
eroded and blocked roadways.
Sources: (Cal OES 2025); (FEMA 2025); (NOAA 2025); (City of Oakland)
11.1.5 Future Conditions
Future hazard conditions, including frequency and severity of future events, is discussed in the sections below.
Probability
Mass movements are often triggered by other natural hazards such as earthquakes, heavy rain, floods, or wildfires, so their frequency is often related to the frequency of the precipitating hazards. In the City of Oakland, landslides may occur during and after severe storms, so the potential for landslides largely coincides with the potential for sequential severe storms that saturate steep, vulnerable soils. Most weather -induced landslides occur in the winter after the wa ter table has risen. Landslides that result from earthquakes can occur at any time. At least one landslide, whether small or large, is expected to occur annually in the City.
Climate Change
According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, the San Francisco Bay Area average annual maximum temperature increased by 1.7°F (0.95 °C) from 1950 to 2005. Even with substantial global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades, the Bay Area will likely see a signif icant increase in temperature by mid -century.
Precipitation in the Bay Area will continue to exhibit high year -to-year variability - “booms and busts” - with very wet and very dry years. Future increases in temperature, regardless of whether total precipitation goes up or down, will likely cause longer and deeper California droughts, posing major problems for water supplies, natural ecosystems, and agriculture.
Under a high emissions scenario, average Sierra Nevada snowpack is projected to decline by nearly 20% in the next 2 -3 decades, 30% to 60% in mid -century, and by over 80% in late century. The Bay Area’s largest winter storms will likely become more intense, and potentially more damaging, in the coming decad es (California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment 2018). Increases in frequency and severity of drought and heavy rainfall events increases the risk for landslides.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-9
Warming temperatures combined with expansion of the wildland -urban interface are projected to increase fire risk in most of the Bay Area, though risks may decline in some areas as they become more heavily urbanized (California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment 2018). Changes in wildfire frequency would impact vegetation which helps support steep slopes.
Potential Future Impacts
According to population projections by the California Department of Finance, Alameda County’s population is expected to increase to 1.84 million by 2050. This represents an 11.5 percent increase from the 2025 population of 1.65 million (California Department of Finance 2025). While the City is mostly built out, redevelopment may increase the population and structural value exposed to the hazard. Redevelopment creates an opportunity to correct past land use decisions, including development in areas susceptible to landslides. The City will be well -equipped to manage development with its building code, and the Safety Element of its General Plan.
11.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
11.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability
To evaluate the landslide hazard in the City of Oakland, the California Geological Survey (CGS) deep seated landslide susceptibility data was used to perform a quantitative assessment.
Deep seated landslide susceptibility shows the relative likelihood of future landslides based solely on prior failure, rock or soil strength, and steepness of slope. The assessment focused on assets having high or very high susceptibility to landslides based on the CGS data.
11.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
Typically, a landslide occurs in an isolated area and impact s those populations within the immediate area of the incident. Those that live in areas of high to very high susceptibility have a higher chance of experiencing landslides than those located outside of the hazard area. Table 11-4 presents the estimated number of people located in the landslide susceptibility area. In the City of Oakland, 2 4% of the population live in the high landslide susceptibility area and 2.8% live in the very high landslide susceptibility area.
Table 11-4. Estimated Number of Persons Located in the High and Very High Landslide Susceptibility Areas
High Very High
Sub-Area
Total
Population1
Population
Exposed2 % Total
Population
Exposed2 % Total
Central East Oakland 105,554 9,476 9.0% 241 0.2%
Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(ii) The plan must include a description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards of concern and include an overall summary of the hazard’s impact on the community. The impacts need to include the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the hazard areas, and estimate of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures, and a description of land uses and development trends.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-10
High Very High
Sub-Area
Total
Population1
Population
Exposed2 % Total
Population
Exposed2 % Total
Coliseum/Airport 4,879 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Downtown 21,616 1,899 8.8% 11 0.1%
East Oakland Hills 31,326 7,708 24.6% 4,412 14.1%
Eastlake/Fruitvale 101,468 34,058 33.6% 1,066 1.1%
Glenview/ Redwood
Heights 32,929 17,289 52.5% 2,376 7.2%
North Oakland Hills 24,816 11,697 47.1% 3,246 13.1%
North Oakland/Adams
Point 85,380 23,522 27.5% 962 1.1%
West Oakland 32,669 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total 440,637 105,649 24.0% 12,314 2.8%
Sources: (CGS n.d.)(City of Oakland 2025); (Hazus v6.1 2023) Notes: (1) Population calculated using 2020 Census data from Hazus v6.1. (2) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.
Equity Priority Communities
For this LHMP update, the composite score of each census tract is divided into three categories (91 -100, 81 -90, and ≤80) based on social vulnerabilities . Populations in these categories are recognized as communities facing social vulnerabilities creating additional barriers in the face of natural hazards (Equity Priority Communities). In the City of Oakland, people that live within the high to very high landslide susceptibility areas are most at risk to the impacts of landslide events. Within the number of people exposed to landslides, the table below shows the Equity Priority Communities population exposed to landslides.
Vulnerability to landslides is impacted by infrastructure quality, community resources, and socio-economic factors such as population density. (Pande, Bhagat and Dhengare 2025) .
Landslides are frequently secondary hazards triggered by earthquakes, flooding, and wildfire (USGS 2022b) . This can exacerbate financial struggles for low-income individuals and complicate already displaced communities (FEMA 2025).
Table 11-5. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to the Combined High and Very High Landslide Susceptibility Areas
Sub-Areas
Equity Priority
Community
Thresholds1
EPC Population
Exposed2
% of Total
Population
Exposed to the
Hazard3
Central East Oakland 91-100 13 0.1%
81-90 74 0.8%
≤80 189 2.0%
Coliseum/Airport 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
Downtown 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 13 0.7%
East Oakland Hills 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
Eastlake/Fruitvale 91-100 427 1.2%
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-11
Sub-Areas
Equity Priority
Community
Thresholds1
EPC Population
Exposed2
% of Total
Population
Exposed to the
Hazard3
81-90 3,243 9.2%
≤80 6,877 19.6%
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
North Oakland Hills 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
North Oakland/Adams Point 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 3,013 100.0%
West Oakland 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 12.3%
Totals 91-100 440 0.4%
81-90 3,318 2.8%
≤80 10,101 8.6%
Sources: (City of Oakland 2023); (CGS n.d.)(City of Oakland 2025); (Hazus v6.1 2023) Notes: (1) These thresholds are determined by the City of Oakland to be the most burdened communities in the City in the General Plan EJ Element.
(2) Population, by census tract, within the EPC threshold exposed to the hazard. (3) EPC population exposed compared with total population in sub area.
11.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock
Similar to impacts on life, health, and safety, buildings located in high to very high landslide susceptibility are more likely to experience impacts from landslide events. The table below summarizes the number of buildings located in each of the landslide hazard areas (high and very high). In summary, there are 27,998 buildings located in the high hazard area and 4,083 located in the high hazard area.
Table 11-6. Estimated Building Stock Located in the High and Very High Landslide Susceptibility Areas High Very High
Sub-Area
Total
Buildings
Total Replacement
Cost Value
Buildings
Exposed % Total
Buildings
Exposed % Total
Central East Oakland 22,271 $17,986,229,601 2,626 11.8% 65 0.3% Coliseum/Airport 1,229 $5,646,390,094 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Downtown 5,087 $21,475,904,408 404 7.9% 1 0.0%
East Oakland Hills 10,993 $8,434,796,515 2,620 23.8% 1,456 13.2% Eastlake/Fruitvale 17,046 $20,713,824,637 6,090 35.7% 202 1.2% Glenview/ Redwood
Heights 11,192 $7,699,736,380 5,911 52.8% 824 7.4%
North Oakland Hills 10,125 $9,022,389,851 4,778 47.2% 1,328 13.1% North Oakland/
Adams Point 21,103 $26,981,073,354 5,569 26.4% 207 1.0% West Oakland 6,497 $11,010,987,509 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-12
High Very High
Sub-Area
Total
Buildings
Total Replacement
Cost Value
Buildings
Exposed % Total
Buildings
Exposed % Total
Total 105,543 128,971,332,346 27,998 26.5% 4,083 3.9%
Sources: (CGS n.d.); (City of Oakland 2025); (Hazus v6.1 2023) Notes: Values based off of 2025 tax assessor data provided by Alameda County.
11.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines
Community lifelines could be directly impacted by landslides and experience damages.
Landslides that impact roadways could impact access to lifeline facilities. Lifeline facilities that are directly and indirectly exposed to the landslide hazard are likely to experience functional downtime following these events, which could increase the net impact of these events (Cal OES 2023) . Table 11-7 summarizes the community lifelines located in the combined high and very high landslide susceptibility area. In total, 233 community lifelines are exposed to the landslide hazard.
Table 11-7. Community Lifelines Exposed to the Combined High & Very High Landslide Susceptibility Area
Planning
Area
Communications
Energy
Food, Hydration,
Shelter
Hazardous
Materials
Health and
Medical
Safety and
Security
Transportation
Water Systems
Total
Central
East
Oakland
0 0 0 6 0 4 3 0 13
Coliseum/
Airport
0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 7
Downtow
n
6 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 12
East
Oakland
Hills
6 1 0 2 0 12 4 0 25
Eastlake/
Fruitvale
5 0 0 11 1 9 14 0 40
Glenview/
Redwood
Heights
1 1 0 11 0 10 10 0 33
North
Oakland
Hills
37 2 0 8 0 6 8 0 61
North
Oakland/
Adams
Point
0 1 0 17 0 7 14 0 39
West
Oakland
0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
Total 55 5 0 60 1 48 64 0 233
Sources: (CGS n.d.)(City of Oakland 2025)
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-13
11.2.5 Impact on the Economy
Geological hazards, like landslides, can impose direct and indirect impacts on society. Direct costs include the actual damage sustained by buildings, property, and infrastructure.
Indirect costs, such as clean -up costs, business interruption, loss of tax revenues, reduced property values, an d loss of productivity are difficult to measure. Additionally, landslides threaten transportation corridors, fuel and energy conduits, and communication lines (USGS 2003). Estimated exposure to the general building stock can be quantified as shown below in Table 11-8. 2.4% of the total replacement cost of the city’s building stock is exposed to the very high landslide hazard area while 19.5% is exposed to the high land slide susceptibility hazard area.
Table 11-8. Estimated Exposure to the High and Very High Landslide Susceptibility Hazard Areas Sub-Area
Value of Structure
Exposed ($)
Value of Contents
Exposed ($)
Value (Structures
and Contents
Exposed) ($)
% of Total
Replacement
Value
Very High Landslide Susceptibility Hazard Area
Central East
Oakland
$20,030,571 $10,015,286 $30,045,857 0.2%
Coliseum/Airport $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Downtown $271,124 $135,562 $406,686 0.0%
East Oakland Hills $691,200,639 $426,965,448 $1,118,166,087 13.3% Eastlake/Fruitvale $161,144,718 $80,920,807 $242,065,525 1.2% Glenview/
Redwood Heights
$353,324,318 $181,268,714 $534,593,032 6.9%
North Oakland
Hills
$674,004,799 $351,364,375 $1,025,369,174 11.4%
North Oakland/
Adams Point
$108,999,618 $54,499,809 $163,499,427 0.6%
West Oakland $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Total $2,008,975,787 $1,105,170,001 $3,114,145,788 2.4% High Landslide Susceptibility Hazard Area
Central East
Oakland
$840,369,755 $460,440,813 $1,300,810,568 7.2%
Coliseum/Airport $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Downtown $188,536,975 $115,549,581 $304,086,556 1.4%
East Oakland Hills $1,242,422,367 $665,091,915 $1,907,514,282 22.6% Eastlake/Fruitvale $3,806,489,973 $2,750,890,009 $6,557,379,982 31.7% Glenview/
Redwood Heights
$2,469,367,197 $1,310,916,163 $3,780,283,360 49.1%
North Oakland
Hills
$2,888,439,175 $1,495,088,306 $4,383,527,481 48.6%
North Oakland/
Adams Point
$4,329,759,287 $2,617,053,451 $6,946,812,738 25.7%
West Oakland $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Total $15,765,384,729 $9,415,030,237 $25,180,414,966 19.5% Sources: (CGS n.d.)(City of Oakland 2025); (Hazus v6.1 2023) Notes: Values based off of 2025 tax assessor data provided by Alameda County.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-14
11.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources
Landslides can cause damage to historical and cultural resources, ranging from structural damage to buildings and monuments to the destruction of artifacts and archaeological sites, impacting cultural heritage.
11.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources
Landslides can cause significant environmental impacts. A landslide alters the landscape. In addition to changes in topography, vegetation and wildlife habitats may be damaged or destroyed. Soil and sediment runoff will accumulate downslope, potentially block waterways and roadways and impairing the quality of streams and other water bodies. Landslides that fall into streams may impact fish and wildlife habitat, as well as affect water quality. Hillsides that provide wildlife habitat can be lost for prolong ed periods due to landslides (Cal OES 2023).
In spite of their destructive potential, landslides can serve beneficial functions to the natural environment. They supply sediment and large wood to the channel network and can contribute to complexity and dynamic channel behavior critical for aquatic and riparian ecological diversity.
11.3 MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES
Table 11-9 presents a range of potential opportunities for mitigating the landslide hazard.
Table 11-9. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Landslide Hazard Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
Manipulate the Hazard
• Stabilize slope (dewater,
armor toe)
• Reduce weight on top of
slope
• Minimize vegetation removal
and the addition of
impervious surfaces
• Stabilize slope (dewater,
armor toe)
• Stabilize slope (dewater,
armor toe)
• Reduce weight on top of
slope
Reduce Exposure and Vulnerability
• Locate structures outside of
hazard area (off unstable
land and away from slide-
run out area)
• Retrofit home
• Locate structures outside of
hazard area (off unstable
land and away from slide-
run out area)
• Retrofit at-risk facilities
• Adopt higher regulatory
standards for new
development within
unstable slope areas
• Armor/retrofit critical
infrastructure against the
impact of landslides
Build Local Capacity
• Subscribe to warning
systems, and develop
evacuation plan
• Keep cash reserves for
reconstruction
• Educate yourself on risk
reduction techniques for
landslide hazards
• Institute warning system,
and develop evacuation plan
• Keep cash reserves for
reconstruction
• Develop a continuity of
operations plan
• Educate employees on the
potential exposure to
• Produce better hazard maps
• Provide technical
information and guidance
• Enact tools to help manage
development in hazard
areas: better land controls,
tax incentives, information
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Landslide Black & Veatch 11-15
Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
landslide hazards and
emergency response
protocol
• Develop strategy to take
advantage of post-disaster
opportunities
• Warehouse critical
infrastructure components
• Develop and adopt a
continuity of operations plan
• Educate the public on the
landslide hazard and
appropriate risk reduction
alternatives
• Replace or restore native
vegetation known to
stabilize steep slopes
• Hybrid solutions that
combine engineering with a
nature-based approach
using appropriate
vegetation
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Sea-Level Rise Black & Veatch 12-1
12. SEA -LEVEL RISE
12.1 HAZARD PROFILE
12.1.1 Description of the Hazard
Defining the Hazard
Sea-level rise is the increase in the average height of the ocean’s surface, caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers; and the expansion of seawater as it warms. In the past century, global mean sea level has increased by 9 to 12 inches, with human influence the dominant cause of observed atmospheric and oceanic warming. Given current trends in greenhouse gas emissions and increasing global temperatures, sea -level rise has accelerated in the last decade and is expected to continue to accelerate in the coming deca des. Impacts will generally become more frequent and more severe in the latter half of this century (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2022).
The science of sea -level rise is being continuously revised as climate models are improved and updated with new data and observations. These revisions improve understanding of climate variability and the global oceanic response. Keeping up to date with such scientific advances is vital for developing appropriate adaptation strategies that prove implementable over time.
To support community resilience and adaptation to sea-level, the City of Oakland is involved in the Oakland Alameda Adaptation Committee (OAAC). The committee is a coalition of shoreline communities and stakeholders working to accelerate sea -level rise adaptation, protect and restore water quality, habitat and recreation and promote community resilience (Alameda County n.d.).
Cause of the Hazard
Greenhouse gas emissions from human activity have led to climate change. Climate change is characterized by a warming planet and warming oceans that experience thermal expansion and lead to melting glaciers and ice sheets. Sea-level rise is not uniform across geographies and is subject to other factors (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2022).
Summary of Potential Impacts
As a bayfront city, Oakland has long been vulnerable to flooding. Rising waters in San Francisco Bay already affect Oakland with periodic flooding of low -lying shorelines, loss of valuable saltwater marshes, and saltwater impacts on wastewater treatment systems. When heavy rains are coupled with higher-than-normal tides, the high tides can slow the drainage of runoff into the Bay, increasing the potential for urban stormwater flooding. The Oakland Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(i)
Include a description of the type, location, and extent for the identified hazards of concern and include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and the probability of future hazard events.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Sea-Level Rise Black & Veatch 12-2
Coliseum and Lake Merritt areas, for example, are near channel restrictions and experience flooding from rainwater that is unable to properly drain when downstream channels reach capacity during high tides. In the Lake Merritt area, several capital project s have been implemented to alleviate upstream flooding, and the City is continuing to further manage lake water levels (City of Oakland 2016).
Rising sea levels represent new challenges to Oakland’s future. As bay water levels continue to rise, the extent and frequency of flooding will increase. Areas once considered to be outside of the floodplain will begin to experience periodic coastal and/or urban flooding.
Sections of Oakland’s shoreline built on bay fill, such as the Port of Oakland and the Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport (OAK), are increasingly vulnerable, because they are at a higher risk of liquefaction during seismic events.
Led by the OAAC, the City of Oakland and neighboring partners are supporting sea-level rise adaptation projects such as the Oakland-Alameda Estuary Adaptation Project. The project is a near-term sea-level rise adaptation concept to address increased coastal, stormwater, and groundwater flooding for up to two feet of sea-level rise over the coming decades (Alameda County n.d.).
Cascading Hazard Impacts
While an increase of several inches of sea levels of the course of several decades may seem like a small change, coastline flooding has gotten increasingly worse with relatively small increases in the past few decades. Storm surge, high tides, coastal erosion, and wetland loss are amplified with rising sea levels even if storm frequency does not increase. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2022). Longer, more frequent and more extensive flooding will occur more frequently as well as worsened shoreline erosion and loss of land (Adapting to Rising Tides n.d.) . For more information on flooding, refer to Chapter 10-110 (Flood).
12.1.2 Location
In the City of Oakland, the potential for new or prolonged flooding as the sea level rises will not be confined to the shoreline. Sea -level rise will increase the likelihood of major flood events because higher water levels in tidal creeks and flood control channels will reduce capacity to discharge rainfall runoff. While some creeks and coastal infrastructure already flood when rainstorms coincide with high tides, rising sea levels will increasingly cause flooding during smaller, more frequent rainfall events (City of Oakland 2021).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Sea-Level Rise Black & Veatch 12-3
Figure 12-1. 48-inch Sea-Level Rise Projections
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Sea-Level Rise Black & Veatch 12-4
Figure 12-2. 108-inch Sea-Level Rise Projections
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Sea-Level Rise Black & Veatch 12-5
12.1.3 Extent
Measuring Intensity
The severity of sea-level rise to the City of Oakland is projected to evolve from chronic to more severe over the next 30 to 80 years. The specific level of severity could be exacerbated by the following conditions:
• Daily tidal inundation —As sea -level rises, the amount of land and infrastructure subjected to daily inundation by high tides – also known as increases in mean higher high water – will increase. This would result in increased permanent future inundation of low-lying areas.
• Annual high tide inundation (King Tides) —King Tides are abnormally high, predictable astronomical tides that occur approximately twice per year. King Tides are the highest tides that occur each year during the winter and summer when the Earth, moon and sun are aligned. In the winter (December, J anuary, and February), King Tides may be amplified by winter weather, making these events more dramatic. King Tides result in temporary inundation, particularly associated with nuisance flooding, such as inundation of low-lying roads, boardwalks, and waterfront promenades. • Extreme high tide inundation (storm surge) —When Pacific Ocean storms coincide with high tides, storm surge due to meteorological effects can elevate Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay water levels and produce extreme high tides, resulting in temporary inundation. Such storm surge events occurred on January 27, 1983, December 3, 1983, February 6, 1998, January 8, 2005, and December 31, 2006. Extreme high tides can cause severe inundation of low -lying roads, boardwalks, and promenades; can exacerbate coastal and riverine flooding and cause upstream flooding; and can interfere with stormwater outfalls.
• El Niño winter storms —During El Niño winters, atmospheric and oceanographic conditions in the Pacific Ocean produce severe winter storms that impact the San Francisco shorelines. Pacific Ocean storms follow a more southerly route and bring intense rainfall and storm conditions to the Bay Area. Tides are often elevated 0.5 to
1.0 feet above normal along the coast, and wind setup can elevate water levels even further. El Niño winter conditions prevailed in 1977–1978, 1982– 1983, 1997–1998, 2009– 2010, and 2015 –2016. Typical impacts include severe inundation of low -lying roads, boardwalks, and waterfront promenades; storm drain backup; wave damage to coastal structures; and erosion of natural shorelines.
• Ocean swell and wind -wave events (storm waves) —Pacific Ocean storms and strong thermal gradients can produce strong winds that blow across the ocean and the Bay. When the wind blows over long reaches of open water, large waves can be generated that impact the shoreline and cause damage. Typical impacts include wave damage along the shoreline, particularly to coastal structures such as levees, docks and piers, wharves, and revetments; backshore inundation due to wave overtopping of structures; and erosion of natural shorelines.
Oakland Preliminary Sea -Level Rise Road Map
Oakland was selected in 2013 to join 100 Resilient Cities, an initiative pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation to help cities build resilience for the social, economic, and physical challenges of the 21st century. The Oakland Preliminary Sea -Level Rise Road Map was developed in 2017 to identify sea-level rise adaptation actions as part of Resilient Oakland, a City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Sea-Level Rise Black & Veatch 12-6
coordinated effort to align resources in support of a resilient community. The working group for The Road Map was made up of City and Port of Oakland staff, county and regional agencies and districts, educational organizations, and community stakeholders, such as the San Francisco Estuary Institute, and the Pacific Institute (City of Oakland 2017a).
Adapting to Rising Tides Program
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Adapting to Rising Tides (ART) program works with local, state, regional and federal agencies and organizations to gather, develop and analyze the data needed to understand the impacts of a ch anging climate on Bay Area communities, infrastructure, services, and natural resources. The ART program has defined potential scenarios for sea -level rise over coming decades and prepared maps showing areas that would become inundated under each scenario. Each ART program project has a repository of data, maps and analysis about various assets and sectors (ART Program 2025).
Warning Time
Sea-level rise is not a hazard that requires near -term advance warning systems to support response and recovery operations. Programs such as the ART program described above and NOAA’s sea-level rise programs are keeping an active watch on the sea-level rise phenomena to keep communities like Oakland informed of the progression. This stream of information will feed City programs such as the Sea-Level Rise Roadmap to help the City to be prepared for and mitigate the long-term impacts from sea-level rise.
Worst -Case Scenario
Sea levels within the San Francisco Bay could rise three to five feet or more by the end of the century, and the City of Oakland will be adversely impacted by that rise. The impacts are already happening and will progress over time. The City is already preparing for these impacts using programs such as the ART program and the Sea -Level Rise Action Plan Mitigating the impacts from sea -level rise will take resources and some tough land use decisions over the next 75 years.
12.1.4 Previous Occurrences
The following sections provide a review of previous Sea-Level Rise occurrences in Alameda County.
Declarations
Federal Declarations
There have been no federal declarations for Sea-Level Rise for Alameda County (FEMA 2025).
State Proclamations
There have been no state proc lamations for Sea-Level Rise for Alameda County (Cal OES 2025).
USDA Declarations
There have been no USDA declarations for Sea-Level Rise for Alameda County (USDA 2025).
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Sea-Level Rise Black & Veatch 12-7
Summary of Recent Significant Events
In the last century, San Francisco Bay water levels have risen 8 inches (State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2024).
12.1.5 Future Conditions
Future hazard conditions, including frequency and severity of future events, is discussed in the sections below.
Probability
Sea-level rise is an ongoing phenomenon that progresses over time. Neither its past history nor its projected future is based on discrete, countable events. However, scientists do measure long -term values of historical rise and use those data, combined wit h climate projections, to predict ongoing Sea-Level Rise over defined time periods. The probability of additional sea -level rise inundation in Oakland by 2100 is high, though specific levels are uncertain. The 2017 Oakland Sea Level Rise Road Map and ART program scenarios (described above) are shown in Table 12-1.
Table 12-1. Range of Estimates for Bay Area Sea-Level Rise Oakland Sea-Level Rise Road Map ART Scenarios
Year Total Rise Annual Average Total Rise
Annual
Average
2050 11 – 24 inches 0.37 – 0.8 inches per
year 48 inches 1.6 inches per
year
2100 36 – 66 inches 0.45 – 0.825 inches
per year 108 inches 1.35 inches per
year
Sources: (City of Oakland 2017); ART, 2017
Climate Change
Sea-level rise is driven by the changing and increasing temperatures of earth’s surface. As humans continue to burn fossil fuels, greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, driving up the earth’s temperature and ultimately melting glaciers and ice sheets. The oceans respond t o an increase in the earth’s temperature over a prolonged period of time, meaning that even if greenhouse gas emissions slow, sea levels will continue to rise due to warming that has already occurred. Scenarios for sea-level rise are intrinsically linked to climate change and how much the earth continues to warm (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2022).
Potential Future Impacts
According to population projections by the California Department of Finance, Alameda County’s population is expected to increase to 1.84 million by 2050. This represents an 11.5 percent increase from the 2025 population of 1.65 million (California Department of Finance 2025). While the City is mostly built out, redevelopment may increase the population and structural value exposed to the sea-level rise hazard.
Coastal areas that are not currently exposed to the tide will become inundated, displacing people and infrastructure. Beaches, trails, and other shoreline recreation areas will be lost.
Changing tidal and wave energy will lead to increased soil erosion and cause shoreline City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Sea-Level Rise Black & Veatch 12-8
protection such as levees to be overtopped. Water supplies along the shoreline wi ll experience an increase in groundwater levels and salinity intrusions. This will cause costly damage to below - or at-grade infrastructure and increase the risk of earthquake induced liquefaction (Adapting to Rising Tides n.d.).
12.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
12.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability
Sea-level rise vulnerability is primarily focused on the areas of the City along the San Francisco Bay. Rising bay waters already affect Oakland with periodic coastal flooding of low- lying shorelines, loss of valuable saltwater marshes, and saltwater impacts to wastewater treatment systems serving Oakland. When heavy rains are coupled with higher-than-normal tides, tide levels can slow the drainage of runoff into San Francisco Bay, increasing the potential for urban stormwater flooding (City of Oakland 2017).
For the 2026 LHMP update, sea-level rise projections that align with the General Plan were used to determine the long -term risk of flooding in coastal areas. Sea -level rise is likely to increase the reach of coastal flooding and lead to permanent inundation of low-lying areas.
To determine the risk of sea-level rise, two scenarios were selected for the assessment of this plan:
• 2050 scenario – 0.8 feet sea-level rise plus 100-year storm surge and groundwater • 2100 scenario – 4.9 feet sea-level rise plus 100-year storm surge and groundwater
12.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
The populations most likely to experience impacts from sea-level rise are those who reside near coastal areas. To estimate population exposure to sea-level rise, mapping of the 0.8 feet and 4.9 feet sea-level rise scenarios plus the 100-year storm surge and groundwater event was used to access vulnerability. The populations most likely to experience impacts from sea- level rise are those who reside near beaches and low-lying shorelines.
Table 12-2. Estimated Number of Persons Exposed to Sea-Level Rise 2050 Scenario 2100 Scenario
Sub-Areas
Estimated
Population
Population
Exposed
%
Population
Population
Exposed
%
Population
Central East
Oakland 105,554 106 0.1% 3,903 3.7%
Coliseum/Airport 4,879 872 17.9% 2,225 45.6%
Downtown 21,616 3,311 15.3% 4,776 22.1%
Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(ii) The plan must include a description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards of concern and include an overall summary of the hazard’s impact on the community. The impacts need to include the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the hazard areas, and estimate of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures, and a description of land uses and development trends.
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Sea-Level Rise Black & Veatch 12-9
2050 Scenario 2100 Scenario
Sub-Areas
Estimated
Population
Population
Exposed
%
Population
Population
Exposed
%
Population
East Oakland Hills 31,326 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Eastlake/Fruitvale 101,468 2,691 2.7% 6,911 6.8%
Glenview/
Redwood Heights 32,929 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
North Oakland
Hills 24,816 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
North Oakland/
Adams Point 85,380 0 0.0% 89 0.1%
West Oakland 32,669 2,132 6.5% 12,783 39.1%
Total 440,637 9,112 2.1% 30,687 7.0%
Sources: (City of Oakland 2025); (RSAP 2025)
Notes: (1) Population calculated using 2020 Census data from Hazus v6.1. (2) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.
Equity Priority Communities
For this LHMP update, the composite score of each census tract is divided into three categories (91 -100, 81 -90, and ≤80) based on social vulnerabilities . Populations in these categories are recognized as communities facing social vulnerabilities creating additional barriers in the face of natural hazards (Equity Priority Communities). In the City of Oakland, people that live along the coastline are exposed to the potential impacts of sea-level rise. Of the total population exposed to sea-level rise in the 2050 scenario, 5,227 people are located within areas designated as Equity Priority Communities. Of the total population exposed to sea-level rise in the 2100 scenario, 11,911 people are located within areas designated as Equity Priority Communities.
The table below provides the number of people located in the sea -level rise hazard areas within the designated Equity Priority Communities, by sub-areas. Sea-level rise is projected to continue to increase over the coming decades, ultimately displacing coastal and waterfront communities. Climate migration is an emerging phenomenon where those who are financially able to flee from areas prone to floods, storms, heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires. This drives up prices for housing inland areas. Cost-prohibitive housing may impair vulnerable communities’ ability to relocate to less flood -prone areas, ultimately subjecting them to increased flood and flood -related impacts (University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability 2024).
Table 12-3. Estimated Number of Equity Priority Community Members Exposed to Sea-Level Rise – 2050 Scenario
Sub-Areas
Equity Priority
Community
Thresholds1
EPC Population
Exposed2
% of Total
Population
Exposed to the
Hazard3
Central East Oakland 91-100 106 100.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
Coliseum/Airport 91-100 872 100.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Sea-Level Rise Black & Veatch 12-10
Sub-Areas
Equity Priority
Community
Thresholds1
EPC Population
Exposed2
% of Total
Population
Exposed to the
Hazard3
≤80 0 0.0%
Downtown 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 3,311 100.0%
East Oakland Hills 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
Eastlake/Fruitvale 91-100 2,691 100.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
Glenview/ Redwood Heights 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
North Oakland Hills 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
North Oakland/Adams Point 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 0 0.0%
≤80 0 0.0%
West Oakland 91-100 0 0.0%
81-90 178 8.3%
≤80 1,916 89.9%
Totals 91-100 3,669 40.3%
81-90 178 2.0%
≤80 5,227 57.4%
Sources: (City of Oakland 2023); (CGS n.d.)(City of Oakland 2025); (Hazus v6.1 2023) Notes: (1) These thresholds are determined by the City of Oakland to be the most burdened communities in the City in the General Plan EJ Element.
(2) Population, by census tract, within the EPC threshold exposed to the hazard. (3) EPC population exposed compared with total population in sub area.