View Attachment A — Public Safety Committee, May 26, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

PUBLIC & STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH SUMMARY

OCTOBER & NOVEMBER PUBLIC MEETING TAKEAWAYS
Date Event and Location Number
Present
Key Takeaways
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
César E. Chávez Branch
Library
3301 East 12th Street
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
• 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
City of Oakland
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan

Page 2 of 5 ends

COMMUNITY SURVEY SUMMARY
Key Takeaways
Respondents
• 126 English, 3 Spanish, 2 Chinese, 0 Vietnamese
• 115 live in Oakland
• 44 work in Oakland
• 21 are City Employees
• 42% are 61 or Older
• 23% are 41-50
• 48% are White/European
• 18% are Black
• 13% are Latinx/Hispanic
• 91 signed up to receive emails about Hazard Mitigation Planning Experiences
• 97% experienced an earthquake
• 65% experienced severe weather - extreme heat
• 55% experienced severe weather – storms
• 49% experienced wildfire
Hazard Concerns
• Damage from trees falling in windstorms
• Above ground power lines susceptible to power outages and wildfire risk • Disease outbreaks
• Wildfire smoke/air quality
• Liquefaction/sinkholes
• “Very important” for Oakland to prepare for Wildfire Smoke/Air Quality Events (77%), Wildfire (85%), and Earthquake (95%)
Disaster Concerns for Household and Community
• Being without housing or food
• Need information on a safe place to go for people and pets • Notification of hazard and safe place for unhoused to go • Evacuation difficulties/congested streets
• Getting trapped in the Oakland Hills
• Loss of services, including phone and internet for communication • Community members not prepared with basic survival items • Access to clean water
• Chaos, looting
City of Oakland
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan

Page 3 of 5 ends

Problem Areas (see detailed survey results for specific locations) • Numerous concerns about wildfire and evacuation in the Oakland Hills • Overwhelmed/blocked storm drains during heavy rains – flooded streets • Old buildings may not withstand earthquakes
• Landslides block roads

Suggested Mitigation Actions
• Keep drains clean to reduce flooding
• Underground utilities (PG&E)
• Training and disaster drills
• Tree trimming/fuels removal (eucalyptus)
• Economic incentives (property tax) for residents to improve property • Build resilience hubs
• Multilingual support in low-income communities
• Community members to take responsibility for keeping neighborhood clean/prevent clogged drains

Sources of Emergency and Evacuation Information
• AC Alert (71%)
• Family, friends, neighbors (65%)

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OUTREACH SUMMARY

January 23 Technical Forum Takeaway
• Concerns about the urban heat island effect in vulnerable communities

January 27 Community Town Hall Takeaways
• Accessibility and ADA compliance across communications, evacuations, and facilities. • Long-standing accessibility issues with Everbridge.
• Desire for decentralized community driven resilience strategies such as resilience hubs and City support for neighborhood networks (neighbors meeting neighbors). Provide resources that can be accessed quickly in the community. • Support provision of backup energy.
• Improved evacuation planning for mobility-impaired residents and non-vehicle travel. • Environmental equity in parks, tree canopy, and heat mitigation. Consider the impacts of extreme heat on children.
• Better access to hazard maps and more digestible plan summaries. Include information on actions the City is taking.
• Requests for extended and more accessible public comment processes. • There is a report that sirens cannot be heard at the Coliseum.

LHMP Presentation to the Mayor’s Commission on Persons with Disabilities Public Comment Notes 9/15/25
Veronika Cole Presented to the Mayor’s Commission on Persons with Disabilities on 9/15/25.

Notes on comments and questions are below, in a paraphrased format:
• What was the involvement of persons with disabilities in 2021? • How much is carried forward between plans?
• OFD doesn’t stock evacuation chairs. I need to know where the closest chair so I can instruct others on how to assist. I’ve been referred to County Public Health [to discuss this topic]. The evacuation chair should not be in the hands of private contractor.
• What % of Bay Area residents carry earthquake insurance? Earthquake insurance is expensive, I can’t afford. Many insurance companies don’t let renters get insurance. • Alameda Emergency Managers Association and Alameda County VOAD are resources.
• It is difficult to train a property manager in using an evacuation chair – they may are may not be there when an evacuation occurs – then what? Once evacuated, you can’t get anywhere without your wheelchair. You need to get people out with their equipment. This also happens with ambulances.

Olga Crowe offered to work with MCPD to find someone who could present to the group about insurance.

LHMP Outreach to Firesafe Council 9/18/25
Public Comment Notes
LHMP Presentation by Veronika Cole, Emergency Planning Coordinator Notes on Comments below (paraphrased):
• We do not have safe evacuation routes. Vehicles are parking in the way. We need parking restrictions in the municipal code. Where there are restrictions, they are not posted, and restrictions aren’t enforced. In an evacuation, Snake and Colton was blocked. We both need more restrictions and enforcement of the restrictions we have.
• When DOT examines accidents and deaths on streets, this should include the tunnel fire and evacuation issues. Include evacuation safety with road safety analysis.
• We have a vegetation management plan. A key factor is evacuation, which should be paired with the vegetation management plan. There is no enforcement of warning about things. Simple things to improve – roadside clearance beyond major streets.

Many side streets with lots of vegetation and it needs to be cleared. This hasn’t been done.
• Is where people evacuate described in the LHMP? You need to have a plan for how to evacuate 100,000 people from the hills.
• We need a lot of response due to fire issues, which can be City or Cal Trans. Some spots are state property. Some areas have no activity on vegetation management.

Vegetation on the roadside is a concern. There is no response when these issues are raised on websites.
• Fire hydrants need to be checked, I understand there is a conversation with EBMUD and OFD and may be an issue with pumps. There needs to be accountability for partners. Need power for facilities, backup power to run water pumps. Is there a power issue with the pumps?
• I know we have evacuation routes, harden the routes with vegetation management.

Trees are hazards.
• Smart and Connected communities had a project to work with OFD. Two years ago, asked Chief Covington and Jessica Feil for problem areas. UC Berkeley did traffic modeling for these areas. This complements the City’s work. It allows seeing a wider profile of risks. It was good to work with the California Climate Action Fellows at the City on these project.

LHMP Presentation to Oakland Firesafe Council 1/21/26

Community Comments (Paraphrased key points)
• Wildfire can be a problem for equity priority communities; embers can be a problem. Safe spaces with air filtration are needed. A lot of housing has poor air filtration.
• Let Public Works know fuel remediation is a priority, and let the Oakland Firesafe Council and Claremont Canyon Conservancy work on City property. It took hours of volunteer work to get permission to work on City property. More collaboration would be helpful.
• Be mindful of commercial development and map it to evacuation capacity. • Raise awareness and prioritize where the highest fire hazards are. Conduct mitigation along evacuation routes.
• Improve wildfire detection in parks. Allows for a quick response. Install heat and smoke sensors and ensure they are maintained.
• There are 1,300 acres of eucalyptus, pine and cypress forest in residential areas.

How will high risk forests be made safe? The State program only addressed mountains. This is an issue an privately owned land. We need wildfire objectives for forest lands on residential land.
• Consider the impact to cell phones in a public safety power shutoff.

City of Oakland Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting – Community Town Hall January 27th, 2026
• Asked whether Oakland Tech is a designated resilience hub; she was previously told it would be.
• Asked how backup power and energy resilience initiatives are funded. o Response noted FEMA funding for backup power and energy resilience. • Emphasized the need to replant trees and vegetation after disasters. • Expressed concern that the public comment period is too short. • Stressed that ADA compliance is essential across all emergency planning. • Highlighted that mobility challenges make wildfire evacuations difficult; residents must be able to evacuate with their mobility equipment.
• Criticized the Everbridge alert system for being inaccessible for over 10 years:
o Not compliant with Section 508 of the Telecommunications Act (1996). o Online forms are not accessible for blind residents, violating web accessibility standards.
• Stated these accessibility gaps are long-standing and unlawful. • Noted that the Center for Independent Living (CIL) and volunteers play key roles in disaster support.
• Added that multi-story buildings need specific evacuation plans for people who cannot leave mobility devices behind.
• Asked if there are better links to hazard maps and hazard information. • Requested summaries of plan sections due to the document’s length.

Jessica Feil
• Stated that access and functional needs residents are a priority. • Noted that outreach is happening (e.g., flyers) but questioned whether the City should do more.

• Urged more community organizing programs to help neighbors support one another during extreme heat and disaster events.
• Stated that many residents are not being reached by existing programs. • Advocated for a decentralized, community-based approach rather than relying on citywide workshops alone.

Comments from the chat:
• Reported that editing formats (strikethroughs, redlines) do not translate correctly in the LHMP survey.
• Asked for a way to submit recommendations via Google Doc or PDF .

Additional Community Input
• Importance of block-by-block decentralized organizing to implement resilience goals. • Need for workshops held in community spaces, not only centralized city locations.

• Stated that cars are not a viable evacuation strategy due to traffic congestion. • Requested public transit evacuation options for wildfire scenarios. • Noted disparities in Oakland parks:
o Low-income areas have fewer trees, poorer maintenance, and broken water features.
• Expressed concern that these inequities worsen extreme heat impacts and limit park usability.

Key Takeaways
• Accessibility and ADA compliance across communications, evacuations, and facilities. • Long-standing accessibility issues with Everbridge.
• Desire for decentralized community driven resilience strategies such as resilience hubs and City support for neighborhood networks (neighbors meeting neighbors). Provide resources that can be accessed quickly in the community.

• Support provision of backup energy.
• Improved evacuation planning for mobility-impaired residents and non-vehicle travel. • Environmental equity in parks, tree canopy, and heat mitigation. Consider the impacts of extreme heat on children.
• Better access to hazard maps and more digestible plan summaries. Include information on actions the City is taking.
• Requests for extended and more accessible public comment processes.

There is a report that sirens can not be heard at the Coliseum.

Notes Collected from Veronika Cole
• Very concerned – what is happening to downtown? The Road diet is very dangerous.

There are blind islands, I don’t feel safe. Plans were brought to the Mayor’s Commision on Persons with Disabilities, but they do it anyway. The ramps don’t work for wheelchair users.
• Sea level rise is not a natural hazard.
• Resilience hubs – have a place to meet and have resources ready to go. • Sirens aren’t heard throughout Oakland, you can’t hear them near the Coliseum. • Public transportation is a concern as well.
• Ensure community members are able to receive resources swiftly. • Backup energy – is this something that can be funded? • Winter storms and fires have gotten worse in last few years. • Will the [Federal Government] continue to fund things like backup energy? • Kids in schools suffer in extreme heat.
• Concern – multi-story buildings without elevators or elevators not maintained. Elevator ordinance exists but how enforced when City doesn’t have a budget? • People have mobility equipment but if evacuated they are evacuated without their equipment. Don’t just leave it behind, it is often custom made. The equipment has not been given priority.
• Mapping: include actions taken by the City in addition to the story map? • Everbridge is not accessible, has not been for ten years. Not Section 508 compliant.

WWW3 guidelines. ArcGis – need other ways to get information. I’m talking with Cal OES to get a solution. They do a course on how to make an acessible website. Also title 6 – equality and justice. Provide alerts in other languages. • Vulnerable populations include unhoused and seniors.
• Need – community organizing programs. Neighbors get to meet each other. The City doesn’t support these programs and you are missing a lot of people. How can we prioritize these neighborhood programs?
From:

To: Emergency Planning
Subject: Public comments on 2026 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for Oakland Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026 5:27:21 PM
Hello,
On behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ), I would like to submit the following public comments on Oakland's 2026 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for Oakland. I would appreciate acknowledgment that you received these comments as well as a response from you as to whether these comments will be addressed in Oakland's final 2026 LHMP. Thank you!
-
-------------------
According to data from the Alameda County Public Health Department (ACPHD), low tree canopy percentage and high percentage impervious surfaces are both concentrated in Oakland neighborhoods along the I-880 corridor, such as Fruitvale and West Oakland.

The combination of low tree canopy and high impervious
surface concentration has been shown to exacerbate the Urban Heat Island effect, indicating that these neighborhoods should be prioritized for heat mitigation actions and related green infrastructure improvements. Eight of the ten census tracts classified as “High” vulnerability to extreme heat in Alameda County are within the city of Oakland. For example, high levels of asthma prevalence are shown in both West Oakland and Fruitvale. High levels of poverty are shown in both Fruitvale and West Oakland. In these areas, more than 50% of households are earning less than 400% of the federal poverty level. Census tracts in Fruitvale and West Oakland are shown to have more than 50% of the population classified as people of color.

We are concerned that extreme heat impacts and concerns are not addressed by the proposed Mitigation Actions in the draft 2026 LHMP (Table 19-3), despite extreme heat being the primary weather-related cause of death in the US (page 13- 2).

Only 7 out of 75 listed Mitigation Actions (Table 19-6) are classified under Climate Resiliency (incorporating methods to adapt to climate change). The tree planting focus for mitigation actions is currently on stormwater runoff reduction, but these actions should also address how tree planting can mitigate stormwater runoff in conjunction with mitigating extreme heat. For example, neighborhoods in Oakland that are Urban Heat Islands with less tree canopy and green space could be prioritized for LHMP heat mitigation actions, like additional tree planting and replacing concrete with native vegetation, as well as other kinds of public green infrastructure and health equity investments.

Increased awareness of and access to cooling centers and emergency shelters could also be prioritized to support community resilience to extreme heat events, particularly in neighborhoods with older housing stock that lacks adequate cooling and ventilation systems.

For example, the City of Oakland’s Park User Survey found that most Oakland residents would like recreation centers to be made available as cooling centers during extreme heat events. However, CURYJ youth researchers conducting an observational park conditions survey in summer 2025 found that some recreation centers in Oakland parks did not visibly post their hours, were closed or

otherwise not accessible to the general public due to programming taking place at these facilities. In addition, CURYJ youth researchers found that many of the city parks they surveyed in Urban Heat Islands along Oakland’s I-880 corridor lacked tree cover, were poorly maintained and had water features that did not work, making these parks less likely to serve as a resource for residents without access to cooling spaces during heat waves.

CURYJ is presently conducting a community heat survey with vulnerable residents in Fruitvale and West Oakland to inform a community heat resilience plan for these neighborhoods with a small planning grant from the CA Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. From August through December 2025, CURYJ staff and youth researchers collected more than 150 surveys at community events and gatherings ranging from school supply giveaways and cultural festivals to youth summits and food distribution events. Preliminary CURYJ heat survey results show that nearly one out of three respondents reported that lack of trees or shade makes areas near their homes feel hotter, while over half of respondents reported that concrete walls and pavement make areas near their homes feel hotter.

Two out of
every three respondents do not have access to air conditioning or fans, while 45% of those surveyed cannot afford to use air conditioning. Three out of every four of respondents feel that heat affects safety in their neighborhood, while 73% do not know of any cooling centers or emergency shelters nearby.

Two out of three
respondents said they either do not trust public services (police, EMS, and shelters) to help in a heat emergency, or “It depends.” 44% of respondents reported that someone in their home has health issues that worsen in heat, while 14% of respondents were not sure if someone in their home has health issues that worsen in heat.

These preliminary survey results underscore a need to improve access to emergency services and expand communication of heat safety information in multiple audiovisual formats and languages spoken in Urban Heat Island neighborhoods. Heat mitigation actions could include strengthening mutual aid networks and other community-based service and social supports infrastructure that can share information on heat safety and connect vulnerable residents to essential services and resources such as cooling centers. For example, siting of hydration stations and coordination of drinking water distribution efforts during heat waves could engage local merchants associations or labor and community-based organizations that serve unhoused residents as well as day laborers, street vendors and other outdoor workers. Community centers that are not city operated but rather nonprofit-run could also be included in the creation of cooling centers and community resilience hubs, so that residents who distrust first responders or government entities could still access essential services and information during heat waves and other emergencies.

Community-based violence interruption programs run by nonprofits could be resourced and mobilized to serve as “next responders” and “trusted messengers” during heat waves and other emergencies to distribute resources and information as well as conduct wellness checks on vulnerable residents such as seniors, emancipated foster youth, those with preexisting medical conditions, and those reentering the community after incarceration. Lastly, the City of Oakland could consider advancing a local maximum indoor temperature ordinance to further educate tenants and landlords about actions they can take to mitigate heat inside homes, particularly in older housing or multifamily buildings that lack air conditioning and adequate ventilation.

Confederated

Villages

Lisjan

Nation

(510) 947-5935 ⬨ PO Box 6487 Oakland CA 94603 To whom it may concern, When reading through the 2026 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for Oakland, we noticed that

section

4.1.2 Historical

Overview

could

use

edits.

have

written

the

following

suggestions

well

general

feedback

when

writing

about

Lisjan

people.

Please

let

know

how

you

plan

incorporate

this

feedback:

Oakland was founded on unceded land of the Chochenyo-speaking Ohlone iIndigenous group,
the Lisjan, who were are the original stewards of the this land. for at least 3,500 years
. After the arrival of Spanish missionaries in the 1760s, Ohlone many (adding a qualifier

here

because

can’t

assume

this

happened

all

people)

Lisjan peoples
were

forced

into

labor

camps

missions

and

baptized

into

the

Catholic

faith.

the

late

1840s,

many

other

Ohlone
had been were forced into remote reservations or killed, leaving less than 1,000 Ohlone remaining by the 1850s (because many people's survival strategy

included

deliberate

misidentification

themselves

for

instance

Mexican

order

receive

less

harsh

treatment,

these

metrics

are

likely

inaccurate

and

therefore

are

not

very

useful.

Perhaps

meaningful

story

tell

the

story

survival

which

can

illustrated

through

the

active

work

Lisjan

people

today

). Ohlone people
in

Oakland

lived

mainly

along

the

creeks

and

shorelines,

where

today’s

names

Temescal

(sweathouse)

and

Shellmound

recall

their

presence.

(This

perpetuates

past-tense
narrative about Lisjan peoples that is not accurate). Please refer to this history that Lisjan people have written about themselves for content ideas. Some key takeaways / suggested feedback: ● Change Ohlone -> Lisjan people : Ohlone is a term which encompasses a much

wider

geographical

range

than

Oakland.

one

referring

the

original

peoples

Oakland

(belonging

the

larger

area

Huichin),

you

are

referring

Lisjan

people.

While

many

self-identify

Ohlone,

when

speaking

specific

geographic

terms,

there

are

often

specific

peoples

associated

with

those

places.
● Speak about Lisjan people (and all living Indigenous peoples) in the present

tense.

The

Lisjan

nation

has

active

presence

Huichin

(including

being

named

this

same

document

stakeholders.

See

page

Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation
(510)947-5935 ⬨ PO Box 6487 Oakland CA 94603
3-12).
● Highlight the continued work of Lisjan people to steward their ancestral land, protect sacred sites, continue their culture, and engage in community emergency preparedness.

sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. This communication may be monitored and collected without consent, in secret, by the NSA. Thank you.

February 12, 2026

Oakland Fire Department
150 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite #3354
Oakland, CA 94612

Subject: Comments on the Oakland 2026 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Draft

Dear Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Team,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Oakland 2026 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Update on behalf of Save The Bay. We are pleased to see that the draft addresses climate impacts like extreme storms, sea level rise, groundwater rise, and contaminated sites. We recommend that the updated LHMP include projections for future climate-driven precipitation conditions, higher sea level rise scenarios, and mapping of contaminated sites at risk of groundwater rise.

Future Precipitation Projections
Section 10, “Flooding”, describes various sources of flooding including riverine flooding, stormwater flooding, and coastal flooding. It also includes maps of the FEMA flood zones for a 100-yr storm and 500- yr storm and acknowledges that with climate change, Oakland will experience more intense, episodic rainfall (Pg. 10-12). We recommend that the city update the risk assessment to include mapping of where increased precipitation due to climate change will cause additional flood risk. (An example of a study that does this is the City of Newark’s Flood Modeling Report.) The city should use this analysis to ensure that the storm drain system and riverine and coastal flood protections are built to withstand future storms as they become more frequent and severe.

Sea Level Rise Projections
Section 12, “Sea Level Rise”, includes a vulnerability assessment for two sea level rise scenarios – 0.8 feet of sea level rise and 4.9 feet of sea level rise. We’re glad to see that the compounding effects of a 100-year storm and groundwater rise were also included in this projection. We recommend that the city add an additional sea level rise scenario to the assessment – 6.6 feet of sea level rise by 2100. According to the latest CA Ocean Protection Council (OPC) Sea Level Rise Guidance, this amount of sea level rise is possible under a high emissions and high warming scenario. This also aligns with state-mandated sea level rise planning requirements as described in the Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) Guidelines. Oakland should be prepared to address this extreme level of flooding.

Groundwater Rise Vulnerabilities
We support Mitigation Action 7-1 which commits to “study the compounding impacts of sea level rise in groundwater threats in areas with hazardous facilities and equity priority communities.” We also support Mitigation Action 9-1, which commits to creating 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.” To the extent possible, we recommend that the city incorporate existing contaminated site data into the LHMP risk assessment. This should include mapping and identifying which opened and closed contaminated sites are potentially at risk of inundation by groundwater rise under various sea level rise scenarios (0.8 feet, 4.9 feet, and 6.6 feet), along with which of these sites are in disadvantaged communities. This data is available in BCDC’s Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Atlas data portal. As part of the Groundwater Rise Vulnerability Assessment in Mitigation Action 9-1, we recommend working closely with frontline communities and regulatory agencies to prioritize sites for cleanup and pursue funding to clean up the most dangerous sites.

It’s important for Oakland to be prepared for the full range of possible climate-driven flooding, including the compounding effects of increased precipitation, 6.6 feet of sea level rise, and groundwater rise. In order to best understand and prepare for these risks, we hope Oakland will incorporate our recommendations into the final LHMP draft.

Thank you for considering our recommendations!

Sincerely,

Executive Director
Save The Bay

City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Adoption, Implementation & Maintenance
Black & Veatch 8
Appendix B – Selected
Meeting Documentation
12/10/2025
1 City of Oakland Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Objectives and Action Items – Equity Focus
December 10, 2025
Today’s Agenda

1. Overview

2. Risk Assessment Summary

3. Community Feedback

4. Mitigation Strategy

5. Next Steps

6. Questions
1 2
12/10/2025
2 Overview
LHMP Mission Statement
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
natural and human-caused
hazards.

Event
3 4
12/10/2025
3 2026 LHMP Goals 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 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.

LHMP Goals Objective Speciﬁc Action Speciﬁc Action Objective Speciﬁc Action Speciﬁc Action 5 6
12/10/2025
4 Risk Assessment Summary
Hazards of Concern Dam Failure
Wildﬁre
Flood
Drought
Earthquake
Severe Weather - Extreme Heat
Severe Weather - Extreme Wind
Landslides
Sea Level Rise
Tsunami / Seiche
7 8
12/10/2025
5 Risk Assessment Results % Total Value Exposed Value Exposed (Structure and Contents $) % Total Buildings Exposed # Buildings Exposed % Total Population Exposed # Population Exposed Hazard 13.3% $17,213,821,280 13/.1% 13,780 13.9% 61,415 Dam Failure 100% $128,971,332,346 100% 105,543 100% 440,637 Drought 4.1% $5,339,514,348 100% 105,543 100% 440,637 Earthquake - Calaveras (No) M6.86 13.3% $17,171,966,379 100% 105,543 100% 440,637 Earthquake - Hayward M7.05 3.1% $3,942,758,169 100% 105,543 100% 440,637 Earthquake - San Andreas (Peninsula) M7.38 1.3% $1,671,521,003 0.5% 532 0.5% 2,059 Flood (100-yr) 19.5% $25,180,414,966 26.5% 27,998 25.6% 112,971 Landslide (High Susceptibility) 9.2% $11,802,105,142 2.6% 2,712 2.6% 11,476 SLR 2050 - 0.8 ft. 17.9% $23,054,285,189 6.7% 7,028 7.1% 31,338 SLR 2100 – 4.9 ft. 100% $128,971,332,346 100% 105,543 100% 440,637 Severe Weather 13.2% $16,965,465,804 4.8% 5,071 5.2% 22,730 Tsunami 14.9% $19,255,494,290 22.1% 23,336 14.6% 64,518 Wildﬁre (Very High Severity Zone) Hazard Ranking Low Dam Failure Medium Drought High Earthquake Medium Flood Medium Landslide Medium Sea Level Rise High Severe Weather (Wind/Heat) Low Tsunami/Seiche High Wildﬁre 9 10
12/10/2025
6 2021 LHMP and Hazard Mapper
Equity Analysis

EQUITY DATA HAZARD DATA EQUITY ANALYSIS
(Informs the Hazard Proﬁles)

SUMMARY OF EQUITY BURDENS AND BARRIERS
(Discussed w/ staff)

DATA ON RISK (POTENTIAL FOR HAZARDS TO CAUSE HARM)
Data for each hazard
including probability
and risk (potential to
create damage)
• Environmental Justice
Communities • GIS data
• Other data
• Narrative Content
11 12
12/10/2025
7 Community
Feedback Received
Key Takeaways – Community 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.
13 14
12/10/2025
8 Key Takeaways – Community Meetings
Vegetation & Tree Management
• Requests for tree trimming assistance for those unable to afford it.
• Remove trees threatening power lines (e.g., Cleveland Blvd).
• Address invasive plants in creeks and eucalyptus in hills. • Concerns about large trees near homes and property lines.

Drainage & Flooding
• Clean storm drains and streets to prevent ﬂooding.
• Adopt-a-Drain program mentioned; need better follow-up and engagement.
• Lakes and creeks (e.g., near Edwards Ave, Seminary) cited as ﬂood risks.

Communication & Outreach
• Clear, multilingual alerts and evacuation instructions. • Improve Spanish and other language outreach; include
printed materials.
• Provide interpretation services at meetings.
• More education on “Know Your Zone” and hazard maps.
• Outreach for residents with limited internet/social media access.

Preparedness & Training
• Train-the-trainer programs tailored for speciﬁc
communities (AFN, monolingual).
• Youth engagement in hazard evaluation and mitigation
activities.
• Promote resilience hubs at trusted community locations.

Key Takeaways – Community Meetings
Infrastructure & Safety
• Remove abandoned vehicles and illegal
dumping (blocks drains, impacts mobility).
• Label curbs with addresses for emergency
identiﬁcation.
• Address soft-story buildings; coordinate with
HUD and Building Department.
• Concerns about earthen dam at Tyson Lake and
potential ﬂooding from Piedmont.

Alerts & Sirens
• Sirens not audible in some areas (e.g., High
Street, Foothill); need better coverage.
• Residents unaware of siren system despite long-
term residency.

Equity & Vulnerable Populations
• Protect unhoused individuals during disasters.
• Ensure libraries and community centers receive
emergency information.

Hazard-Speciﬁc Concerns
• Household chemical hazards during ﬁres.
• Evacuation route planning for dead-end streets
and multi-unit buildings.
15 16
12/10/2025
9 Mitigation
Strategy
How Do You Reduce Risk?
• Manipulate the Hazard
• Structural ﬂood control (e.g., ﬂood walls,
levees)
• Reduce/Eliminate Exposure
• Acquire ﬂoodprone properties
• Reduce Vulnerability
• Retroﬁt (e.g., ﬂoodprooﬁng structures)
• Increase Capability
• $, preparation, technical assistance,
planning enforcement
17 18
12/10/2025
10 Connecting to the
Mitigation Strategy
• Need a clear connection between
vulnerabilities identified in the risk
assessment and proposed mitigation
actions.
• The capability assessment can
provide insight into challenges and
opportunities for the mitigation
strategy.
• All actions proposed in the mitigation
strategy must have a factual basis
tied to hazards (this shouldn’t be a
wish list!)
Mitigation
Strategy
Risk
Assessment
Capability
Assessment
Goals and
Objectives
Problem
Areas in
Community Equity
Analysis
Community
Feedback
Evaulation
of 2021
LHMP
Actions
WHERE DO YOU NEED TO FOCUS?
• Quality not quantity each action
needs detailed information on the
why, who, what, and when of the
action.
• Stronger connection between
the risk assessment, goals,
objectives, and mitigation
strategy
• More speciﬁc, achievable
actions
• What is needed to complete the
identiﬁed objectives?
• Focus on SMARTE, KPI, equity, and
AFN
• 2021 Projects
• If a project is not ﬁnished and still a
priority, include in 2026 LHMP
• Remove general projects or make more
speciﬁc
• Remove ongoing capabilities like
maintenance or annual outreach
• Diverse actions
• Actions need to be tied to the objectives
identiﬁed
• You need at least one action per hazard of
concern. Think about actions that can
cover multiple hazards.
• If you have RL/SRL properties, need an
action to mitigate those properties
• Include a variety of action types (e.g.,
plans, ﬂoodproof critical facilities, outreach
programs, etc.)
19 20
12/10/2025
11 MITIGATION ACTIONS TO CONSIDER •Mitigation projects included in current plans/programs •Urban Forest Plan •Capital Improvement Program •Grant applications previously submitted but not awarded (e.g., BRIC) •Mitigate hazard-prone properties (e.g., property acquisitions or elevations) •Backup generators for community lifelines/critical facilities •Citywide Debris Management Plan •Substantial Damage Response Plan •Tree trimming and maintenance plan and procedures Objectives and Action Items
21 22
12/10/2025
12 Goals and Objectives
Goals
• Broad, long-term vision of what the
City wants to accomplish to protect
life, property, and infrastructure
from natural hazards
Objectives
• Speciﬁc, measurable
steps that outline how to
achieve the goals
Actions
• Speciﬁc tasks that are
implemented to
meet objectives
2026 LHMP Goals
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 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.
23 24
12/10/2025
13 Updating Objectives for the 2026 LHMP
• Review the list of 2021 objectives
• How can these be improved?
• What new ones can be added?
• For the 2026 LHMP, the objectives should be…
• SMARTE (Speciﬁc, Measurable, Actionable, Reasonable, Timebound, and Equitable)
• Incorporate key performance indicators (KPIs) where possible • Each objective needs to address equity concerns
• You will be using each objective to identify mitigation actions to accomplish the objective
• The LHMP Steering Committee will review and approve the objectives to include in the 2026 LHMP
2021 LHMP 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.

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. 25 26
12/10/2025
14 Draft Objectives - Equity
• To support implementation of and future updates to the City’s LHMP, Safety Element, and Environmental Justice
Element, utilize the best available data to identify racial disparities in the City of Oakland that can be used by the City to rank risk and prioritize mitigation strategies that incorporate a racial equity lens.
• All aspects of the plan will be revisited when the City possesses more data about barriers and access services
that need to be addresses
Draft Objectives - HCD
• 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 and Building developed to
enforce 2019 municipal ordinance No. 13516.
27 28
12/10/2025
15 Draft Objectives - Planning
• Support and strengthen or replace property and infrastructure to minimize post disaster disruption and facilitate short-term recovery (1-5 years) in equity priority communities impacted by a hazard event. • Encourage the incorporation of hazard mitigation measures into repairs, major alterations, new development, and redevelopment practices, and prioritize equity priority communities that are subject to substantial hazard risk.
• 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. • Evaluate densities where slopes are at the greatest risk for landslides and consider reducing current permitted development densities and intensities by 2028.
• Use best available hazard data while reviewing proposed development opportunities • Encourage the incorporation of hazard mitigation measures into repairs, major alterations, new development, and redevelopment practices, especially in areas subject to substantial hazard risk. • 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.

Draft Objectives - Planning
• In high hazard areas, identify State and/or federal programs or develop local programs to offer ﬁnancial incentives to equity priority communities for defensible space maintenance, home hardening, and training for evacuation procedures to reduce risk to people and property.
• Improve access to better indoor air quality to protect against smoke and wildﬁre through methods such as requiring installation of MERV ﬁlters in new developments and identifying additional clean air centers and resilience spaces within residential areas. Additionally, the City will explore funding mechanisms such as available grants, to assist residents of EJ communities in purchasing indoor air ﬁlters. 29 30
12/10/2025
16 Draft Objectives - NFIP
• Minimize repetitive and potential losses due to ﬂood by maintaining compliance with the NFIP and improving
ﬂoodplain operations.
• Explore resources and steps needed to participate in CRS program.

Draft Objectives - Infrastructure
• Prevent discharge of wastewater contamination into waterways as a result of natural hazards. Enhance social equity by implementing sewer system improvement project with high CIP scores focusing on underserved communities.
• Complete the City’s Sewer Master Plan
• Complete the City’s Storm Drainage Master Plan
• Identify, integrate, and implement green infrastructure practices into streetscape improvement • 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. • Prioritize green stormwater infrastructure investment in frontline communities, particularly in residential neighborhoods dominated by concrete and asphalt with limited green space and elevated air pollution, in Priority Conservation Areas, and in areas where green infrastructure, including trees and other types of vegetated buffers, can effectively address stormwater management issues and reduce air pollution exposure among sensitive populations.
31 32
12/10/2025
17 Mitigation Strategy Worksheets
34 33
34 12/10/2025
18 35
35 36
12/10/2025
19 37
38 12/10/2025
20 Next Steps
• Mitigation Actions
• Complete one worksheet for each action identiﬁed
in the objective worksheet (Reach out to Veronika
Cole with any questions).
• Return to Veronika Cole with a CC to Heather Apgar
by December 11, 2025
• A staff committee is performing an equity review of
all items on December 12 and may have questions
or requested edits.
• Full Plan Draft by December 15, 2025
39 40
12/10/2025
21 Questions
41 12/22/2025
1 City of Oakland
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Steering Committee Meeting
December 17, 2025
Today’s Agenda
LHMP Updates
Mitigation Strategy
Hazard Profiles
LHMP Public
Comment Draft
1 2
12/22/2025
2 LHMP Updates
Steering Committee Schedule & Milestones 2025 - 2026
SC Meetings prior
to Black & Veatch
Contract
November 5
SC Meeting
November 17
SC Meeting
December 17
SC Meeting
December 22 –
January 5
SC Draft LHMP
Review
February 9
SC Public Comment
Review
• Previous
Mitigation Actions
• LHMP Goals
• Objectives
• Plan Maintenance
Strategy
• Risk Assessment
• Risk Ranking
• Mitigation Action
Workshop
• Risk Assessment
• Risk Ranking
• Goals
• Objectives
• Mitigation Actions
• Draft LHMP
Review
• SC Draft LHMP
Comment Period
• Public Comment
Review
• Approve Draft to
send to Cal OES
February 15
LHMP Submittal
to Cal OES
WE
ARE
HERE
* Key decision points in red
Technical Forum
January 20
Community Town Hall
January 27
* Public meetings in orange
3 4
12/22/2025
3 Hazard Profiles
Natural Hazard Risk Ranking Methodology
(Probability x .30) +
(Impact x .30) +
(Spatial Extent x .20) +
(Warning Time x .10) +
(Climate Change x .10)
+ Qualitative Adjustment Factor =
Priority Risk Index (PRI) Value
Each degree of risk has been assigned a value (1 to 4), a weighting factor, and a qualitative adjustment factor.

Qualitative Adjustment Factor(s) added :

Resident Displacement (.5 point)
Economic Impacts (.5 point)
Environmental Impacts (.5 point)
Transportation Impacts (.5 point)
• PRI Value 1 to 1.9 = Low Hazard Risk
Ranking
• PRI
Value 2.0 to 2.9 = Medium Hazard Risk Ranking
• PRI
Value 3.0 and up = High Hazard Risk Ranking
Note: Risk ranking does not impact project grant eligibility. 5 6
12/22/2025
4 Natural Hazard Risk Ranking Results
Note: Risk ranking does not impact project grant eligibility.

Risk RankingPRIQAF
Weighted Risk Factors
Hazard
Climate Change
(1-4 index value
with 10% weighting
factor)
Warning Time
(1-4 index value
with 10% weighting
factor)
Spatial Extent
(1-4 index value
with 20% weighting
factor)
Impact
(1-4 index value
with 30% weighting
factor)
Probability
(1-4 index value
with 30% weighting
factor)
Low1.6.40.40.20.30.30Dam Failure
Medium2.8.40.10.80.301.2Drought
High5.22.0.20.40.80.601.2Earthquake
Medium2.9.40.10.60.601.2Flood
Medium2.6.40.40.60.60.60Landslide
TBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDSea Level Rise
High3.5.40.20.80.901.2
Severe Weather (High Wind & Extreme
Heat)
Low1.9.20.20.60.30.60Tsunami/Seiche
High4.82.0.40.30.60.60.90Wildfire
Risk Assessment Results
% Total Value Exposed
Value Exposed
(Structure and
Contents $)
% Total Buildings
Exposed# Buildings Exposed
% Total Population
Exposed# Population ExposedHazard

13.3%$17,213,821,28013/.1%13,78013.9%61,415Dam Failure
100%$128,971,332,346100%105,543100%440,637Drought

4.1%$5,339,514,348100%105,543100%440,637Earthquake - Calaveras (No) M6.86

13.3%$17,171,966,379100%105,543100%440,637Earthquake - Hayward M7.05

3.1%$3,942,758,169100%105,543100%440,637
Earthquake - San
Andreas (Peninsula)
M7.38

1.3%$1,671,521,0030.5%5320.5%2,059Flood (100-yr)

19.5%$25,180,414,96626.5%27,99825.6%112,971Landslide (High Susceptibility)

9.2%$11,802,105,1422.6%2,7122.6%11,476SLR 2050 - 0.8 ft.

17.9%$23,054,285,1896.7%7,0287.1%31,338SLR 2100 – 4.9 ft. 100%$128,971,332,346100%105,543100%440,637Severe Weather

13.2%$16,965,465,8044.8%5,0715.2%22,730Tsunami

14.9%$19,255,494,29022.1%23,33614.6%64,518Wildfire (Very High Severity Zone)
7 8
12/22/2025
5 Hazard Ranking
LowDam Failure
MediumDrought
HighEarthquake
MediumFlood
MediumLandslide
MediumSea Level Rise
HighSevere Weather (Wind/Heat)
LowTsunami/Seiche
HighWildfire
Mitigation Strategy
9 10
12/22/2025
6 Connecting to the
Mitigation Strategy
• Need a clear connection between
vulnerabilities identified in the risk
assessment and proposed mitigation
actions.
• The capability assessment can
provide insight into challenges and
opportunities for the mitigation
strategy.
• All actions proposed in the mitigation
strategy must have a factual basis
tied to hazards
Mitigation
Strategy
Risk
Assessment
Capability
Assessment
Goals and
Objectives
Problem
Areas in
Community Equity
Analysis
Community
Feedback
Evaulation
of 2021
LHMP
Actions
Key Takeaways – Community 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.
11 12
12/22/2025
7 Key Takeaways – Community Meetings
Vegetation & Tree Management
• Requests for tree trimming assistance for those unable to afford it.
• Remove trees threatening power lines (e.g., Cleveland Blvd).
• Address invasive plants in creeks and eucalyptus in hills. • Concerns about large trees near homes and property lines.

Drainage & Flooding
• Clean storm drains and streets to prevent flooding.
• Adopt-a-Drain program mentioned; need better follow-up and engagement.
• Lakes and creeks (e.g., near Edwards Ave, Seminary) cited as flood risks.

Preparedness & Training
• Train-the-trainer programs tailored for specific
communities (AFN, monolingual).
• Youth engagement in hazard evaluation and mitigation
activities.
• Promote resilience hubs at trusted community locations.

Key Takeaways – Community Meetings
Infrastructure & Safety
• Remove abandoned vehicles and illegal
dumping (blocks
drains, impacts mobility).
• Label curbs with addresses for emergency
identification.
• Address soft-story
buildings; coordinate with
HUD a
nd Building Department.
• Concerns about earthen dam at Tyson Lake and
potentia
l flooding from Piedmont.

Alerts & Sirens
• Sirens not audible in some areas
(e.g., High
Street, Foothill);
need better coverage.
• Residents unaware of siren system despite long-
term residency.

Equity & Vulnerable Populations
• Protect unhoused individuals during disasters.
• Ensure libraries and community centers receive
emergency information.

H
azard-Specific Concerns
• Household chemical hazards during fires.
• Evacuation route planning for dead-end streets
a
nd multi-unit buildings.
13 14
12/22/2025
8 2026 Mitigation Goals
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 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.

LHMP Public
Comment Draft
15 16
12/22/2025
9 Next Steps
• Review
• Draft LHMP December 22 – J anuary 5
• Attend
• 1/20 Technical Forum (Virtual)
• 2/9 Steering Committee Meeting (Virtual)
17 City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Adoption, Implementation & Maintenance
Black & Veatch 9

Appendix C – Federal &
State Agencies, Programs
& Regulations
1 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
C. SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES,

PROGRAMS, AND REGULATION S
Existing laws, ordinances, plans and programs at the federal and state level can support or impact hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan. Hazard mitigation plans are required to include a review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information as part of the planning process (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). The following federal and state programs have been identified as programs that may interface with the actions identified in this plan.

Each program enhances capabilities to implement mitigation actions or has a nexus with a mitigation action in this plan. Information presented in this section can be used to review local capabilities to implement the actions found in the action plan.

Table C-1. Federal Capabilities
Capability Department/Agency Description
ADA U.S. Department of
Justice Civil Rights
Division
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
seeks to prevent discrimination against
people with disabilities in employment,
transportation, public accommodation,
communications, and government
activities. Title II of the ADA deals with
compliance with the Ac t in emergency
management and disaster -related
programs, services, and activities. It
applies to state and local governments
as well as third parties, including religious
entities and private nonprofit
organizations.

The ADA has implications for sheltering
requirements and public notifications.

During an emergency alert, officials must
use a combination of warning methods
to ensure that all residents have all
necessary information. Those with
hearing impairments may not hear radio,
television, sirens, or other audible alerts,
while those with visual impairments may
not see flashing lights or other visual
alerts. Two technical documents for
shelter operators address physical
2 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
accessibility needs of people with
disabilities, as well as medical needs and
service animals.

The ADA intersects with disaster
preparedness programs in regards to
transportation, social services, temporary
housing, and rebuilding. Persons with
disabilities may require additional
assistance in evacuation and transit (e.g.,
vehicles with wheelchair l ifts or
paratransit buses). Evacuation and other
response plans should address the
unique needs of residents. Local
governments may be interested in
implementing a special-needs registry to
identify the home addresses, contact
information, and needs for residents who
may require more assistance.

FEMA hazard mitigation project grant
applications require full compliance with
applicable federal acts. Any action
identified in this plan that falls within the
scope of this act will need to meet its
requirements.

Civil Rights Act U.S. Department of
Justice Civil Rights
Division
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex or nation origin and requires
equal access to public places and
employment. The Act is relevant to
emergency management and hazard
mitigation in that it prohibits loc al
governments from favoring the needs of
one population group over another. Local
government and emergency response
must ensure the continued safety and
well-being of all residents equally, to the

3 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
extent possible. FEMA hazard mitigation
project grant applications require full
compliance with applicable federal acts.

Any action identified in this plan that falls
within the scope of this act will need to
meet its requirements.

Clean Water
Act
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
employs regulatory and non -regulatory
tools to reduce direct pollutant
discharges into waterways, finance
municipal wastewater treatment
facilities, and manage polluted runoff.

These tools are employed to achieve the
broader goal of restoring and
maintaining the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation’s surface
waters so that they can support “the
protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in
and on the water.”
Evolution of CWA programs over the last
decade has included a shift from a
program-by-program, source -by-source,
and pollutant -by-pollutant approach to
more holistic watershed -based
strategies. Under the watershed
approach, equal emphasis is placed on
protecting healthy waters and restoring
impaired ones. Numerous issues are
addressed, not just those subject to CWA
regulatory authority. Involvement of
stakeholder groups in the development
and implementation of strategies for
achieving and maintaining water quality
and other environmental goals is a
hallmark of this approach.

The CWA is important to hazard
mitigation in several ways. There are
often permitting requirements for any
construction within 200 feet of water of
the United States, which may have
implications for mitigation projects
identified by a local jurisdiction.

4 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
Additionally, CWA requirements apply to
wetlands, which serve important
functions related to preserving and
protecting the natural and beneficial
functions of floodplains and are linked
with a community’s floodplain
management program. Finally, the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System is part of the CWA and addresses
local stormwater management
programs. Stormwater management
plays a critical role in hazard mitigation
by addressing urban drainage or
localized flooding issues within
jurisdictions.

Community
Development
Block Grant
Disaster
Resilience
Program
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
In response to disasters, Congress may
appropriate additional funding for the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development Community Development
Block Grant programs to be distributed
as Disaster Recovery grants (CDBG -DR).

These grants can be used to r ebuild
affected areas and provide seed money
to start the recovery process. CDBG -DR
assistance may fund a broad range of
recovery activities, helping communities
and neighborhoods that otherwise
might not recover due to limited
resources. CDBG -DR grants of ten
supplement disaster programs of FEMA,
the Small Business Administration, and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Housing and Urban Development
generally awards noncompetitive,
nonrecurring CDBG -DR grants by a
formula that considers disaster recovery
needs unmet by other federal disaster
assistance programs. To be eligible for
CDBG-DR funds, projects must meet the
following criteria:

5 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
• Address a disaster -related impact
(direct or indirect) in a presidentially
declared county for the covered
disaster
• Be a CDBG-eligible activity (according
to regulations and waivers)
• Meet a national objective.

Incorporating preparedness and
mitigation into these actions is
encouraged, as the goal is to rebuild in
ways that are safer and stronger. CDBG -
DR funding is a potential alternative
source of funding for actions identified in
this plan.

Community
Rating System
Federal Emergency
Management
Agency
The CRS is a voluntary program within
the NFIP that encourages floodplain
management activities that exceed the
minimum NFIP requirements. Flood
insurance premiums are discounted to
reflect the reduced flood risk resulting
from community actions meeting the
following three goals of the CRS:
• Reduce flood losses.
• Facilitate accurate insurance
rating.
• Promote awareness of flood
insurance.

For participating communities, flood
insurance premium rates are discounted
in increments of 5 percent. For example,
a Class 1 community would receive a 45
percent premium discount, and a Class 9
community would receive a 5 percent
discount. (Class 10 communities are
those that do not participate in the CRS;
they receive no discount.) The discount
partially depends on location of the
property. Properties outside the special
flood hazard area receive smaller
discounts: a 10-percent discount if the
community is at Class 1 to 6 and a 5-
percent discount if the community is at
Class 7 to 9. The CRS classes for local

6 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
communities are based on 18 creditable
activities in the following categories:
• Public information
• Mapping and regulations
• Flood damage reduction
• Flood preparedness.

CRS activities can help to save lives and
reduce property damage. Communities
participating in the CRS represent a
significant portion of the nation’s flood
risk; over 66 percent of the NFIP’s policy
base is located in these communities.

Communities receiving premium
discounts through the CRS range from
small to large and represent a broad
mixture of flood risks, including both
coastal and riverine flood risks.

Disaster
Mitigation Act
Federal Emergency
Management
Agency
The DMA is the current federal
legislation addressing hazard mitigation
planning. It emphasizes planning for
disasters before they occur. It specifically
addresses planning at the local level,
requiring plans to be in place before
Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant
funds are available to communities. This
plan is designed to meet the
requirements of DMA, improving
eligibility for future hazard mitigation
funds.

Emergency
Relief for
Federally
Owned Roads
Program
U.S. Department of
Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
The U.S. Forest Service’s Emergency
Relief for Federally Owned Roads
Program was established to assist federal
agencies with repair or reconstruction of
tribal transportation facilities, federal
lands transportation facilities, and other
federally owned ro ads that are open to
public travel and have suffered serious
damage by a natural disaster over a wide
area or by a catastrophic failure. The
program funds both emergency and
permanent repairs. Eligible activities
under this program meet some of the
goals and objectives for this plan and the

7 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
program is a possible funding source for
actions identified in this plan.

Emergency
Watershed
Program
U.S. Department of
Agriculture
The USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) administers
the Emergency Watershed Protection
(EWP) Program, which responds to
emergencies created by natural
disasters. Eligibility for assistance is not
dependent on a national emergency
declaration. The program is designed to
help people and conserve natural
resources by relieving imminent hazards
to life and property caused by floods, fires,
windstorms, and other natural
occurrences. EWP is an emergency
recovery program. Financial and
technical assistance are available for the
following activities:
• Remove debris from stream channels,
road culverts, and bridges
• Reshape and protect eroded banks
• Correct damaged drainage facilities
• Establish cover on critically eroding
lands
• Repair levees and structures
• Repair conservation practices.

This federal program could be a possible
funding source for actions identified in
this plan.

Endangered
Species Act
Department of the
Interior U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service
The federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA) was enacted in 1973 to conserve
species facing depletion or extinction
and the ecosystems that support them.

The act sets forth a process for
determining which species are
threatened and endangered and
requires the conservation of the critical
habitat in which those species live. The
ESA provides broad protection for
species of fish, wildlife and plants that
are listed as threatened or endangered.

Provisions are made for listing species,
as well as for recovery plans and the
designation of critical habitat for listed

8 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
species. The ESA outlines procedures for
federal agencies to follow when taking
actions that may jeopardize listed
species and contains exceptions and
exemptions. It is the enabling legislation
for the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora. Criminal and civil
penalties are provided for violations of
the ESA and the Convention.

Federal agencies must seek to conserve
endangered and threatened species and
use their authorities in furtherance of
the ESA’s purposes. The ESA defines
three fundamental terms:
• Endangered means that a species of
fish, animal or plant is “in danger of
extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.” (For
salmon and other vertebrate species,
this may include subspecies and
distinct population segments.)
• Threatened means that a species “is
likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future.” Regulations
may be less restrictive for threatened
species than for endangered species.
• Critical habitat means “specific
geographical areas that are…essential
for the conservation and
management of a listed species,
whether occupied by the species or
not.”
• Five sections of the ESA are of critical
importance to understanding it:
• Section 4: Listing of a Species—The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Fisheries Service
(NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for
listing marine species; the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service is responsible for
listing terrestrial and freshwater
aquatic species. The agencies may
initiate reviews for listings, or
residents may petition for them. A
listing must be made “solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.” After a

9 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
listing has been proposed, agencies
receive comment and conduct
further scientific reviews for 12 to 18
months, after which they must
decide if the listing is warranted.

Economic impacts cannot be
considered in this decision, but it
may include an evaluation of the
adequacy of local and state
protections. Critical habitat for the
species may be designated at the
time of listing.
• Section 7: Consultation—Federal
agencies must ensure that any action
they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed or proposed
species or adversely modify its critical
habitat. This includes private and
public actions that require a federal
permit. Once a final listing is made,
non-federal actions are subject to the
same review, termed a “consultation.”
If the listing agency finds that an
action will “take” a species, it must
propose mitigations or “reasonable
and prudent” alternatives to the
action; if the proponent rejects these,
the action cannot proceed.
• Section 9: Prohibition of Take—It is
unlawful to “take” an endangered
species, including killing or injuring it
or modifying its habitat in a way that
interferes with essential behavioral
patterns, including breeding, feeding
or sheltering.
• Section 10: Permitted Take—
Through voluntary agreements
with the federal government that
provide protections to an
endangered species, a non-
federal applicant may commit a
take that would otherwise be
prohibited as long as it is
incidental to an otherwise lawful
activity (such as developing land
or building a road). These

10 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
agreements often take the form
of a “Habitat Conservation Plan.”
• Section 11: Citizen Lawsuits—Civil
actions initiated by any citizen can
require the listing agency to
enforce the ESA’s prohibition of
taking or to meet the
requirements of the consultation
process.

Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Commission
Dam Safety
Program
Federal Energy
Regulatory
Commission Division
of Dam Safety and
Inspections
The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) cooperates with a
large number of federal and state
agencies to ensure and promote dam
safety. More than 3,000 dams are part of
regulated hydroelectric projects in the
FERC program. Two -thirds of these are
more than 50 years old. As dams age,
concern about their safety and integrity
grows, so oversight and regular
inspection are important. FERC inspects
hydroelectric projects on an
unscheduled basis to investigate the
following:
• Potential dam safety problems
• Complaints about constructing and
operating a project
• Safety concerns related to natural
disasters
• Issues concerning compliance with
the terms and conditions of a license.

Every five years, an independent
engineer approved by the FERC must
inspect and evaluate projects with dams
higher than 32.8 feet (10 meters), or with
a total storage capacity of more than
2,000 acre-feet.

FERC monitors seismic research and
applies it in performing structural
analyses of hydroelectric projects. FERC

11 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
also evaluates the effects of potential and
actual large floods on the safety of dams.

During and following floods, FERC visits
dams and licensed projects, determines
the extent of damage, if any, and directs
any necessary studies or remedial
measures the licensee must undertake.

The FERC publication Engineering
Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Hydropower Projects guides the FERC
engineering staff and licensees in
evaluating dam safety. The publication is
frequently revised to reflect current
information and methodologies.

FERC requires licensees to prepare
emergency action plans and conducts
training sessions on how to develop and
test these plans. The plans outline an
early warning system if there is an actual
or potential sudden release of water from
a dam due to failure. The plans include
operational procedures that may be
used, such as reducing reservoir levels
and reducing downstream flows, as well
as procedures for notifying affected
residents and agencies responsible for
emergency management. These plans
are frequentl y updated and tested to
ensure that everyone knows what to do
in emergency situations.

National Dam
Safety Act
Federal Emergency
Management
Agency
Potential for catastrophic flooding due to
dam failures led to passage of the
National Dam Inspection Act in 1972,
creation of the National Dam Safety
Program in 1996, and reauthorization of
the program through the Dam Safety Act
in 2006. National Dam Safe ty Program,
administered by FEMA requires a
periodic engineering analysis of the
majority of dams in the country;
exceptions include the following:
• Dams under jurisdiction of the Bureau
of Reclamation, Tennessee Valley
Authority, or International Boundary
and Water Commission
12 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
• Dams constructed pursuant to
licenses issued under the Federal
Power Act
• Dams that the Secretary of the Army
determines do not pose any threat to
human life or property.

The goal of this FEMA-monitored effort is
to identify and mitigate the risk of dam
failure so as to protect lives and property
of the public. The National Dam Safety
Program is a partnership among the
states, federal agencies, and other
stakeholders that e ncourages individual
and community responsibility for dam
safety. Under FEMA’s leadership, state
assistance funds have allowed all
participating states to improve their
programs through increased inspections,
emergency action planning, and
purchases of nee ded equipment. FEMA
has also expanded existing and initiated
new training programs. Grant assistance
from FEMA provides support for
improvement of dam safety programs
that regulate most of the dams in the
United States.

National
Environmental
Policy Act
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
The National Environmental Policy Act
requires federal agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of proposed
actions and reasonable alternatives to
those actions, alongside technical and
economic considerations. The National
Environmental Policy Act established the
Council on Environmental Quality, whose
regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 -1508) set
standards for compliance. Consideration
and decision -making regarding
environmental impacts must be
documented in an environmental impact
statement or environmental assessment.

Environmental impact assessment
requires the evaluation of reasonable
alternatives to a proposed action,
solicitation of input from organizations
and individuals that could be affected,
and an unbiased presentation of direct,
13 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
indirect, and cumulative environmental
impacts. FEMA hazard mitigation project
grant applications require full
compliance with applicable federal acts.

Any action identified in this plan that falls
within the scope of this act will need to
meet its requirements.

National Flood
Insurance
Program
Federal Emergency
Management
Agency
The National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) makes federally backed flood
insurance available to homeowners,
renters, and business owners in
participating communities that enact
floodplain regulations. Participation and
good standing under NFIP are
prerequisites to grant funding eligibility
under the Robert T. Stafford Act.

For most participating communities,
FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood
Insurance Study. The study presents
water surface elevations for floods of
various magnitudes, including the 1 -
percent-annual-chance flood and the

0.2-percent-annual-chance flood. Base
flood elevations and the boundaries of
the flood hazard areas are shown on
Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are
the principle tool for identifying the
extent and location of the flood hazard.

Flood Insurance Rate Maps are the most
detailed and consistent d ata source
available, and for many communities
they represent the minimum area of
oversight under the local floodplain
management program. In recent years,
Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been
digitized as Digital Flood Insurance Rate
Maps, which are more a ccessible to
residents, local governments and
stakeholders.

NFIP participants must, at a minimum,
regulate development in floodplain areas
in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before
issuing a permit to build in a floodplain,

14 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
participating jurisdictions must ensure
that three criteria are met:
• New buildings and those undergoing
substantial improvements must, at a
minimum, be elevated to protect
against damage by the 1 -percent-
annual-chance flood.
• New floodplain development must
not aggravate existing flood problems
or increase damage to other
properties.
• New floodplain development must
exercise a reasonable and prudent
effort to reduce its adverse impacts on
threatened salmonid species.

NFIP participation is limited to local
governments that possess permit
authority and have the ability to adopt
and enforce regulations that govern land
use. This does not typically apply to
special purpose districts. None of the
special purpose district pl anning
partners covered by this plan are eligible
to participate in the NFIP, so their action
plans do not address NFIP participation.

National
Incident
Management
System
Federal Emergency
Management
Agency
The National Incident Management
System (NIMS) is a systematic approach
for government, nongovernmental
organizations, and the private sector to
work together to manage incidents
involving hazards. The NIMS provides a
flexible but standardized set of incid ent
management practices. Incidents
typically begin and end locally, and they
are managed at the lowest possible
geographical, organizational, and
jurisdictional level. In some cases, success
depends on the involvement of multiple
jurisdictions, levels of government,
functional agencies, and emergency
responder disciplines. These cases
necessitate coordination across a
spectrum of organizations. Communities
using NIMS follow a comprehensive
national approach that improves the
effectiveness of emergency
15 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
management and response personnel
across the full spectrum of potential
hazards (including natural hazards,
technological hazards, and human -
caused hazards) regardless of size or
complexity.

Although participation is voluntary,
federal departments and agencies are
required to make adoption of NIMS by
local and state jurisdictions a condition to
receive federal preparedness grants and
awards. The content of this plan is
considered to be a viable support tool for
any phase of emergency management.

The NIMS program is considered as a
response function, and information in
this hazard mitigation plan can support
the implementation and update of all
NIMS-compliant plans within the
planning area.

National
Landslide
Preparedness
Act
Department of the
Interior U.S.

Geological Survey
The 2021 National Landslide
Preparedness Act authorized a national
landslide hazards reduction program and
a 3D elevation program within the USGS.

This broadened the existing Landslide
Hazards Program (under the Natural
Hazards Mission Area) and the 3D
Elevation Program (under the National
Geospatial Program). The act required
coordination among federal agencies
through an Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Landslide Hazards
representing USGS and other agencies.

The act calls for development of a
national strategy for landslide loss
reduction and a publicly accessible
national landslide database of landslide
hazard and risk.

Presidential
Executive
Order 11988,
Floodplain
Management
Federal Emergency
Management
Agency
Executive Order 11988 requires federal
agencies to avoid to the extent possible
the long and short-term adverse impacts
associated with the occupancy and
modification of floodplains and to avoid
direct and indirect support of floodplain
development whereve r there is a

16 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
practicable alternative. It requires federal
agencies to provide leadership and take
action to reduce the risk of flood loss,
minimize the impact of floods on human
safety, health, and welfare, and restore
and preserve the natural and beneficial
values of floodplains. The requirements
apply to the following activities:
• Acquiring, managing, and
disposing of federal lands and
facilities
• Providing federally undertaken,
financed, or assisted construction
and improvements
• Conducting federal activities and
programs affecting land use,
including but not limited to water
and related land resources
planning, regulation, and
licensing.

U.S. Army
Corps of
Engineers
Dam Safety
Program
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
operates and maintains approximately
700 dams nationwide. It is also
responsible for safety inspections of
some federal and non -federal dams in
the United States that meet the size and
storage limitations specified in the
National Dam Safety Act. The Corps has
inventoried dams; surveyed each state
and federal agency’s capabilities,
practices and regulations regarding
design, construction, operation and
maintenance of the dams; and
developed guidelines for inspection and
evaluation of dam safety. The Corps
maintains the National Inventory of
Dams, which contains information about
a dam’s location, size, purpose, type, last
inspection and regulatory status.

U.S. Army
Corps of
Engineers
Flood Hazard
Management
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
• The following U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers authorities and
programs related to flood hazard
management:

The Floodplain Management Services
program offers 100 -percent federally
funded technical services such as
development and interpretation of site -

17 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
specific data related to the extent,
duration and frequency of flooding.

Special studies may be conducted to
help a community understand and
respond to flood risk. These may include
flood hazard evaluation, flood warning
and preparedness, or flood modeling.
o For more extensive studies,
the Corps of Engineers
offers a cost -shared
program called Planning
Assistance to States and
Tribes. Studies under this
program generally range
from $25,000 to $100,000
with the local jurisdiction
providing 50 percent of the
cost.
o The Corps of Engineers has
several cost -shared
programs (typically 65
percent federal and 35
percent non-federal) aimed
at developing, evaluating
and implementing
structural and non -
structural capital projects to
address flood risks at
specific locations or within a
specific watershed:
• The Continuing Authorities
Program for smaller-scale projects
includes Section 205 for Flood
Control, with a $7 million federal
limit and Section 14 for Emergency
Streambank Protection with a $1.5
million federal limit. These can be
implemented without spe cific
authorization from Congress.
• Larger scale studies, referred to as
General Investigations, and
projects for flood risk
management, for ecosystem
restoration or to address other
water resource issues, can be
pursued through a specific
authorization from Congress and
are cost -shared, typ ically at 65

18 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
percent federal and 35 percent
non-federal.
• Watershed management
planning studies can be
specifically authorized and are
cost-shared at 50 percent federal
and 50 percent non-federal.
o The Corps of Engineers
provides emergency response
assistance during and
following natural disasters.

Public Law 84 -99 enables the
Corps to assist state and local
authorities in flood fight
activities and cost share in the
repair of flood protective
structures. Assistance is
provided in the flowing
categories:
• Preparedness—The Flood Control
and Coastal Emergency Act
establishes an emergency fund for
preparedness for emergency
response to natural disasters; for
flood fighting and rescue
operations; for rehabilitation of
flood control and hurricane
protection structures. Funding for
Corps of Engineers emergency
response under this authority is
provided by Congress through the
annual Energy and Water
Development Appropriation Act.

Disaster preparedness activities
include coordination, planning,
training and conduct of response
exercises with local, state and
federal agencies.
• Response Activities —Public Law
84-99 allows the Corps of
Engineers to supplement state
and local entities in flood fighting
urban and other non -agricultural
areas under certain conditions
(Engineering Regulation 500 -1-1
provides specific details). All floo d
fight efforts require a project
cooperation agreement signed by

19 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
the public sponsor and the
sponsor must remove all flood
fight material after the flood has
receded. Public Law 84 -99 also
authorizes emergency water
support and drought assistance in
certain situations and allows for
“advance measures” assistance to
prevent or reduce flood damage
conditions of imminent threat of
unusual flooding.
• Rehabilitation—Under Public Law
84-99, an eligible flood protection
system can be rehabilitated if
damaged by a flood event. The
flood system would be restored to
its pre-disaster status at no cost to
the federal system owner, and at
20-percent cost to the eligible
non-federal system owner. All
systems considered eligible for
Public Law 84 -99 rehabilitation
assistance have to be in the
Rehabilitation and Inspection
Program prior to the flood event.

Acceptable operation and
maintenance by the public levee
sponsor are verified by levee
inspections conducted by the
Corps on a regular basis. The Corps
has the responsibility to
coordinate levee repair issues with
interested federal, state, and local
agencies following natural disaster
events where flood control w orks
are damaged.

These authorities and programs are all
available to the planning partners to
support any related mitigation actions.

U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation
Safety
Evaluation of
Existing Dams
Program
U.S. Department of
the Interior Bureau
Reclamation
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Safety
Evaluation of Existing Dams Program
was officially implemented in 1978 with
passage of the Reclamation Safety of
Dams Act (Public Law 95 -578). This act
was amended in 1984 under Public Law
98-404, in 2000 under Publi c Law 106 -
377, in 2002 under Public Law 107-117, and
in 2004 under Public Law 108 -439.

20 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
Program development and
administration of dam safety activities is
the responsibility of the Bureau of
Reclamation’s Dam Safety Office located
in Denver, Colorado.

Dams must be operated and maintained
in a safe manner, ensured through
inspections for safety deficiencies,
analyses utilizing current technologies
and designs, and corrective actions if
needed based on current engineering
practices. In addition, future ev aluations
should include assessments of benefits
foregone with the loss of a dam. For
example, a failed dam can no longer
provide needed fish and wildlife benefits.

The primary emphasis of the Safety
Evaluation of Existing Dams program is
to perform site evaluations and to
identify potential safety deficiencies on
Bureau of Reclamation and other Interior
Department dams. The basic objective is
to quickly identify dams which pose an
increased threat to the public, and to
quickly complete the related analyses in
order to expedite corrective action
decisions and safeguard the public and
associated resources. The selected
course of action relies on assessments of
risks and liabilities with environmental
and public involvement input to the
decision-making process.

U.S. Fire
Administration
Federal Emergency
Management
Agency
There are federal agencies that provide
technical support to fire
agencies/organizations. For example, the
U.S. Fire Administration, which is a part of
FEMA, provides leadership, advocacy,
coordination, and support for fire
agencies and organizations.

21 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
Table C-2. State Capabilities
Capability Department/Agency Description
AB 32: The
California
Global
Warming
Solutions Act
California
Environmental
Protection Agency
California Air
Resources Board
This bill identifies the following
potential adverse impacts of global
warming:
“… the exacerbation of air quality
problems, a reduction in the quality
and supply of water to the state from
the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels
resulting in the displacement of
thousands of coastal businesses and
residences, damage to marine
ecosystems and the natural
environment, and an increase in the
incidences of infectious diseases,
asthma, and other human health -
related problems.”
AB 32 establishes a state goal of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to
1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of
approximately 25 percent from
forecast emission levels), with further
reductions to follow. The law requires
the state Air Resources Board to do the
following:
• Establish a program to track and
report greenhouse gas
emissions.
• Approve a scoping plan for
achieving the maximum
technologically feasible and
cost-effective reductions from
sources of greenhouse gas
emissions.
• Adopt early reduction measures
to begin moving forward.
• Adopt, implement, and enforce
regulations—including market
mechanisms such as “cap and -
trade” programs —to ensure
that the required reductions
occur.

The Air Resources Board has adopted a
statewide greenhouse gas emissions
limit and an emissions inventory, along
with requirements to measure, track,

22 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
and report greenhouse gas emissions
by the industries it determined to be
significant sources of greenhouse gas
emissions.

AB 38: Fire
safety: Low-
Cost Retrofits:

Regional
Capacity
Review:

Wildfire
Mitigation
California Wildfire and
Forest Resilience Task
Force
Requires the seller of any real property
located in a high or very fire hazard
severity zone to provide a disclosure
notice, as specified, to the buyer with
information relating to fire hardening
improvements on the property.

Requires the California Natural
Resources Agency, in consultation
with the State Fire Marshal and the
Forest Management Task Force, to
review the regional capacity of each
county that contains a very high fire
hazard severity zone to improve forest
health, fire resilience, and safety.

Requires the California Office of
Emergency Services to enter into a
joint powers agreement with the
Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection to administer a
comprehensive wildfire mitigation and
assistance program to encourage cost-
effective structure h ardening and
facilitate vegetation management,
contingent upon appropriation by the
Legislature.

AB 70: Flood
Planning
California Department
of Water Resources
This bill provides that a city or county
may be required to contribute a fair
and reasonable share to compensate
for property damage caused by a flood
to the extent that it has increased the
state’s exposure to liability for property
damage by unreasonably approving
new development in a previously
undeveloped area that is protected by
a state flood control project, unless the
city or county meets specified
requirements.

AB 162: Flood
Planning
California Department
of Water Resources
This California State Assembly Bill
passed in 2007 requires cities and
counties to address flood-related
matters in the land use, conservation,
and safety and housing elements of

23 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
their general plans. The land use
element must identify and annually
review the areas covered by the
general plan that are subject to
flooding as identified in floodplain
mapping by either FEMA or the state
Department of Water Resources
(DWR). During the next revision of the
housing element on or after January 1,
2009, the conservation element of the
general plan must identify rivers,
creeks, streams, flood corridors,
riparian habitat, and land that may
accommodate floodwater for the
purpose of groundwater recharge and
stormwater management. The safety
element must identify information
regarding flood hazards, including:
• Flood hazard zones
• Maps published by FEMA,
DWR, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Central Valley
Flood Protection Board, and
the Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services (Cal
OES)
• Historical data on flooding
• Existing and planned
development in flood hazard
zones.
• The general plan must
establish goals, policies and
objectives related to
flooding risks, including:
• Avoiding or minimizing the
risks of flooding new
development
• Evaluating whether new
development should be
located in flood hazard
zones
• Identifying construction
methods to minimize
damage.

AB 162 establishes goals, policies and
objectives related to flooding risks. It
establishes procedures for the

24 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
determination of available land
suitable for urban development,
which may exclude lands where FEMA
or DWR has concluded that the flood
management infrastructure is not
adequate to avoid the risk of flooding.

AB 642:

Wildfires
California
Environmental
Protection Agency
California Air
Resources Board
This omnibus fire prevention bill
makes changes to support cultural
and prescribed fire, including the
creation of a Cultural Burning Liaison
at the Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection, and requires a
proposal for creating a prescribed fire
training center in California. The Act
requires the Director of Forestry and
Fire Protection to identify areas in the
state as moderate and high fire
hazard severity zones and to classify
areas into fire hazard severity zones
based on additional factors including
possible lightning caused ignition. The
bill requires a local agency, within 30
days of receiving a transmittal from
the director that identifies fire hazard
severity zones, to make the
information available for public
comment.

AB 747:

Required
Information for
General Plan
Safety
Elements
Governor's Office of
Land Use and Climate
Innovation
This bill requires California
communities with general plans to
address evacuation routes in the
safety element of the general plan.

Information on the evacuation routes
and their capacity, safety and viability
under a range of emergency scenarios
must be provided. For communities
that have not adopted a local hazard
mitigation plan, the safety element
must be updated with this
information by January 1, 2022. For
those with a local hazard mitigation
plan, the requirement applies upon
the next revision of the hazard
mitigation plan on or after January 1,
2022. Communities that have adopted
a local hazard mitigation plan,
emergency operations plan, or other
document that fulfills the goals and
objectives of this law may comply with

25 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
this requirement by summarizing and
incorporating by reference the other
plan or document in the safety
element.

In subsequent revisions to the safety
element, communities also will be
required to identify new information
relating to flood and fire hazards and
climate adaptation and resiliency
strategies applicable to the city or
county that was not available during
the previous revision of the safety
element. These subsequent updates
must occur upon each revision of the
general plan housing element or local
hazard mitigation plan and not less
than once every eight years.

AB 800:

Wildfires: Local
General Plans:

Safety
Elements: Fire
Hazard Severity
Zones
California Department
of Forestry and Fire
Protection Office of
the Fire Marshal
Existing law requires the Director of
Forestry and Fire Protection to identify
areas of the state as very high fire
hazard severity zones, and requires
each planning agency to prepare, and
the legislative body of each county
and city to adopt, a comprehensive,
long-term general plan, including a
safety element, for the physical
development of the county or city.

Existing law requires each city or
county that contains a very high fire
hazard severity zone to submit the
draft element of, or draft amendment
to the safety element its general plan
to the State Board of Forestry and Fire
Protection and to every local agency
that provides fire protection to
territory in the city or county at least
90 days before adoption or
amendment.

This requires the director to also
identify areas of the state as moderate
and high fire hazard severity zones. It
requires the draft element of, or draft
amendment to, the safety element of
a county or city’s general plan to be
submitted to the state board and to
every local agency that provides fire
protection to territory in the city or

26 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
county at least 90 days before the
adoption or amendment to the safety
element of its general plan for each
city or county that contains a
moderate or high fire hazard severity
zone.

Existing law requires the state board
and authorizes a local agency to
review the draft or an existing safety
element and recommend changes to
the planning agency regarding uses of
land and policies in state responsibility
areas and very high fire hazard
severity zones and regarding methods
and strategies for wildland fire risk
reduction and prevention within state
responsibility areas and very high fire
hazard severity zones.

This bill also requires the state board
and authorizes a local agency to
review the draft or an existing safety
element and recommend changes to
the planning agency regarding uses of
land and policies in moderate and
high fire hazard severity zones and
regarding methods and strategies for
wildland fire risk reduction and
prevention within moderate and high
fire hazard severity zones.

The existing Subdivision Map Act vests
the authority to regulate and control
the design and improvement of
subdivisions in the legislative body of
a local agency, and sets forth
procedures governing the local
agency’s processing, approval,
conditional approval, or disapproval,
and filing of tentative, final, and parcel
maps, and the modification thereof.

The act generally requires a subdivider
to file a tentative map or vesting
tentative map with the local agency,
and requires the local agency to
approve, conditionally approve, or
disapprove the map within a specified
time period. Before approving a
tentative map, or a parcel map for

27 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
which a tentative map was not
required, for an area located in a state
responsibility area or a very high fire
hazard severity zone, existing law
requires a legislative body of a county
to make specified findings. Existing
law requires a legislative body of a
county to transmit these findings to
the State Board of Forestry and Fire
Protection.

This requires a legislative body of a
county to make specified findings
before approving a tentative map, or a
parcel map for which a tentative map
was not required, for areas located in
moderate and high fire hazard
severity zones, and requires these
findings to be transmitted to the state
board.

By requiring new duties on a county,
the bill imposes a state-mandated
local program. The California
Constitution requires the state to
reimburse local agencies and school
districts for certain costs mandated by
the state. Statutory provisions
establish procedures for making that
reimbursement. This bill provides that,
if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs
mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall
be made pursuant to statutory
provisions.

AB 2140:

General Plans—
Safety Element
California Governor's
Office of Emergency
Services
This bill provides that the state may
allow for more than 75 percent of
public assistance funding under the
California Disaster Assistance Act only
if the local agency is in a jurisdiction
that has adopted a local hazard
mitigation plan as part of the safety
element of its general plan. The local
hazard mitigation plan needs to
include elements specified in this
legislation. In addition, this bill
requires Cal OES to give preference for
federal mitigation funding to cities
28 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
and counties that have adopted local
hazard mitigation plans. The intent of
the bill is to encourage cities and
counties to create and adopt hazard
mitigation plans.

AB 2800:

Climate
Change—
Infrastructure
Planning
California Natural
Resources Agency
This California State Assembly bill
passed in 2016 and until July 1, 2020,
requires state agencies to take into
account the current and future
impacts of climate change when
planning, designing, building,
operating, maintaining, and investing
in state infrastructure. The bill, by July
1, 2017, and until July 1, 2020, requires
an agency to establish a Climate-Safe
Infrastructure Working Group to
examine how to integrate scientific
data concerning projected climate
change impacts into state
infrastructure engineering.

Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake
Fault Zoning
Act
California Department
of Conservation
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act was enacted in 1972 to
mitigate the hazard of surface faulting
to structures for human occupancy.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act’s main purpose is to
prevent construction of buildings
used for human occupancy on the
surface trace of active faults. Before a
new project is permitted, cities and
counties require a geologic
investigation to demonstrate that
proposed buildings will not be
constructed on active faults. The act
addresses only the hazard of surface
fault rupture and is not directed
toward other earthquake hazards,
such as liquefaction or seismically
induced landslides. The law requires
the State of California Geologist to
establish regulatory zones around the
surface traces of active faults and to
issue appropriate maps. The maps are
distributed to all affected cities,
counties, and state agencies for their
use in planning and controlling new
or renewed construction. Local
agencies must regulate most

29 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
development projects within the
zones. Projects include all land
divisions and most structures for
human occupancy. All seismic hazard
mitigation actions identified in this
plan will seek full compliance with the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act.

California
Department of
Forestry and
Fire Protection
California Department
of Forestry and Fire
Protection
CAL FIRE has responsibility for
wildfires in areas of the county that
are not under the jurisdiction of the
Forest Service or a local fire
organization, including lands
designated as State Responsibility
Areas. CAL FIRE also has fire
protection responsibilities by contract
and mutual aid agreements. For
example, CAL FIRE provides year-
round fire protection under Amador
Plan agreements with certain local
government agencies (Public
Resources Code §4144). Through these
agreements, CAL FIRE provides local
structural and wildfire protection or
dispatch services to a community and
maintains a staffing level that
otherwise would be available only
during the fire season. The local entity
pays the additional cost of the service.

California
Department of
Parks and
Recreation
California Department
of Parks and
Recreation
State Parks manages portions of the
California coastline including coastal
wetlands, estuaries, beaches, and
dune systems. The State Parks
Resources Management Division has
limited wildfire protection resources
available to suppress fires on State
Park lands.

California
Department of
Water
Resources
California Department
of Water Resources
In California, the DWR is the
coordinating agency for floodplain
management. The DWR works with
FEMA and local governments by
providing grants and technical
assistance, evaluating community
floodplain management programs,
reviewing local floodplain ordinances,
participating in statewide flood
hazard mitigation planning, and

30 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
facilitating annual statewide
workshops. Compliance is monitored
by FEMA regional staff and by the
DWR.

California
Division of
Safety of Dams
California Department
of Water Resources
California’s Division of Safety of Dams
(a division of the DWR) monitors the
dam safety program at the state level
and maintains a working list of dams
in the state. When a new dam is
proposed, Division engineers and
geologists inspect the site and the
subsurface. Upon submittal of an
application, the Division reviews the
plans and specifications prepared by
the owner to ensure that the dam is
designed to meet minimum
requirements and that the design is
appropriate for the known geologic
conditions. After approval of the
application, the Division inspects all
aspects of the construction to ensure
that the work is done in accordance
with the approved plans and
specifications. After construction, the
Division inspects each dam to ensure
that it is performing as intended and
is not developing problems. The
Division periodically reviews the
stability of dams and their major
appurtenances in light of improved
design approaches and requirements,
as well as new findings regarding
earthquake hazards and hydrologic
estimates in California. Over 1,200
dams are inspected by Division
engineers on a yearly schedule to
ensure performance and
maintenance of dams.

California
Environmental
Quality Act
Governor's Office of
Land Use and Climate
Innovation
The California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) was passed in 1970, shortly
after the federal government enacted
the National Environmental Policy Act,
to institute a statewide policy of
environmental protection. CEQA
requires state and local agencies in
California to follow a protocol of
analysis and public disclosure of the
potential environmental impacts of

31 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
development projects. CEQA makes
environmental protection a
mandatory part of every California
state and local agency’s decision -
making process.

CEQA establishes a statewide
environmental policy and mandates
actions all state and local agencies
must take to advance the policy.

Jurisdictions conduct analysis of the
project to determine if there are
potentially significant environmental
impacts, identify mitigation measures,
and possible project alternatives by
preparing environmental reports for
projects that requires CEQA review.

This environmental review is required
before an agency takes action on any
policy, program, or project. Any project
action identified in this plan will seek
full CEQA compliance upon
implementation.

California Fire
Safe Council
California Fire Safe
Council
In 1993, the statewide Fire Safe
Council, consisting of private and
public membership, was formed to
educate and encourage Californians
to plan and prepare for wildfires by
reducing the risk of fire to property,
communities, and natural/structural
resources. In 2002, this group created
a nonprofit organization and board of
directors, called the California Fire
Safe Council. The Council works with
the California Fire Alliance to facilitate
the distribution of National Fire Plan
grants for wildfire risk reduction and
education
(www.grants.firesafecouncil.org). The
Council also provides assistance to
local Fire Safe Councils through its
website (www.firesafecouncil.org), the
distribution of educational materials,
and technical assistance, primarily
through regional representatives.

More than 130 local Fire Safe Councils
have formed in California to plan,

32 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
coordinate, and implement fire
prevention activities.

California Fire
Service and
Rescue
Emergency
Mutual Aid
Plan
California Governor's
Office of Emergency
Services Fire Rescue
Emergency Mutual
Aid System
The Governor’s Office of Emergency
Services Fire and Rescue Branch
administers the California Fire Service
and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid
Plan. The agency provides guidance
and procedures for agencies
developing emergency operations
plans, as well as training and technical
support, primarily to overall
emergency service organizations and
urban search and rescue teams.

California
General
Planning Law
Governor’s Office of
Land Use and Climate
Innovation
California state law requires that every
county and city prepare and adopt a
comprehensive long-range plan to
serve as a guide for community
development. The general plan
expresses the community’s goals,
visions, and policies relative to future
land uses, both public and private. The
general plan is mandated and
prescribed by state law (Cal. Gov. Code
§65300 et seq.), and forms the basis for
most local government land use
decision-making.

The plan must consist of an
integrated, internally consistent set of
goals, policies, and implementation
measures. In addition, the plan must
focus on issues of the greatest
concern to the community and be
written in a clear and concise manner.

City and county actions, such as those
relating to land use allocations,
annexations, zoning, subdivision and
design review, redevelopment, and
capital improvements, must be
consistent with the plan.

California
Hazard
Mitigation Plan
California Governor's
Office of Emergency
Services
Under the DMA, California must adopt
a federally approved state multi-
hazard mitigation plan to be eligible
for certain disaster assistance and
mitigation funding. The intent of the
State of California Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan is to reduce or prevent

33 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
injury and damage from hazards in
the state through the following:
• Documenting statewide
hazard mitigation planning
in California
• Describing strategies and
priorities for future
mitigation activities
• Facilitating the integration
of local and tribal hazard
mitigation planning
activities into statewide
efforts
• Meeting state and federal
statutory and regulatory
requirements.

The plan is an annex to the State
Emergency Plan, and it identifies past
and present mitigation activities,
current policies and programs, and
mitigation strategies for the future. It
also establishes hazard mitigation
goals and objectives. The plan will be
reviewed and updated annually to
reflect changing conditions and new
information, especially information on
local planning activities.

Under 44 CFR Section 201.6, local
hazard mitigation plans must be
consistent with their state’s hazard
mitigation plan. In updating this plan,
the Steering Committee reviewed the
California State Hazard Mitigation
Plan to identify key relevant state plan
elements (see Section 3.7).

California
Residential
Mitigation
Program
California Residential
Mitigation Program
The California Residential Mitigation
Program was established in 2011 to
help Californians strengthen their
homes against damage from
earthquakes. The program is a joint
powers authority created by Cal OES
and the California Earthquake
Authority, which is a not-for-profit,
publicly managed, privately funded
provider of home earthquake
insurance to California homeowners
and renters.

34 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
Earthquake Brace + Bolt was
developed to help homeowners lessen
the potential for damage to their
houses during an earthquake. A
residential seismic retrofit strengthens
an existing older house, making it
more resistant to earthquake activity
such as ground shaking and soil
failure. The seismic retrofitting
involves bolting the house to its
foundation and adding bracing
around the perimeter of the crawl
space. Most homeowners hire a
contractor to do the retrofit work, and
owners of houses in ZIP Codes with
house characteristics suitable for this
type of retrofit are eligible for up to
$3,000 toward the cost. A typical
retrofit by a contractor may cost
between $3,000 and $7,000,
depending on the location and size of
the house, contractor fees, and the
amount of materials and work
involved. If the homeowner is an
experienced do-it-yourselfer, a retrofit
can cost less than $3,000.

California State
Building Code
California Department
of General Services
California Code of Regulations Title 24
(CCR Title 24), also known as the
California Building Standards Code, is a
compilation of building standards
from three sources:
• Building standards that have
been adopted by state agencies
without change from building
standards contained in national
model codes
• Building standards that have
been adopted and adapted
from the national model code
standards to meet California
conditions
• Building standards authorized
by the California legislature that
constitute extensive additions
not covered by the model codes

35 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
adopted to address particular
California concerns.

The state Building Standards
Commission is authorized by California
Building Standards Law (Health and
Safety Code Sections 18901 through
18949.6) to administer the processes
related to the adoption, approval,
publication, and implementation of
California’s building codes. These
building codes serve as the basis for
the design and construction of
buildings in California. The national
model code standards adopted into
Title 24 apply to all occupancies in
California, except for modifications
adopted by state agencies and local
governing bodies. Since 1989, the
Building Standards Commission has
published new editions of Title 24 every
three years.

On January 1, 2014, California Building
Code Accessibility Standards found in
Chapter 11B incorporated the 2010
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Standards as the model accessibility
code for California. The purpose was to
ensure consistency with feder al
guidelines. As a result of this
incorporation, the California standards
will fully implement and include 2010
ADA Standards within the California
Building Code while maintaining
enhanced levels of accessibility already
provided by existing California
accessibility regulations.

Disadvantaged
and Low-
income
Communities
Investments
State of California
Office of
Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
Senate Bill (SB) 535 directs state and
local agencies to make investments
that benefit California’s disadvantaged
communities. It also directs the
California Environmental Protection
Agency to identify disadvantaged
communities for the purposes of
these investments based on
geographic, socio-economic, public

36 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
health, and environmental hazard
criteria. Assembly Bill (AB) 1550
increased the percent of funds for
projects located in disadvantaged
communities from 10 to 25 percent
and added a focus on investments in
low-income communities and
households. This program is a
potential alternative source of funding
for actions identified in this plan.

Division of the
State
Architect’s AB
300 List of
Seismically At-
Risk Schools
California Department
of General Services
In 2002, California’s Division of the
State Architect completed an
inventory of public school buildings
built before 1978 that identifies
buildings with characteristics that
might make them unsafe in future
earthquakes. This inventory provides a
list of potentially at‐risk schools known
as the AB 300 list (the inventory was
authorized by Assembly Bill 300 in
1999). Using available information on
school buildings’ dates of
construction, seismic retrofits, and
structural systems (wood‐frame,
concrete shear wall, or steel moment
frame, etc.), the inventory categorized
California public school buildings into
one of two categories: those expected
to perform well in future earthquakes;
and those that are not expected to
perform well and require more
detailed seismic evaluation.

The Division of the State Architect
recommends that public schools on
this list undergo detailed seismic
evaluations to determine if they pose
life safety risks, but the state has
neither required nor funded school
districts to do this.

Governor’s
Executive
Order S-13-08
Office of the Governor Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08 enhances the state’s management of
climate impacts from sea-level rise,
increased temperatures, shifting
precipitation and extreme weather
events. There are four key actions in
the executive order:

37 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
• Initiate California’s first
statewide climate change
adaptation strategy to assess
expected climate change
impacts, identify where
California is most vulnerable,
and recommend adaptation
policies. This effort will improve
coordination within state
government so that better
planning can more effectively
address climate impacts on
human health, the
environment, the state’s water
supply and the economy.
• Request that the National
Academy of Science establish
an expert panel to report on
sea-level rise impacts in
California, to inform state
planning and development
efforts.
• Issue interim guidance to state
agencies for how to plan for
sea-level rise in designated
coastal and floodplain areas for
new projects.
• • Initiate a report on
critical infrastructure projects
vulnerable to sea-level rise.

Office of the
State Fire
Marshal
Office of the State Fire
Marshal
The Office of the State Fire Marshal is
a division of CAL FIRE that has a wide
variety of fire safety and training
responsibilities and provides technical
support to fire agencies/organizations.

Senate Bill 12:

Local
Government:

Planning and
Zoning:

Wildfires
California Department
of Forestry and Fire
Protection
This bill imposes new planning
requirements on local governments,
as follows:
• Defines “very high fire risk
areas” to be the VHFHSZ in
both the SRA and the Local
Responsibility Area.
• Requires each city or county,
upon the next revision of the
housing element or local
hazard mitigation plan on or
after July 1, 2024, whichever

38 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
occurs first, to review and
update its safety element to
include a comprehensive
retrofit strategy that
includes specified contents.
• Requires a city or county
with VHFHSZ within its
jurisdiction to amend the
land use element of its
general plan upon the next
revision of the housing
element on or after July 1,
2024. This amendment of
the land use element must
include the locations of all
VHFHSZ within the city or
county, the data and
analysis described in the
Office of Planning and
Research’s publication Fire
Hazard Planning–General
Plan Technical Advice Series,
and other specified goals,
objectives, and
implementation measures.
• Requires, after the initial
amendment to the land use
element, that a city or
county review upon each
revision of the housing
element the
implementation of the
wildfire risk reduction
standards within the
jurisdiction and the
designation of VHFHSZ.
• Provides for review and
comment on draft findings
by the Board and local fire
agencies on whether the
city or county has
implemented the standards
or made adequate progress,
as defined.
• Requires, on or before
January 1, 2023, to develop
and post on its web site a
clearinghouse of local

39 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
ordinances, policies, and
best practices relating to
land use planning in
VHFHSZ, wildfire risk
reduction, and wildfire
preparedness. The Office of
Planning and Research
must also regularly update
the clearinghouse.

Senate Bill 99:

Evacuation
Route Planning
California Department
of Transportation
Senate Bill 99, enacted in 2019,
requires that cities’ and counties’
general plans address evacuation
routes from any hazard area identified
in the safety element. Under this law,
the safety element must include
information to identify residential
developments in hazard areas that do
not have at least two emergency
evacuation routes. Each city or county
must update its safety element with
the new information upon the next
revision of its housing element on or
after January 1, 2020.

Senate Bill 182
Local
Government:

Planning and
Zoning:

Wildfires
California
Environmental
Protection Agency
California Air
Resources Board
California Senate Bill 182 made a
number of changes to state law
regarding planning for and permitting
development in areas designated as
very high fire risk areas. The bill
requires a local jurisdiction to do the
following:
• Include a comprehensive
retrofit strategy in its safety
element to reduce the risk
of property loss and damage
during wildfires.
• Amend its land use element
to identify all very high fire
risk areas and to establish
measures to protect lives
and property from
unreasonable risk of wildfire.
• Adopt a very high fire risk
overlay zone for its zoning
ordinance.
• Allocate a lower portion of
projected future housing to
40 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
very high fire hazard severity
zones
This bill prohibits local governments
from entering into a development
agreement for property in a very high
fire risk area, approving a permit for a
project in a very high fire risk area, or
approving a tentative map for a
subdivision in a very high fire risk area,
unless the jurisdiction makes specified
findings based on substantial
evidence.

Senate Bill 379:

General Plans:

Safety
Element—
Climate
Adaptation
Governor’s Office of
Planning and
Resources
Senate Bill 379 builds upon the flood
planning inclusions into the safety
and housing elements and the hazard
mitigation planning safety element
inclusions in general plans outlined in
AB 162 and AB 2140, respectively. SB
379 focuses on a new requirement
that cities and counties include
climate adaptation and resiliency
strategies in the safety element of
their general plans beginning January
1, 2017. In addition, this bill requires
general plans to include a set of goals,
policies and objectives, and specified
implementation measures based on
the conclusions drawn from climate
adaptation research and
recommendations.

Senate Bill
1000: General
Plan
Amendments—
Safety and
Environmental
Justice
Elements
California Department
of Justice Office of the
Attorney General
In 2016, Senate Bill 1000 amended
California’s Planning and Zoning Law
in two ways:
• The original law established
requirements for initial
revisions of general plan safety
elements to address flooding,
fire, and climate adaptation and
resilience. It also required
subsequent review and revision
as necessary based on new
information. Senate Bill 1000
specifies that the subsequent
reviews and revision based on
new information are required to
address only flooding and fires
41 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
(not climate adaptation and
resilience).
• Senate Bill 1000 adds a
requirement that, upon
adoption or revision of any two
other general plan elements on
or after January 1, 2018, an
environmental justice element
be adopted for the general plan
or environmental justice goals,
policies and objectives be
incorporated into other
elements of the plan.

Senate Bill 1035:

Fire, Flood, and
Adaptation
Safety Element
Updates
Governor’s Office of
Land Use and Climate
Innovation
Senate Bill 1035 clarifies that revisions
to a community’s General Plan Safety
Element—to address fire hazards,
flood hazards, and climate adaptation
and resilience strategies—must occur
upon each revision to a Housing
Element or Local Hazard Mitigation
Program.

Senate Bill 1241:

General Plans:

Safety
Element—Fire
Hazard Impacts
Governor’s Office of
Land Use and Climate
Innovation
In 2012, Senate Bill 1241 passed
requiring that the safety elements of
all future general plans address fire
risk in state responsibility areas and
very high fire hazard severity zones.

The bill requires cities and counties to
make findings regarding available fire
protection and suppression services
before approving a tentative map or
parcel map.

Standardized
Emergency
Management
System
California Governor's
Office of Emergency
Services
CCR Title 19 establishes the
Standardized Emergency
Management System (SEMS) to
standardize the response to
emergencies involving multiple
jurisdictions. SEMS is intended to be
flexible and adaptable to the needs of
all emergency responders in
California. It requires emergency
response agencies to use basic
principles and components of
emergency management. Local
governments must use SEMS by
December 1, 1996, to be eligible for
state funding of response-related
personnel costs under CCR Title 19
42 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Appendix C
(Sections 2920, 2925 and 2930). The
roles and responsibilities of Individual
agencies contained in existing laws or
the state emergency plan are not
superseded by these regulations. This
hazard mitigation plan is considered
to be a support document for all
phases of emergency management,
including those associated with SEMS.

City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Adoption, Implementation & Maintenance
Black & Veatch 10
Appendix D – Plan
Maintenance Agendas
City of Oakland 2026 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Progress Report Reporting Period: (Date Range, 1 year)

BACKGROUND
The City of Oakland developed its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to reduce risk from hazards by identifying resources, information, and strategies for risk reduction. The federal Disaster Mitigation Act requires state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. To prepare the plan, the City organized resources, assessed risks from hazards, developed planning goals and objectives, reviewed mitigation alternatives, and developed an action plan to address probable impacts from hazards. By completing this process, the City maintained compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act, achieving eligibility for mitigation grant funding opportunities afforded under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The plan can be viewed on-line at:

INSERT WEB LINK
The purpose of this report is to provide an annual update on the implementation of the Mitigation Action Plan identified in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The objective is to ensure that there is a continuing and responsive planning process that will keep the local hazard mitigation plan dynamic and responsive to the needs and capabilities of the City of Oakland. This report discusses the following:
• Hazard events that have occurred within the last year. • Changes in risk exposure within the planning area.
• Mitigation success stories.
• Review of the action plan.
• Changes in capabilities that could impact plan implementation. • Recommendations for changes/enhancement
SUMMARY OF THE PLAN’S PROGRESS
The purpose of this report is to provide an annual update on the implementation of the action plan identified in the 2026 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The objective is to ensure that there is a continuing and responsive planning process that will keep the 2026 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan dynamic and responsive to the needs and capabilities of the City and stakeholders.

The performance period for the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan became effective in DATE with the final approval of the plan by FEMA. The performance period for this plan will be five years. At the end of the five years, an updated plan will be issued, anticipated before DATE. As of this reporting period, the performance period for this plan is considered to be PERCENT complete. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan has targeted NUMBER OF ACTIONS hazard mitigation actions to be pursued during the 5-year performance period, and NUMBER OF NEW ACTIONS were added in YEAR(S) for a total of UPDATED NUMBER OF ACTIONS.

As of the reporting period, the following overall progress can be reported:
• __ out of __ actions ( __%) were reported as being in progress toward completion.
• __ out of __ actions (__%) were reported as being complete. • __ out of __ actions (___%) reported no action taken.

PLAN MAINTENANCE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
It was determined through the plan’s development process that a designated committee, made up of City staff, would oversee maintenance of the plan. At a minimum, the Plan Maintenance Oversight Committee is to provide technical review and oversight on the development of the annual progress report. The Committee will review and approve this progress report at its annual meeting held on DATE. For this reporting period, the Plan Maintenance Oversight Committee membership is as indicated in Table 1.

Table 1 Plan Maintenance Oversight Committee
Name Title Department/Agency

HAZARD EVENTS
During the reporting period, hazard events in the planning area had a measurable impact on people or property. A summary of these events is as follows:
(Insert bulleted list and description of hazard events that impacted the area during the reporting period)
• EVENT TYPE, DATE: Event description

MITIGATION SUCCESS STORIES
(Insert brief overview of mitigation accomplishments during the reporting period)

REVIEW OF THE MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Table 2 reviews the 2026 LHMP Mitigation Action Plan, reporting the status of each action.

Reviewers of this report should refer to the 202 6 LHMP for more detailed descriptions of each action and the prioritization process.

Address the following in the “comment” column of the following table:
• What elements of the action carried out during the reporting period? • If no progress occurred, why?
• Do any of the action details require update (timeline, funding, lead implementers, etc.)? • If the action was completed, does it need to be changed or removed from the mitigation action plan?
Table 2 Mitigation Action Plan Review Matrix
Lead
Agency
Timeline Priority Status
(No Progress, In
Progress,
Complete)
Comment
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]

NEW ACTIONS TO INCLUDE IN THE PLAN
Table 3 describes new actions that have been identified by the Plan Maintenance Oversight Committee for this reporting period.
(List any new actions added to the action plan; see Chapter 19 of the LHMP for description of the information to be provided. Add or remove rows as necessary).

Table 3 New Mitigation Actions
Community
Lifeline
Addressed
Benefits
New or
Existing
Assets
Goals and
Objectives
Met
Lead and
Support
Implementers
Benefits
Equity Priority
Communities?
Estimated
Cost
Potential
Funding
Sources
Timeline
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]
Action #__—______________________[description]

CHANGES IN CAPABILITIES THAT MAY IMPACT IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE PLAN
Implementation of the Mitigation Action Plan is supported by identified capabilities such as staffing, funding, and other support. The Plan Maintenance Oversight Committee identified the following changes in capabilities which may impact implementation:
(List any changes that may positively or negatively impact implementation such as changes in staffing, funding, regulations, programs, etc.).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES OR ENHANCEMENTS
Based on the review of this report by the Plan Maintenance Oversight Committee , the following recommendations will be noted for changes or enhancements to future updates or revisions to the plan:
(List any recommended changes or enhancements to the LHMP that can be implemented during the next LHMP update. Examples include changes to the hazards of concern, organization of the plan sections, etc.)

PUBLIC REVIEW NOTICE
The contents of this report are considered to be public knowledge and have been prepared for total public disclosure. Copies of the report have been provided to the City of Oakland City Council and to local media outlets. The report is posted on the City of Oakland Hazard Mitigation Plan website. Any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report should be directed to:

Local Hazard Mitigation Planners
[email protected]
City of Oakland 2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan | Plan Adoption, Implementation & Maintenance
Black & Veatch 11

Appendix E – FEMA
Approval & Adoption

Public Safety CommitteeMay 26, 2026

Public Safety Committee
May 26, 2026