Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Strong Wind 11-2
• Bow echo—A bow echo is a linear wind front bent outward in a bow shape. Damaging straightline winds often occur near the center of a bow echo. Bow echoes can be 200 miles long, last for several hours, and produce extensive damage at the ground (National Oceanic Atmospheric Association, 2023).
In addition to the seven primary types of damaging winds, Southern California also experiences a localized phenomenon known as Santa Ana winds. These strong, dry, gusty downslope winds known as Santa Ana winds form when air from a region of high pressure over the desert region of the southwestern United States flows westward toward low-pressure areas off the California coast (Figure 11-1) (Sosnowski, 2021). As the wind flows over the Sierra Nevada and Santa Ana mountains, it drops from high elevation to sea level. The air becomes compressed and heats up as it sinks, and its relative humidity drops. Gaps in mountains form wind tunnels that strengthen these winds as they pour warm air east to west through the canyons. These winds play a major role in increasing wildfire risk in the region because of the dryness of the winds and the speed with which they can cause a fire to spread, complicating containment efforts (National Weather Service, n.d.).
Source: (Sosnowski, 2021)
Figure 11-1. Santa Ana Winds
Cause of the Hazard
Longer-period windstorms have two main causes: (1) large differences in atmospheric pressure across a region and (2) strong jet stream winds overhead. Horizontal pressure differences may accelerate the surface winds substantially as air travels from a region of higher atmospheric pressure to one of lower (Pielke, 2025).
Santa Ana winds may occur year-round, but are most common during the cooler months, typically from September through March. A Santa Ana wind event can yield sustained winds of 40 mph; isolated wind gusts of over 90 mph have been recorded. Most Santa Ana wind events peak for a 12 to 24 hour period but can persist for a few days (National Weather Service, n.d.).
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Strong Wind 11-3
Summary of Potential Impacts
Windstorms can result in collapsed or damaged buildings, damaged or blocked roads and bridges, damaged traffic signals, streetlights and parks, and other damage. Wind speeds as low as 32 mph can cause structural damage, and winds of 100 mph can destroy wood-frame structures. High winds can also cause direct losses to buildings, people, and vital equipment. There are direct consequences to the local economy resulting from windstorms related to both physical damage and interrupted services.
Wind pressure can create a direct and frontal assault on a structure, pushing walls, doors, and windows inward. Conversely, passing winds can create lift and suction forces that act to pull building components and surfaces outward. As positive and negative forces impact a building’s doors, windows, and walls, the result can be roof or building component failures and considerable structural damage. The effects of winds are magnified in the upper levels of multi-story structures.
Debris carried along by extreme winds can contribute directly to loss of life and indirectly to the failure of protective building envelopes. Falling trees and branches can damage buildings, power lines, and other property and infrastructure. Tree limbs breaking in winds of only 45 mph can be thrown over 75 feet, so overhead power lines can be damaged even in relatively minor windstorm events. During wet winters, saturated soils cause trees to become less stable and more vulnerable to uprooting from high winds.
Utility lines brought down by summer thunderstorms have also been known to cause fires, which start in dry roadside vegetation. Electric power lines falling down to the pavement create the possibility of lethal electric shock.
Downed trees and power lines, and damaged property also can be major hindrances to emergency response and disaster recovery. Emergency response operations can be complicated when roads are blocked or when power supplies are interrupted. Industry and commerce can suffer losses from interruptions in electric service and from extended road closures.
Cascading Hazard Impacts
High winds can quickly cause or spread wildfires, inundating nearby areas with heavy smoke.
11.1.2 Location
Strong winds can impact the entirety of the Planning Area.
11.1.3 Extent
Measuring Intensity
Damage from such winds accounts for half of all severe weather reports in the lower 48 states. Wind speeds can reach up to 100 mph and can produce a damage path extending for hundreds of miles. The Beaufort Wind Chart in Table 11-1 provides terminology and a description of potential wind impacts at different levels (California State Water Resources Control Board, n.d.).
Table 11-1. Land Based Beaufort Scale
Beaufort Number Range (mph) Terminology Description
0 0 Calm Clam. Smoke rises vertically.
1 1-3 Light Air Wind motion visible with smoke.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Strong Wind 11-4
Beaufort Number Range (mph) Terminology Description
2 4-7 Light breeze Wind felt on exposed skin. Leave rustle. 3 8-12 Gentle breeze Leaves and smaller twigs in constant motion. 4 13-18 Moderate breeze Dust and loose paper is raised. Small branches begin to move.
5 19-24 Fresh breeze Smaller trees sway.
6 25-31 Strong breeze Large branches in motion. Whistling heard in overhead wires. Umbrella use is difficult.
7 32-38 Near gale Whole trees in motion. Some difficulty when walking into the wind.
8 39-46 Gale Twigs broken from trees. Cars veer on road. 9 47-54 Severe gale Light structure damage
10 55-63 Storm Trees uprooted. Considerable structural damage. 11 64-73 Violent Storm Widespread structural damage.
12 74-95 Hurricane Considerable and widespread damage.
Source: California State Water Resources Control Board (Beaufort Wind Force Scale) Warning Time
NOAA issues watch, warning, and advisory information for high winds. Weather stations and media outlets warn residents of upcoming storms so they may prepare and plan accordingly.
Worst-Case Scenario
The worst-case scenario for strong wind recently occurred in Los Angeles County in January 2025 when wildfires spread rapidly due to strong winds. The Palisades Fire, driven by hurricane-force Santa Ana winds, it burned 23,707 homes, killed 12 people, and destroyed 6,837 structures.
The Eaton Fire began on the evening of January 7, 2025, in the Eaton Canyon in the San Gabriel Mountains, and was driven by powerful Santa Ana winds into foothill communities, particularly Altadena.
The fire killed at least 17 people and destroyed more than 9,000 buildings.
These examples show how wildfires can spread by high velocity, warm winds. Wind-driven wildfire scenarios could occur within the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
11.1.4 Previous Occurrences
The following sections provide a review of previous strong wind occurrences in the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Declarations
Federal Declarations
Between 2019 and 2025, the Palos Verdes Peninsula experienced three strong wind-related major disaster (DR) or emergency declarations (EM).
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Strong Wind 11-5
Table 11-2. Federal Strong Wind Disaster Declarations
Disaster Number Incident Period Declaration Date Description DR-4699-CA February 21 – July 10, 2023 April 3, 2023 Severe Winter Storms, Straight-Line Winds, Flooding,
Landslides, and Mudslides
DR-4769-CA January 31– February 9, 2024 April 13, 2024 Severe Winter Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding,
Landslides, and Mudslide
DR-4856-CA January 7- January 31, 2025 January 8, 2025 Wildfires and Straight-Line Winds
Source: (FEMA, 2025)
State Proclamations
Between 2019 and 2025, California included Los Angeles County in seven state-proclaimed disasters relating to strong wind.
Table 11-3. State Strong Wind Disaster Proclamations
Disaster Name Declaration Date Disaster Number
Tropical Storm Kay September 16, 2022 -
December 2022 to January 2023 Storms January 4, 2023 N-1-23, N-2-23, N-10-23 February to March 2023 Storms March 1, 2023 N-6-23, N-7-23, N-9-23, N-10-23 Tropical Storm Hilary August 19, 2023 -
January 2024 Winter Storms June 21, 2024 -
Early February 2024 Storms February 4, 2024 -
Los Angeles County Fires and Windstorm
Event
January 7, 2025 N-2-25 through N-24-25
Source: (Cal OES, 2025)
USDA Declarations
Between 2019 and 2025, there was one USDA declaration for Los Angeles County relating to strong wind.
Table 11-4. USDA Strong Wind Disaster Declarations
Disaster Number Incident Period Description
S5658 August 19 – August 21, 2023 Tropical Storm Hilary Source: USDA Disaster Designation Information (https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/disasterassistance-program/disaster-designation-information/index) Summary of Significant Events
Due to its geographic conditions, southern California and Los Angeles County have an extensive history dealing with strong winds. California’s all-time record for wind gusts was experienced in Los Angeles County on March 25, 1975, when wind gusts of 101 mph were recorded in the Community of Sandberg. (NWS, 2025). Beyond then, Santa Ana winds have seasonally affected Los Angeles County, especially in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountain regions, often reaching above 60 mph (NWS, 2025).
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Strong Wind 11-6
The January 2025 high wind events throughout Los Angeles County ranked among the most damaging and deadliest wind-driven wildfire events in California history. Refer to Chapter 12 Wildfire for additional details.
Recent Events
Between 2019 and 2025, there were two NOAA NCEI Storm Events for Los Angeles County not included in disaster declarations, relating to strong wind.
Table 11-5. NOAA NCEI Storm Events
Disaster Number Event Date Description
1187889 February 20, 2024 A third, powerful, winter storm brought significant impacts to Southwestern California. Rainfall totals ranged between 2 and 12 inches. With the heavy rainfall, numerous reports of flooding and mud/debris flows were reported. Also, some gusty winds were reported.
1187947 March 7, 2024 A late-season storm brought significant rainfall to the area along with strong thunderstorms. Rainfall totals across the area ranged from 1 to 2 inches across Los Angeles County. Unstable air, associated with the storm, brought scattered strong
thunderstorms to the area, producing gusty winds, large hail and even some flash flooding.
11.1.5 Future Conditions
Future hazard conditions, including frequency and severity of future events, are discussed in the sections below.
Probability
The Palos Verdes Peninsula regularly experiences strong wind events, especially during the fall and winter months when the Santa Ana winds occur (National Weather Service, n.d.). Based on historic events and projected conditions, there is a high probability of occurrence of strong wind events in the Planning Area every year.
Climate Change
It is uncertain whether strong wind events are becoming more or less frequent under a changing climate (CalOES, 2023). However, impacts from climate change are increasing the intensity and frequence of wildfires which spread quickly by strong winds (Lindsey, 2025).
Potential Future Impacts
The Palos Verdes Peninsula is located in California’s most densely populated and developed County. It is surrounded by other incorporated cities so anticipated future growth will be managed through development, which creates an opportunity to build to current codes. The Planning Area will be wellequipped to manage development with its building codes, and the Safety Element of its cities’ General Plans.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Strong Wind 11-7
11.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(ii) The plan must include a description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards of concern and include an overall summary of the hazard’s impact on the community. The impacts need to include the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the hazard areas, and estimate of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures, and a description of land uses and development trends.
11.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability
The entire Planning Area may be impacted by the strong wind hazard.
11.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
Damaging winds can cause injuries and fatalities. Downed trees may fall on homes or cars, killing or injuring those inside. Objects that are not secured can be picked up in wind events and become projectiles.
Equity Priority Communities
The entire population of the Planning Area is vulnerable to strong wind events. The elderly, residents with disabilities, and those with limited evacuation route access may be more vulnerable due to slower evacuation times. Residents who live in older homes that are not built in compliance with modern codes and standards may also be more vulnerable. Power outages from strong wind events can be life threatening to those dependent on electricity for medical devices.
11.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock
Loss estimates are represented by a percentage of the replacement cost value of structures in the Planning Area (Table 11-6).
Table 11-6. General Building Stock Replacement Cost Values City
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents)
10% of Total
Building Value
30% of Total
Building Value
50% of Total
Building Value
Palos Verdes
Estates
$5,778,400,360 $577,840,036 $1,733,520,108 $2,889,200,180 Rolling Hills Estates $12,883,794,425 $1,288,379,443 $3,865,138,328 $6,441,897,213 Rancho Palos
Verdes
$1,071,504,628 $107,150,463 $321,451,388 $535,752,314
Rolling Hills $4,372,243,176 $437,224,318 $1,311,672,953 $2,186,121,588 Total $24,105,942,589 $2,410,594,259 $7,231,782,777 $12,052,971,294
11.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines
All community lifelines within the Palos Verdes Peninsula are vulnerable to direct and cascading impacts from strong wind events. Community lifelines that lack backup power generation capabilities are
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Strong Wind 11-8
especially vulnerable. Facilities located near trees or power lines that are likely to fall are vulnerable.
Roads and other transportation infrastructure could be blocked by downed trees or other debris.
11.2.5 Impact on the Economy
Strong winds can cause damage to structure and infrastructure resulting in significant repair or construction costs. Businesses may temporarily close if power is lost due to a wind event.
11.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic structures and those of cultural importance may not be built to standards to withstand strong winds. These historic and cultural resources may sustain damage, resulting in costly repairs or retrofits keeping in harmony with the original structure.
11.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources
Natural resources are highly vulnerable to strong winds. Natural areas and parks may experience damage to trees and other plants.
11.2.8 Change in Vulnerability Since the Prior Planning Area HMPs Vulnerability remains consistent since the prior mitigation planning efforts. While strong wind events continue to pose challenges, the lack of significant development or demographic shifts means that overall vulnerability has not increased. While the population has decreased slightly, aging infrastructure and changing climate patterns, could slightly elevate vulnerability.
11.3 MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES
Table 11-7 presents a range of potential opportunities considered by the Planning Partnership for mitigating the strong wind hazard.
Table 11-7. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Strong Wind Hazard Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
Manipulate the Hazard
• None • None • None
Reduce Exposure and Vulnerability
• Provide redundant
power
• Plant appropriate trees
near home and power
lines (“Right tree, right
place” National Arbor
Day Foundation
Program)
• Relocate critical
infrastructure (such as
power lines)
underground
• Reinforce or relocate
critical infrastructure
such as power lines to
meet performance
expectations
• Install tree wire
• Harden infrastructure such as locating
utilities underground
• Trim trees back from power lines
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Strong Wind 11-9
Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
Build Local Capacity
• Trim or remove trees
that could affect power
lines
• Promote 72 hour selfsufficiency
• Obtain a NOAA weather
radio
• Obtain an emergency
generator
• Trim or remove trees
that could affect power
lines
• Create redundancy
• Equip facilities with a
NOAA weather radio
• Equip vital facilities with
emergency power
sources
• Support programs such as “Tree Watch”
that proactively manage problem areas
through use of selective removal of
hazardous trees, tree replacement, etc.
• Increase communication alternatives
• Modify land use and environmental
regulations to support vegetation
management activities that improve
reliability in utility corridors.
• Modify landscape and other ordinances to
encourage appropriate planting near
overhead power, cable, and phone lines.
• Provide NOAA weather radios to the public
Nature-based Opportunities
• None identified
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-1
12. WILDFIRE
12.1 HAZARD PROFILE
Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(i)
Include a description of the type, location, and extent for the identified hazards of concern and include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and the probability of future hazard events.
12.1.1 Description of the Hazard
Defining the Hazard
The National Wildfire Coordination Group (NWCG) defines wildfire as a wildland fire originating from an unplanned ignition, such as lightning, unauthorized and accidental human caused fires, and prescribed fires that are declared wildfires (NWCG, 2025). Wildfire can also be ignited by the transport of burning embers by high winds miles away from the initial ignition source. The potential for significant damage to life and property exists in or close proximity to areas designated as “wildland/urban interface areas,” where development is adjacent to densely vegetated areas.
The active spread phase is when the fire begins to grow rapidly, driven by dry vegetation, strong winds and terrain. Fires in California have been found to spread up to 14 times faster under high winds. High winds not only accelerate the fire’s spread but also carry embers and firebrands over long distances, igniting new spot fires far ahead of the main fire. These flying embers can travel up to a mile or more, making it difficult to predict and contain the fire’s advance. Firefighting and resource coordination during this phase is challenging as high winds can hinder the deployment of aerial resources, such as waterdropping helicopters and firefighting planes.
In the fully developed phase, the fire reaches its peak intensity, consuming significant fuel and spreading aggressively. Extreme heat from wildfires can create pyrocumulonimbus clouds, which can spark new fires miles away. These clouds can exacerbate fire spread by generating erratic winds and even sparking new fires through lightning strikes.
In the decay phase, fire intensity decreases as it runs out of fuel or is under control. However, lingering hotspots can reignite under the favoring conditions (Institute of Energy and the Environment, 2025).
Cause of the Hazard
One of the most significant factors is climate change. Warmer temperatures, reduced precipitation, or a changed rainfall season and longer fire seasons have dried out California’s landscapes, increasing the potential for ignition and rapid fire spread. Extended periods of drought further exacerbate the issue. Dry vegetation becomes ready to ignite with the slightest spark.
While some fires are fuel-dominated due to century-long fire suppression and changes in land management, others are wind-dominated, particularly in southern California, like the recent Los Angeles wildfires. Winds like Santa Ana and Diablo winds act as accelerants for wildfires. These strong, dry gusts
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-2
push flames across vast distances, spreading fires at an alarming rate. Combined with already dry conditions, these winds make controlling wildfires exceptionally challenging.
Wildfire spreads include phases of ignition, active spread, fully developed and decay. During the ignition phase, wildfires can be sparked by natural causes, such as lightning, or human activities like power line failures or campfires. Approximately 84 percent of wildfires in the United States are caused by human activities. Early detection of ignition would be the most critical but challenging thing to minimize the fire’s impact.
Summary of Potential Impacts
California wildfires have devastating impacts, including loss of life, homes, and livelihoods, along with significant environmental and economic consequences, including air and water quality issues, and increased mental health challenges.
Human Impacts
• Loss of Life and Property – Wildfires can cause fatalities and destroy homes, businesses, and infrastructure.
• Displacement and Evacuation – Hundreds to thousands of people are forced to evacuate their homes, leading to temporary or long-term displacement.
• Air Quality Issues – Wildfire smoke contains harmful pollutants that can exacerbate respiratory and cardiovascular conditions and even lead to premature death. • Mental Health Impacts – The trauma and uncertainty associated with wildfires can lead to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. • Economic Costs – Wildfires cause significant economic losses, including property damage, business closures, and increased insurance premiums.
Environmental Impacts
• Air Pollution – Wildfire smoke releases pollutants into the atmosphere, impacting air quality and human health both locally and downwind.
• Water Quality Issues – Ash and debris from fires can contaminate water sources, and burned watersheds are prone to increased flooding and erosion. • Habitat Loss and Ecosystem Changes – Wildfires can destroy forests and other habitats, leading to changes in vegetation and wildlife populations.
• Marine Ecosystems – Firefighting runoff and ash can enter coastal waters, potentially harming marine life and ecosystems.
• Soil Erosion – Burned areas are more vulnerable to erosion, which can lead to landslides and further damage to the environment.
Economic Impacts
• Property and Capital Losses – Wildfires can cause billions of dollars in property damage and economic losses.
• Increased Insurance Premiums – The cost of wildfires can lead to higher insurance premiums or even un-insurability for homeowners and businesses.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-3
• Tourism Impacts – Wildfires can disrupt tourism and negatively impact local economies. • Supply Chain Disruptions – Wildfires can disrupt transportation and supply chains, leading to shortages and price increases.
Cascading Hazard Impacts
Wildfires can generate a range of secondary effects, which in some cases may cause more widespread and prolonged damage than the fire itself. A major fire can lead to ancillary effects such as landslides in steep ravine areas and flooding due to the effects of silt in local watersheds. The increased potential for flash flood impacts lasts until vegetation is restored, which can take up to a decade or longer. In these areas, flash flooding poses a threat not only from the massive force and amount of water, but also from debris and ash forming mudslides and debris flows (NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory). Wildfires cause the contamination of reservoirs, destroy transmission lines and contribute to flooding. They strip slopes of vegetation, exposing them to greater amounts of runoff. This in turn can weaken soils and cause failures on slopes. Vegetation plays a vital role in stabilizing soil on slopes. When wildfires destroy this vegetation, the roots that bind the soil together decay, increasing the likelihood of landslides and debris flows, especially during subsequent rainstorms (USGS, 2025). Altering the soil structure can make the ground less permeable. This change increases stormwater runoff and raises the likelihood of flooding. Post-fire flooding tends to be more destructive due to the presence of sediment, ash, pollutants, and debris to surface water (USGS, 2023), which can mix with rainwater to form damaging mudflows that carry sediment and cause significant destruction.
Impacts from Smoke
Wildfires can have a significant effect on air quality, especially with prolonged periods of burning combined with climatic conditions. Smoke generated by wildfire consists of visible and invisible emissions that contain particulate matter (soot, tar, water vapor, and minerals), gases (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides), and toxics (formaldehyde, benzene). Emissions from wildfires depend on the type of fuel, the moisture content of the fuel, the efficiency (or temperature) of combustion, and the weather.
The danger of wildfire smoke comes primarily from particulate matter, consisting of fine particles that are 2.5 micrometers (about a ten-thousandth of an inch) or less in diameter (PM2.5). On a given day, California wildfires can produce 10 times more PM2.5 air pollution than is produced by all other pollution sources combined (Associated Press, 2020). The small particles in PM2.5 pollution are capable of reaching deep into the lungs, causing a host of complications, including significantly increased risks of heart disease, respiratory disease, asthma, and premature mortality. Health problems related to wildfire smoke exposure can be as mild as eye and respiratory tract irritation and as serious as worsening of heart and lung disease, including asthma, and even death. Smoke from wildfires that burn homes and other structures can additionally contain toxic materials such as asbestos and heavy metals. Studies indicate that wildfire smoke is up to 10 times more harmful than other forms of PM2.5 pollution (Aguilera, Corringham, Gershunov, & Benharhnia, 2021).
Not all individuals are equally exposed to the hazard of wildfire smoke, nor are they equally vulnerable.
Outdoor workers and unhoused individuals have especially high exposure to outdoor air, and younger individuals are especially vulnerable to unhealthy air. On November 15, 2018, over 1 million California children had classes canceled due to wildfires and wildfire smoke (Holm, Miller, & Balmes, 2020).
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-4
Because PM2.5 pollution affects the immune and cardiovascular systems, other vulnerable populations include people with medical conditions, including diabetes and heart and lung conditions. These vulnerable populations together represent a significant fraction of the California population and indicate inequity in impacts.
At least 95 percent of Californians suffered unhealthy levels of particle pollution due to wildfires in 2020 (Los Angeles Times, 2020). Worse air quality leads to illnesses, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations for chronic health conditions, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, chronic bronchitis, and other respiratory and cardiovascular conditions as well as increased risk for respiratory infections, which all result in greater health costs to the State (Romley, Hackbarth, & Goldman, 2010; Wang, Aaron, & Madrigano, 2019; Inserro, 2018).
12.1.2 Location
The entire Planning Area is susceptible to wildfire. California’s seasonally dry climate lends itself to wildfires, and in an effort to better prepare, CAL FIRE is required to classify the severity of wildfire hazard in areas of California. The State Fire Marshal is mandated to classify lands within both State Responsibility Areas and Local Responsibility Areas into Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). FHSZs fall into one of the Following Classifications:
• Moderate
• High
• Very High
The FHSZ maps are developed using a science-based and field-tested model that assigns a hazard score based on the factors that influence fire likelihood and fire behavior. Many factors are considered such as fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural vegetation), predicted flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and typical fire weather for the area. While these zones identify the wildfire hazard risk, they do not incorporate the impact of mitigation measures or lack thereof.
The California laws that require FHSZs include California Public Resources Code 4201-4204, California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1280 and California Government Code 51175-89. Figure 12-1 shows the FHSZ mapped by CAL FIRE within the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-5
Figure 12-1. Palos Verdes Peninsula Fire Hazard Severity Zones
12.1.3 Extent
Measuring Intensity
The National Fire Danger Rating System is a system that allows fire managers to estimate today's or tomorrow's fire danger for a given area. It combines the effects of existing and expected states of selected fire danger factors into one or more qualitative or numeric indices that reflect an area's fire protection needs. Based on the fire danger, managers may impose restrictions or closures to public lands, plan for or pre-position staff and equipment to fight new fires and make decisions whether to suppress or allow fires to burn under prescribed conditions (National Park Service, 2023).
Five rating levels are used to describe danger levels in public information releases and fire prevention signing (USFS, n.d.):
• Fire Danger Level: Low—When the fire danger is "low," it means that fuels do not ignite easily from small embers, but a more intense heat source, such as lightning, may start fires in duff or dry
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-6
rotten wood. Fires in open, dry grasslands may burn easily a few hours after a rain, but most wood fires will spread slowly, creeping or smoldering. Control of fires is generally easy. • Fire Danger Level: Moderate—When the fire danger is "moderate," it means that fires can start from most accidental causes, but the number of fire starts is usually pretty low. If a fire does start in an open, dry grassland, it will burn and spread quickly on windy days. Most wood fires will spread slowly to moderately. Average fire intensity will be moderate except in heavy concentrations of fuel, which may burn hot. Fires are still not likely to become serious and are often easy to control.
• Fire Danger Level: High—When the fire danger is "high," fires can start easily from most causes, and small fuels (such as grasses and needles) will ignite readily. Unattended campfires and brush fires are likely to escape. Fires will spread easily, with some areas of high-intensity burning on slopes or concentrated fuels. Fires can become serious and difficult to control unless they are put out while they are still small.
• Fire Danger Level: Very High—When the fire danger is "very high," fires will start easily from most causes. The fires will spread rapidly and have a quick increase in intensity, right after ignition.
Small fires can quickly become large fires and exhibit extreme fire intensity, such as long-distance spotting and fire whirls. These fires can be difficult to control and will often become much larger and longer-lasting fires.
• Fire Danger Level: Extreme—When the fire danger is "extreme," fires of all types start quickly and burn intensely. All fires are potentially serious and can spread very quickly with intense burning.
Small fires become big fires much faster than at the "very high" level. Spot fires are probable, with long-distance spotting likely. These fires are very difficult to fight and may become very dangerous and often last for several days.
A widely used measure of fire intensity is fire line intensity, which is the rate of heat transfer per unit length of the fire line (measured in kW m−1) and represents the radiant energy release in the flaming front. Fire line intensity is a good measure of how likely the fire is to propagate and how difficult it will be to stop, and thus, it is a critical component of fire behavior models used to inform fire suppression activities. Very seldom is fire line intensity actually measured, rather it is generally inferred based on flame length, which has been found to correlate with fire line intensity; however, this correlation has not been widely tested.
Factors that influence wildfire intensity include the following:
• Fuel: The type, amount, and moisture content of vegetation (fuel) significantly impact intensity. • Topography: Steep slopes and canyons can concentrate wind and fuel, increasing intensity. • Weather: Hot, dry, and windy conditions exacerbate fire intensity.
Warning Time
Wildfires are often caused by humans, intentionally or accidentally. There is no way to predict when a wildfire might break out. Since fireworks often cause brush fires, extra diligence is warranted around the Fourth of July when the use of fireworks is highest. Dry seasons and droughts are factors that greatly increase fire likelihood. Dry lightning may trigger wildfires. Severe weather can be predicted, so special attention can be paid during weather events that may include lightning and high winds that may spread
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-7
a wildfire. Reliable NWS lightning and wind warnings are available on average 24 to 48 hours prior to a significant storm.
The most common and effective methods used currently to detect wildfires in California are remote sensing and satellite monitoring. Satellites like NASA’s MODIS and VIIRS provide real-time data on fire location, size, and intensity. These tools help identify new ignitions and monitor fire progression, even in remote areas. Thermal imaging from drones and ground-based radar complements satellite data, offering high-resolution insights for on-the-ground operations. California is also using an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered wildfire detection system using AI to train a forest-based camera network to recognize early signs of fire (https://alertcalifornia.org/).
There have been many controlled or prescribed burns implemented to reduce excess vegetation, like thinning dense forests and clearing underbrush, to mitigate fire severity. There have been robotics companies starting to try out these controlled burns with the help of robots, like the BurnBot.
Autonomous helicopters have demonstrated the ability to detect and suppress fires independently.
Additionally, there are computational models, such as ELMFIRE with wildland-urban interface extensions, that simulate fire spread through communities. These tools incorporate data on vegetation, structure materials and fire dynamics to reconstruct past events and predict future risks.
Worst-Case Scenario
The worst-case scenario recently occurred in Los Angeles County in early 2025. For details, refer to Summary of Significant Events in this chapter.
12.1.4 Previous Occurrences
The following sections provide a review of previous wildfire occurrences in Los Angeles County.
Declarations
Federal Declarations
Between 2019 and 2025, Los Angeles County experienced 12 wildfire-related major disasters (DR) or emergency declarations (EM).
Table 12-1. Federal Wildfire Disaster Declarations
Disaster Number Incident Period Declaration Date Description FM-5293-CA October 10 – October 22, 2019 October 11, 2019 Saddleridge Fire FM-5296-CA October 24 – October 29, 2019 October 24, 2019 Tick Fire FM-5297-CA October 28 – November 2,
2019
October 28, 2019 Getty Fire
DR-4569-CA September 4 – November 17,
2020
October 16, 2020 Wildfires
FM-5374-CA September 13, 2020 September 13, 2020 Bobcat Fire FM-5537-CA September 10 – September
24, 2024
September 11, 2024 Bridge Fire
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-8
Disaster Number Incident Period Declaration Date Description FM-5548-CA December 10 – December 18,
2024
December 10, 2024 Franklin Fire
FM-5551-CA January 7, 2025 January 8, 2025 Hurst Fire
FM-5550-CA January 7, 2025 January 8, 2025 Eaton Fire
FM-5549-CA January 7, 2025 January 7, 2025 Palisades Fire DR-4856-CA January 7 – January 31, 2025 January 8, 2025 Wildfires And StraightLine Winds FM-5605-CA August 7, 2025 August 8, 2025 Canyon Fire
Source: (FEMA, 2025)
State Proclamations
Between 2019 and 2025, California included Los Angeles County in four state-proclaimed wildfire disasters.
Table 12-2. State Wildfire Disaster Declarations
Disaster Number Declaration Date Description
N-22-21 (statewide) August 18, 2020 Fires - River, Jones, LNU Lightning Complex, Weather Conditions
N-81-20 September 25, 2020 Fire - Slater, Bobcat, Oak
N-4-24 September 11, 2024 Airport and Bridge Fires
Multiple January 7, 2025 Los Angeles County Fires and Windstorm Event Source: (Cal OES, 2025)
USDA Declarations
Between 2019 and 2025, there were no USDA declarations for Los Angeles County relating to wildfire (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2025).
Summary of Significant Events
The Palisades Fire
The Palisades Fire was a highly destructive wildfire that began burning in the Santa Monica Mountains of Los Angeles County on January 7, 2025, which grew to destroy large areas of Pacific Palisades, Topanga, and Malibu before it was fully contained after 24 days on January 31. One of a series of wildfires in Southern California driven by hurricane-force Santa Ana winds, it burned 23,707 acres (9,594 ha; 95.94 km2; 37.042 sq mi), killed 12 people, and destroyed 6,837 structures, making it the 10th deadliest and third-most destructive California wildfire on record and the most destructive to occur in the history of the city of Los Angeles.
The Eaton Fire
The Eaton Fire was a highly destructive wildfire in Los Angeles County, Southern California. The fire began on the evening of January 7, 2025, in the Eaton Canyon in the San Gabriel Mountains, and was driven by powerful Santa Ana winds into foothill communities, particularly Altadena. The fire killed at least 17 people and destroyed more than 9,000 buildings, becoming the fifth deadliest and the second
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-9
most destructive wildfire in California history. The cause of the fire is under investigation; news reports and lawsuits have focused on the possible involvement of power lines operated by electrical utility Southern California Edison. The fire was fully contained on January 31 after burning for 24 days.
Both fires are examples of how wildfires can spread into areas not to be considered at risk due to the transport of burning embers by high velocity, warm air winds. Even in parts of the Peninsula not included in the very high fire hazard zone, either of these scenarios could occur in any part of the Planning Area under specific circumstances.
Additionally, heavy rains following the fires could cause post-fire debris flow flooding and landslides in areas stripped of vegetation.
Recent Events
The NOAA NCEI Storm Events Database reported 14 wildfire events impacting Los Angeles County from 2019 through 2025. Countywide impacts include 18,724 structures damaged or destroyed, 30 deaths, 38 injuries, and nearly 276,000 acres burned. Wildfire smoke was the only direct impact to the Palos Verdes Peninsula from the fires.
12.1.5 Future Conditions
Future hazard conditions, including frequency and severity of future events, is discussed in the sections below.
Probability
With 56 presidential disaster declarations in 55 years (1970 to 2025) the annual probability for wildfire events in Los Angeles County would be one per year based on past events. It is important note that none of the fires noted above occurred within the Planning Area. However, it is likely that the Planning Area experienced impacts from most if not all fires noted to some degree, due to smoke impacts, power outages, transportation interruption of other associated economic impacts. Considering risk potential associated with ember-casting by high winds, the Palos Verdes Peninsula’s exposure to annual wildfire risks would be considered to be high.
Climate Change
One of the most significant factors is climate change. Warmer temperatures, reduced precipitation or a changed rainfall season, and longer fire seasons have dried out California’s landscapes, increasing the potential for ignition and rapid fire spread. According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, California is likely to see a 50 percent increase in fires larger than 25,000 acres as well as a 77 percent increase in average area burned by 2100. Numerous climactic drivers will influence wildfire risk differently between California regions (California Energy Commission, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, & California Natural Resources Agency, 2019):
• Increasing Temperatures: Wildfire risk in the Southern California region is rising in tandem with increasing temperatures.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-10
• Shifting Wind Patterns: The Santa Ana winds will continue to shape wildfire activity across Southern California. Modelers are still working to determine how these wind events will be impacted by climate change.
• Shifting Water Patterns: Climate change will cause shifting water patterns that can impact wildfire risk across the state. In Southern California, changing precipitation will factor heavily into post-fire risk assessments since these landscapes are especially vulnerable to post-fire flooding and landslides (USGS, n.d.).
• Shifting Insect Habitat: Bark beetle infestations are rising in response to the changing climate, increasing tree mortality—particularly in the southern Sierra Nevada —and reducing carbon storage.
• Human Impacts: Across all of California’s landscapes, human factors, such as development patterns and risk mitigation strategies, will have a direct impact on communities’ ability to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Local decisions are a large factor in determining the future health of a community.
Potential Future Impacts
The future impacts of wildfires in the Planning Area could be profound. Ecologically, more frequent fires threaten ecosystem health and stability. Economically, wildfires can devastate local industries such as tourism, while also increasing insurance costs and straining emergency services. Socially, communities may face displacement, health risks from smoke exposure, and long-term recovery challenges. If current trends continue, the Planning Area could see a wildfire season that starts earlier, lasts longer, and includes more extreme fire events, potentially overwhelming local resources and infrastructure.
As the population of Palos Verdes Peninsula changes, impacts will change accordingly.
12.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Local Plan Requirement B1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(ii) The plan must include a description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards of concern and include an overall summary of the hazard’s impact on the community. The impacts need to include the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the hazard areas, and estimate of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures, and a description of land uses and development trends.
12.2.1 Summary of Vulnerability
For the vulnerability assessment of this hazard, the entire Planning Area has been considered to be exposed to wildfire impacts, either by direct impacts, or cascading impacts from wildfires within the region. There are currently no models available to measure direct impacts from wildfire risks, therefore, for this qualitative assessment on vulnerability has been associated with exposure to the mapped wildfire hazard severity zones.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-11
12.2.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
Larger and more intense wildfires are creating the potential for greater smoke production and chronic exposures in the United States, particularly in the West. Wildfires increase air pollution in surrounding areas and can affect regional air quality. The effects of smoke from wildfires can range from eye and respiratory tract irritation to more serious disorders, including reduced lung function, bronchitis, exacerbation of asthma and heart failure, and premature death. Children, pregnant women, and the elderly are especially vulnerable to smoke exposure. Emissions from wildfires are known to cause increased visits to hospitals and clinics by those exposed to smoke.
Within the Planning Area, an estimated 19,273 people are located in the FHSZs (Table 12-3).
Table 12-3. Estimated Number of People Living in the FHSZs City Total Population1 Population Exposed2 % Total
Moderate FHSZ
Palos Verdes Estates 12,999 1,045 8.0%
Rancho Palos Verdes 40,727 2,619 6.4%
Rolling Hills 1,677 141 8.4%
Rolling Hills Estates 8,545 431 5.0%
Total 63,948 4,236 6.6%
High FHSZ
Palos Verdes Estates 12,999 1,086 8.4%
Rancho Palos Verdes 40,727 2,487 6.1%
Rolling Hills 1,677 248 14.8%
Rolling Hills Estates 8,545 338 4.0%
Total 63,948 4,160 6.5%
Very High FHSZ
Palos Verdes Estates 12,999 3,405 26.2%
Rancho Palos Verdes 40,727 6,142 15.1%
Rolling Hills 1,677 1,221 72.8%
Rolling Hills Estates 8,545 109 1.3%
Total 63,948 10,877 17.0%
Sources: (CAL FIRE, 2025a); (Hazus v6.1, 2023)
Notes: (1) Population calculated using 2020 Census data from Hazus v6.1. (2) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.
Equity Priority Communities
Equity Priority Community populations, including the elderly, people with disabilities, and those with limited evacuation access are disproportionately impacted by wildfires, facing greater risks due to the following:
• Elderly Populations—Physical difficulties and cognitive decline can hamper older adults’ ability to keep their properties clear of flammable materials, such as dry shrubs and grasses, and can slow their ability to evacuate in an emergency. The fire that destroyed the town of Paradise, California, in 2018 was a tragic example. Of the 85 victims, 68 were 65 years or older.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-12
• Disabled Populations—People with mobility or cognitive impairments may struggle to evacuate or cope with the aftermath of a wildfire.
• Evacuation Access—Residents who live in neighborhoods with only one way out are more vulnerable during an evacuation if their route is blocked or congested with traffic.
Table 12-4. Vulnerable Populations Exposed to FHSZs
City
Total
Population
Demographic
Vulnerability
Population
Demographic
Vulnerability
% of Total
Population
Evacuation
Vulnerability
Population
Evacuation
Vulnerability
% of Total
Population
Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Palos Verdes
Estates
1,045 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Rancho Palos
Verdes
2,619 1,276 48.7% 724 27.6%
Rolling Hills 141 141 100.0% 141 100.0%
Rolling Hills
Estates
431 297 69.0% 210 48.7%
Total 4,236 1,714 40.5% 1,075 25.4%
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Palos Verdes
Estates
1,086 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Rancho Palos
Verdes
2,487 860 34.6% 598 24.0%
Rolling Hills 248 239 96.2% 239 96.2%
Rolling Hills
Estates
338 246 72.6% 183 54.0%
Total 4,160 1,344 32.3% 1,019 24.5%
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Palos Verdes
Estates
3,405 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Rancho Palos
Verdes
6,142 1,183 19.3% 1,149 18.7%
Rolling Hills 1,221 1,221 100.0% 1,221 100.0%
Rolling Hills
Estates
109 106 97.5% 95 87.5%
Total 10,877 2,511 23.1% 2,466 22.7%
12.2.3 Impact on General Building Stock
Fire Hazard Severity Zone Exposure
CAL FIRE released updated FHSZ mapping for the California that included very high, high, and moderate severity zones within the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Table 12-5 presents the estimated number of buildings
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-13
located in the FHSZs. Table 12-6 presents the number of buildings by structure type. Of the structures exposed, the majority are residential structures.
Table 12-5. Estimated Buildings Located in FHSZs
City Total Buildings Total Buildings Exposed % Total
Moderate FHSZ
Palos Verdes Estates 5,063 402 7.9%
Rancho Palos Verdes 13,399 856 6.4%
Rolling Hills 710 60 8.5%
Rolling Hills Estates 3,302 169 5.1%
Total 22,474 1,487 6.6%
High FHSZ
Palos Verdes Estates 5,063 424 8.4%
Rancho Palos Verdes 13,399 813 6.1%
Rolling Hills 710 105 14.8%
Rolling Hills Estates 3,302 125 3.9%
Total 22,474 1,467 6.5%
Very High FHSZ
Palos Verdes Estates 5,063 1,340 26.5%
Rancho Palos Verdes 13,399 2,019 15.1%
Rolling Hills 710 516 72.7%
Rolling Hills Estates 3,302 41 1.2%
Total 22,474 3,916 17.4%
Table 12-6. Estimated Number of Buildings, by Structure Type, Located in FHSZs City
ResidentialCommercialIndustrialAgricultureReligionGovernmentEducationTotal Moderate FHSZ
Palos Verdes Estates 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 402
Rancho Palos Verdes 850 0 0 0 6 0 0 856
Rolling Hills 59 1 0 0 0 0 0 60
Rolling Hills Estates 158 10 0 0 0 0 1 169
Total 1,469 11 0 0 6 0 1 1,487
High FHSZ
Palos Verdes Estates 418 0 0 0 2 1 3 424
Rancho Palos Verdes 807 4 0 0 0 0 2 813
Rolling Hills 104 1 0 0 0 0 0 105
Rolling Hills Estates 124 1 0 0 0 0 0 125
Total 1,453 6 0 0 2 1 5 1,467
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-14
City
ResidentialCommercialIndustrialAgricultureReligionGovernmentEducationTotal Very High FHSZ
Palos Verdes Estates 1,310 24 0 0 0 4 2 1,340
Rancho Palos Verdes 1,993 8 0 2 6 4 6 2,019
Rolling Hills 512 2 0 0 0 2 0 516
Rolling Hills Estates 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 41
Total 3,855 35 0 2 6 10 8 3,916
Building Codes and Associated Vulnerability
Modern building codes significantly reduce wildfire vulnerability by mandating fire-resistant materials, construction practices, and features like enclosed eaves and meshed vents, ultimately increasing the likelihood of home survival in high-risk areas. Every wildfire creates an opportunity to mitigate future wildfire risk through recovery with the application of strong codes and standards.
The State of California is a mandatory building code state. California first mandated building code adopted locally in 1978 with state legislation (SB 331, Robbins) requiring that building standards be unified in a single code within the California Code of Regulations, designated as Title 24, the California Building Standards Code. The basis for the California Building Code has always been the International Building Code (IBC), or its predecessor, the Uniform Building Code. The IBC has always included requirements for fire and smoke protection features, but the first edition of the IBC, which was adopted in 2000, was the first time these requirements were codified in a single, comprehensive building code.
Chapter 7 of the IBC includes detailed requirements for fire and smoke protection features, including the following:
• Fire-resistance-rated construction: This includes requirements for the fire resistance of structural members, walls, partitions, and horizontal assemblies.
• Fire alarm systems: The IBC specifies requirements for the installation and maintenance of fire alarm systems.
• Fire suppression systems: The IBC includes requirements for fire suppression systems, such as sprinkler systems.
• Smoke control systems: The IBC includes requirements for smoke control systems, such as smoke vents and exhaust fans.
Working under the premise that any structure not built to Chapter 7 of the IBC standards would be more vulnerable to fire starts from ember transport by high winds, and that any structure not held to any codes or standards would be the most vulnerable, an exposure analysis was performed using the date of construction as an identifier for potential vulnerability. Table 12-7 shows residential building counts in the following categories:
• Structures built before 1978, where codes and standards were not required by state mandate.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-15
• Structures built between 1978 and 2000, where codes and standards applied to new construction, but not with specificity to smoke and fire protection.
• Structures built after 2000 where application of Chapter 7 of the IBC is applied.
Table 12-7. General Building Stock by Date of Construction Building Code Milestone Residential (includes multi-family) Built before 1978 17,037
Built between 1978 and 2000 4,062
Built after 2000 1,375
Total 22,474
With over 17,037 residential structures in the Planning Area built before 1978, there could be an assumed level of vulnerability to that building stock from wildfire risk, assuming exposure to ember casting from regional wildfires. The degree of vulnerability is uncertain, but any structure built before 1978, surrounded by tree canopy, would be considered to be the highest degree of risk.
12.2.4 Impact on Community Lifelines
All community lifelines located in the FHSZ are exposed and vulnerable to the wildfire hazard and are likely to experience functional downtime following wildfire events that could increase the overall impact of such events. Wildfires can have an impact on water supplies because of residual pollutants like char or debris landing in water resources which can clog wastewater pipes, culverts, etc. Wildfires may also impact transportation routes, blocking residents and commuters from getting in and out of the City during a wildfire event because of heavy smoke making it difficult to drive, or where the flames have close proximity to the roadways, making the route an unsafe passageway.
Refer to Table 12-8 for a summary of community lifelines located in the Palos Verdes Peninsula that are in the moderate, high, and very high fire severity zones.
Table 12-8. Community Lifelines in Wildfire Severity Zones City
CommunicationsEnergyFood, Hydration, ShelterHazardous MaterialsHealth and MedicalSafety and SecurityTransportationWater SystemsTotal Moderate FHSZ
Palos Verdes Estates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rancho Palos Verdes 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Rolling Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Rolling Hills Estates 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3
Total 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 6
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-16
City
CommunicationsEnergyFood, Hydration, ShelterHazardous MaterialsHealth and MedicalSafety and SecurityTransportationWater SystemsTotal High FHSZ
Palos Verdes Estates 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 4
Rancho Palos Verdes 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
Rolling Hills 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Rolling Hills Estates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 3 0 0 0 1 4 0 2 10
Very High FHSZ
Palos Verdes Estates 11 1 0 0 0 5 1 1 19
Rancho Palos Verdes 92 1 0 0 0 5 0 7 105
Rolling Hills 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
Rolling Hills Estates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 104 2 0 0 0 12 1 9 128
12.2.5 Impact on the Economy
Wildfires can have both positive and negative effects on local economies. Positive effects come from economic activity generated in the community during fire suppression and post-fire rebuilding. However, local economies only experience positive effects if fire suppression spending and contracting is done locally. In addition, future benefits are only possible if the fire stimulates, rather than stops, economic development efforts associated with recovery.
Factors that affect state and local budgets in the long-term include the following:
• Replacement of lost facilities and associated infrastructure, • Watershed and water quality mitigation, and
• Sensitive species and habitat restoration.
Of the Planning Area’s $24.1 billion in total replacement cost values of structures, 32.9 percent ($7.94 billion) are exposed to the FHSZs.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-17
Table 12-9. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of Buildings Located in the FHSZs City
Total
Replacement
Cost Value
Exposed
Structure Value
Exposed
Contents Value Total Exposed
% Total Value
Exposed
Moderate FHSZ
Palos Verdes
Estates
$5,778,400,360 $281,620,930 $140,810,465 $422,431,394 7.3% Rancho Palos
Verdes
$12,883,794,425 $552,700,048 $286,401,758 $839,101,806 6.5% Rolling Hills $1,071,504,628 $50,298,617 $25,175,614 $75,474,231 7.0% Rolling Hills
Estates
$4,372,243,176 $175,944,992 $127,639,484 $303,584,475 6.9% Total 24,105,942,589 $1,060,564,586 $580,027,321 $1,640,591,906 6.8% High FHSZ
Palos Verdes
Estates
$5,778,400,360 $397,943,708 $240,159,438 $638,103,145 11.0% Rancho Palos
Verdes
$12,883,794,425 $589,902,680 $313,194,403 $903,097,083 7.0% Rolling Hills $1,071,504,628 $109,085,109 $60,866,035 $169,951,144 15.9% Rolling Hills
Estates
$4,372,243,176 $83,180,192 $42,629,284 $125,809,476 2.9% Total 24,105,942,589 $1,180,111,689 $656,849,159 $1,836,960,848 7.6% Very High FHSZ
Palos Verdes
Estates
$5,778,400,360 $1,116,478,024 $582,412,258 $1,698,890,281 29.4% Rancho Palos
Verdes
$12,883,794,425 $1,288,574,053 $665,222,293 $1,953,796,347 15.2% Rolling Hills $1,071,504,628 $521,353,242 $261,527,690 $782,880,932 73.1% Rolling Hills
Estates
$4,372,243,176 $18,484,982 $9,276,891 $27,761,872 0.6%
Total 24,105,942,589 $2,944,890,301 $1,518,439,131 $4,463,329,432 18.5%
12.2.6 Impact on Historic and Cultural Resources
The impact to historic cultural resources from direct and indirect exposure to fire and fire-related activities may be swift and detrimental. Wildfires can rapidly engulf historic buildings, archaeological sites, and culturally significant landscapes, leading to irreversible loss of heritage. The loss of such historic and cultural resources would not only erase tangible connections to the past but also diminish the cultural richness and historical continuity of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
12.2.7 Impact on Ecosystems and Natural Resources
Wildfires present a serious threat to the Palos Verdes Peninsula because of its dry grasslands, which become highly flammable during the hot, dry summer months. Watersheds are particularly vulnerable, with fires potentially reducing water supply reliability and compromising water quality through increased
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-18
sedimentation and runoff. Air quality also deteriorates significantly during and after fire events, affecting both human health and environmental conditions.
The aesthetic and recreational value of the Planning Area is another major concern. Large-scale fires can scar scenic landscapes and recreational areas, diminishing the visual appeal that draws tourists and outdoor enthusiasts. The loss of these resources would have profound ecological and economic consequences.
12.2.8 Change in Vulnerability Since the Prior Planning Area HMPs Wildfire vulnerability may have increased slightly due to prolonged drought conditions and increased fuel loads, but not due to population or development changes. The Planning Area’s population has decreased slightly. However, climate-driven changes in fire behavior could elevate risk despite the population change. Climate change has intensified wildfire behavior, with longer fire seasons and more extreme fire weather.
12.3 MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES
Table 12-10 presents a range of potential opportunities considered by the Planning Partnership for mitigating the wildfire hazard.
Table 12-10. Potential Opportunities to Mitigate the Wildfire Hazard Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
Manipulate the Hazard
• Clear potential fuels on
property such as dry
overgrown underbrush and
diseased trees
• Clear potential fuels on
property such as dry
overgrown underbrush and
diseased trees
• Clear potential fuels on
property such as dry
overgrown underbrush and
diseased trees
• Implement best management
practices on public lands
Reduce Exposure and Vulnerability
• Create and maintain defensible
space around structures and
provide water on site
• Locate outside of hazard area
• Mow regularly
• Use fire-resistant building
materials
• Create and maintain defensible
space around structures and
infrastructure and provide
water on site
• Locate outside of hazard area
• Use fire-resistant building
materials
• Use fire-resistant plantings in
buffer areas of high wildfire
threat
• Create and maintain defensible
space around structures and
infrastructure
• Locate outside of hazard area
• Enhance building code to
include use of fire-resistant
materials in high hazard area
• Use fire-resistant plantings in
buffer areas of high wildfire
threat
• Consider higher regulatory
standards (such as Class A
roofing)
• Establish biomass reclamation
activities
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wildfire 12-19
Community Scale Organizational Scale Government Scale
• In high-risk areas, use heatresistant materials like welded steel, and avoid heatsusceptible materials like
polyvinyl chloride and highdensity polyethylene
Build Local Capacity
• Employ techniques from the
National Fire Protection
Association’s Firewise
Communities program to
safeguard home
• Identify alternative water
supplies for firefighting
• Install/replace roofing material
with non-combustible roofing
materials
• Support Firewise community
initiatives
• Create/establish stored water
supplies to be utilized for
firefighting
• More public outreach and
education efforts, including an
active Firewise program
• Identify fire response and
alternative evacuation routes
• Seek alternative water supplies
• Become a Firewise community
• Use academia to study
impacts/solutions to wildfire
risk
• Establish/maintain mutual aid
agreements between fire
service agencies
• Develop, adopt, and implement
integrated plans for mitigating
wildfire impacts in wildland
areas bordering on
development
• Consider the probable impacts
of climate change on the risk
associated with the wildfire
hazard in future land use
decisions
• Provide incentives for existing
structures to be hardened
against wildfire
• Use tools to detect, forecast,
and take action ahead of
wildfire
Nature-based Opportunities
• Manage invasive species that are susceptible to increased wildfire risk • Create riparian corridors in wildfire hazard areas as fire breaks • Incorporate nature-based wildfire risk reduction buffers into existing ecosystem-friendly land uses (e.g., green space, trains, or parks)
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Other Hazards of Interest 13-1
13. OTHER HAZARDS OF INTEREST
After reviewing the previous plan and considering options for other hazards of interest to address, the HMPC selected a limited number of hazards of interest to include in the development of this MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The sections below provide short profiles of each hazard of interest, including a qualitative discussion of their potential impact in the Planning Area. No formal risk assessment was performed, no mitigation actions have been developed to address them, and the hazards are not included in the risk ranking. However, all Planning Partners for this plan should be aware of these hazards and take steps to reduce the risks they present whenever it is practical to do so.
13.1 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE
13.1.1 Overview
Malaga Cove Plaza in Palos Verdes Estates has experienced persistent groundwater seepage since the early 1980s, causing building damage and operational difficulties for businesses as water infiltrates foundations and basements. Despite installing dewatering wells, sump pumps, and a subdrain in 1997, these measures have become costly and increasingly ineffective, leaving the area vulnerable to recurring water intrusion. Geophysical studies show that variable subsurface conditions such as sand layers of differing thickness interspersed with low permeability clay cause groundwater to accumulate and flow laterally along permeable zones, producing seepage along streets aligned with these pathways. Additionally, fractured rock associated with the Palos Verdes and Cabrillo fault zones provides further conduits for groundwater movement toward the plaza. Combined with steep local topography that channels surface and subsurface water northward, along with infiltration from rainfall and irrigation at higher elevations, these factors continuously drive groundwater toward Malaga Cove Plaza.
13.1.2 Identified Groundwater Seepage
Groundwater seepage is the slow movement of water through soil or rock until it reaches the ground surface or enters nearby structures. It occurs when water stored below the surface follows natural openings or permeable layers and moves in response to pressure or elevation differences. This process can lead to moisture intrusion, flooding, or structural impacts when the water emerges in developed areas.
13.1.3 Past Events
While groundwater seepage has been present in the Malaga Cove area for many years, in the spring of 1993, water seeping through foundations prompted the City to implement dewatering measures. These measures proved effective for the time being but gradually decreased in effectiveness. Water intrusion occurred again in September of 2023, prompting the City to begin investigating a new solution.
13.1.4 Location and Extent
Malaga Cove Plaza has experienced periodic groundwater seepage along Via Campesina and Via Chico since the 1980s. Seepage occurs where natural drainage paths direct water from higher elevations
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Other Hazards of Interest 13-2
toward the plaza. This site sits atop fine-grained lagoon, beach, and dune sands that facilitate groundwater movement. Rainfall and irrigation from higher ground increase the amount of water soaking into these sandy soils, leading to more water movement below the surface and visible seepage.
Hydrogeological studies show that this issue is shaped by a mix of drainage patterns, the area’s landscape, how easily water passes through the soil, and the presence of geological faults.
13.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
13.2.1 Overview
Hazardous substances including chemicals, petroleum products, explosives, radiological materials are regularly used and transported within and through the Planning Area. As technology continues to advance, the processes involving these materials are becoming increasingly complex. Their movement by rail, highway, air, and pipeline introduces distinct challenges in the event of an accidental release.
13.2.2 Identified Hazardous Materials Hazards
The Palos Verdes Peninsula does not contain any sites currently designated under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund program. The former Montrose Chemical Corporation facility, located in the adjacent City of Torrance, is listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL). This facility manufactured dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) until operations ceased in 1982.
DDT has since been prohibited in most countries due to its well-documented adverse environmental effects, including persistence in ecosystems, bioaccumulation within the tissues of organisms, and longterm ecological and toxicological impacts. Concerns include soil contamination, groundwater contamination, and the effects of contaminated wastewater discharge. Cleanup and containment efforts have been ongoing since the facility closed.
Located just over a mile from the Montrose Superfund site lies the Del Amo site, where synthetic rubber was manufactured between 1943 and 1972. The site was placed on the National Priorities List in 1997 after soil and groundwater contamination was discovered. Today, much of the property has been transformed into an industrial park, though environmental cleanup continues. Groundwater contamination remains a significant issue, though no drinking water sources have been found to be affected at present. The site overlaps with the Montrose Superfund site and contamination from both sites have comingled to create “dual-site groundwater.”
13.2.3 Past Events
According to the California Office of Emergency Services, 593 reported spills have occurred between 2019 and 2024 on the peninsula and in neighboring municipalities (Torrance, Long Beach, Lomita, and Wilmington). These spills include but are not limited to vapor, chemical, petroleum, and sewer.
Hazardous spills most commonly occur on waterways, roadways, and at residences. Impacts of hazardous spills may include the following:
• Potential for fires and explosions
• Disruption of transportation systems
• Destruction of utilities and other public services
• Damage to public infrastructure and facilities
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Other Hazards of Interest 13-3
• Residential displacement, including evacuations
• Individuals trapped and injured in unsafe conditions
• Health issues related to discharges or releases
• Need for emergency food, shelter, and medical care
• Economic impacts, both short- and long-term
• Water pollution and quality degradation
13.2.4 Location and Extent
The Planning Area does not have any heavy industry, which reduces the amount of hazardous materials in the area. The following locations, however, could subject the Planning Area to significant hazardous materials incidents:
1. Kaiser Medical Hospital – located along the Planning Area’s northeastern boundary
2. Pacific Coast Highway – arterial highway; potential transportation incidents
3. Interstate 110 – located east of the Planning Area; potential transportation incidents
4. Ports – Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach; potential hazardous materials/ terrorism/ transportation incidents
5. Oil Refineries – located on Lomita Boulevard and the Crenshaw Boulevard Torrance Refinery; potential hazardous materials incident; oil refineries located in north Torrance could present air quality issues in the event of an accident
6. LAX Airport – located north of the Planning Area; potential hazardous materials/ terrorism/ transportation incidents
The Planning Area generally experiences mild to warm temperatures throughout the year, with light winds most of the time. During the day, gentle offshore breezes usually blow in from the northwest. At times, these breezes are replaced by powerful Santa Ana winds coming from the northeast. Santa Ana winds are strongest in the fall and winter and can reach speeds of up to 70 mph.
The regular offshore breezes often help clear away airborne pollutants. However, during the summer, a layer of warm air can form above the area. This prevents pollutants from dispersing and traps them near the ground. When pollutants build up, air quality worsens, which can increase health risks for the community.
13.3 HUMAN-CAUSED
13.3.1 Overview
Human-caused events are potentially life-threatening incidents initiated by individuals or groups with the intent to disrupt the public. Although no significant human-caused events have been documented within the Planning Area to date, it remains essential for municipalities to be prepared for these occurrences.
Examples include terrorism, cyberterrorism, civil disorder, and active shooter incidents. Notably, areas immediately adjacent to the Planning Area have experienced such events, indicating that the peninsula should also be regarded as vulnerable to these potential threats.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Other Hazards of Interest 13-4
13.3.2 Identified Human-Caused Hazards
Terrorism
Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property, carried out with the intent to intimidate, coerce, or extort. These acts are intending to instill fear within the public, sow doubt in governmental institutions, and generate publicity for political, ideological, or religious causes.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation recognizes two primary categories of terrorism within the United States:
• Domestic Terrorism: Activities perpetrated by individuals or groups whose operations are directed at elements of the U.S. government or civilian population without foreign influence. • International Terrorism: Activities perpetrated by individuals or groups that are foreign based, directed by entities outside the United States, or that transcend national boundaries in scope, impact, or intent.
Terrorist incidents may take multiple forms, depending on the technological capabilities of the perpetrators, the motivations driving the act, and the vulnerabilities of the intended target. While bombings remain the most frequently employed method within the United States, other potential scenarios include attacks on transportation systems, utilities, public services, or the deployment of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents.
Cyberterrorism
Cyber terrorism refers to the deliberate use of digital technologies, computer systems, and networks to conduct terrorist activities. These intentional, large-scale disruptions of information systems and critical infrastructure are often carried out through malicious tools such as computer viruses or ransomware and may originate from anywhere in the world. Unlike conventional cybercrime, which is typically motivated by financial gain, cyber terrorism is distinguished by its intent to instill fear, cause widespread disruption, undermine public confidence, or advance political, ideological, or religious objectives.
Potential impacts extend beyond individual users to include government operations, private-sector enterprises, and essential services that are part of the interconnected system.
Civil Disorder
Civil disorder, also referred to as civil unrest or civil strife, is a broad term commonly used by law enforcement and emergency management agencies to describe disturbances involving groups of people. Such disturbances may arise as organized protests addressing significant socio-political issues, or they may manifest as expressions of antisocial behavior that disrupt public order and safety.
Civil disturbances can vary widely in scope and intent. While some events are peaceful demonstrations protected under constitutional rights, others may escalate into disruptive or violent activities that strain public safety resources, disrupt essential services, and create risks to both property and human life.
Active Shooter
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Other Hazards of Interest 13-5
To date, there have been no reported active shooter events within the Planning Area. However, active shooter incidents have tragically occurred in schools, workplaces, and public venues across the United States in recent years, underscoring the need for preparedness at the local level.
One of the most devastating examples occurred on February 14, 2018, when a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, killing 17 students and staff members and injuring 17 others. This incident is recognized as one of the deadliest high school shootings in U.S. history. Similarly, on December 14, 2012, an active shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killed 20 children and six staff members, marking one of the most tragic school shootings in the nation. These events highlight the unpredictable nature of active shooter incidents, which can occur in any community, at any time.
A police officer stands outside the site of the deadly Monterey Park Shooting, the worst mass shooting in Los Angeles County History. Source: ABC News
13.3.3 Past Events
Over the past five years, Los Angeles County has experienced a number of human-driven crises. In 2023, a 72-year-old shooter killed 11 and injured 9 after opening fire on the Star Ballroom Dance Studio in Monterey Park. . In 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detentions and a sense of alarm over what many viewed as a weakening of democratic institutions caused civil unrest, as these operations impacted communities’ abilities to continue their daily routines, increasing community need
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Other Hazards of Interest 13-6
for lifeline services and impacting the economy, as many workers were detained or feared going to work due to ICE operations. Between 2020-2024, 24 active shooter incidents occurred in California.
13.3.4 Location and Extent
Human-caused hazards can unfold anywhere, at any time. Within California and Los Angeles County, the spectrum of potential terrorist targets is extensive. These include government facilities, educational institutions, religious sites, public gathering venues (such as shopping centers and entertainment facilities), abortion clinics, energy and utility infrastructure, transportation networks, oil refineries, water storage facilities, financial institutions, and locations associated with high-profile individuals. Active shooter incidents likewise vary based on perpetrator target and can occur anywhere. Technological advancements have created opportunities for cybercriminals to launch attacks from any part of the world and impact any location.
13.4 UTILITY RELATED
13.4.1 Overview
Utility related events include power failure or stoppages, water stoppages, and natural gas stoppages.
Utility service interruptions are usually initiated by providers in response to severe weather, necessary repairs, or safety concerns. Severe weather events such as high winds, wildfires, extreme heat and heavy rainfall can disrupt service delivery by placing strain on or damaging critical infrastructure. Restoring service after an outage can take anywhere from several hours to multiple days, depending on the severity of the damage. Repair crews are unable to begin restoration efforts until the immediate threat has subsided and preliminary cleanup is underway. Temporary interruptions in essential utilities may disproportionately harm vulnerable communities. When stoppages and outages coincide with severe weather, they can amplify already dire conditions in the community.
13.4.2 Identified Utility Related Hazards
Power Failure/Stoppages
Stoppages take place when electricity demand on the grid is set to exceed the available supply.
Brownouts happen when utility companies intentionally lower the load to prevent full blackouts caused by system overload. These partial outages may involve rotating power outages across different parts of the service area or lowering the voltage being delivered. A power failure, by contrast, is an unplanned, complete loss of electricity that occurs when equipment in the grid breaks down or when severe weather damages power lines or transformers.
Water Stoppages
Although it is rare for water utilities to shut down during severe weather, service may be interrupted if water pressure falls below safe levels for public distribution. This can happen when extremely cold temperatures cause widespread pipe bursts, leading to significant water loss.
Natural Gas Stoppages
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Other Hazards of Interest 13-7
Stoppages are implemented by providers as a precaution against fires, explosions, and leaks, or as a direct response to these events. Landslides pose a massive threat to gas pipelines, as the ground movement may severely damage infrastructure. Gas lines are also often shut off in areas where there is a high risk of wildfire activity.
13.4.3 Past Events
Although the peninsula has not recently experienced a natural gas leak/spill, some residents have experienced prolonged periods of time without natural gas delivery due to land movement. Utilities shut off natural gas services in some areas and relocated pipelines in response to accelerating land movement in 2024. An example of a natural gas pipeline leak within Los Angeles County is outlined below.
Protesters sit outside of the Porter Ranch Neighborhood in response to the gas leak: LA Times On October 23, 2015, a natural gas storage well in Porter Ranch failed, triggering a massive and uncontrolled leak. The incident forced 5,000 families to relocate, while more than 130,000 people lived within 5 miles of the site. The leak continued until February 12, 2016, releasing over 100,000 metric tons of methane and ethane into the atmosphere. Since then, many residents have reported ongoing health problems linked to the disaster. In December 2022, the University of California, Los Angeles launched a 5-year study to evaluate both the short- and long-term health impacts on those who lived near the affected area.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Other Hazards of Interest 13-8
13.4.4 Location and Extent
Utility interruptions that affect residents on the peninsula may originate in the Planning Area, somewhere in Los Angeles County, or somewhere else in the state. Most natural gas is transported through pipelines, and pipelines can be found throughout the Planning Area.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Hazard Ranking 14-1
14. HAZARD RANKING
The prioritization and categorization of identified hazards for the Planning Area is based on the Priority Risk Index (PRI), a tool used to measure the degree of risk for identified hazards in a particular Planning Area. The PRI was used to assist the Planning Partnership in identifying hazards that pose the most significant threat to the Peninsula.
The PRI results provide a numerical value for each hazard, allowing hazards to be ranked against one another (i.e., the higher the PRI value, the greater the hazard risk). PRI values are obtained by assigning varying degrees of risk to five categories for each hazard: probability, impact, spatial extent, warning time, and climate change.
Each degree of risk has been assigned a value (1 to 4) and a weighting factor.
To calculate the PRI value for a given hazard, the assigned risk value for each category is multiplied by the weighting factor. The sum of all five categories equals the final PRI value, as demonstrated in the example equation below:
PRI VALUE = [(PROBABILITY x .30) + (IMPACT x .30) + (SPATIAL EXTENT x .20) + (WARNING TIME x .10) + (CLIMATE CHANGE x .10)]
According to the weighting scheme applied, the highest possible PRI value is 4.0. Table 14-1 shows the weighting schemes for each category. The assigned weighting factors are typical for hazard mitigation planning efforts. The Planning Partners had the option to amend these values if desired if additional factors should be considered for their individual hazard rankings. The final rankings for each Planning Partner are included in the jurisdictional annexes in Volume 2. By determining a value for each hazard that can be compared to other hazards threatening the Planning Area, hazards can be ranked with greater ease.
Many of the PRI categories are described within the natural hazard profiles. A hazard risk ranking for each hazard of concern was assigned to the range of PRI values as follows:
• 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 to 4.0 = High Hazard Risk Ranking
The final PRI results, including the calculated values for each hazard in the Planning Area are found in Table 14-2.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Hazard Ranking 14-2
Table 14-1. Priority Risk Index Scoring Criteria
PRI
Category
Degree of Risk Assigned
Weighting
Level Criteria Factor
Index
Value
Probability
Unlikely Less than 1% annual probability 1
30%
Possible Between 1% and 10% annual probability 2
Likely Between 10% and 90% annual probability 3
Highly Likely 90%+ annual probability 4
Impact
Minor
Only minor property damage and minimal disruption to
government functions and services. No shutdown of
critical facilities.
1 30%
Limited
Minor injuries to the total and socially vulnerable
population are possible, more than 10% of buildings
damaged or destroyed, temporary shutdown of critical
facilities (less than 1 week).
2 Critical
Multiple deaths/injuries to the total and socially
vulnerable population are possible, more than 25% of
buildings damaged or destroyed, complete shutdown of
critical facilities for more than 1 week.
3 Catastrophic
High number of deaths/injuries to the total and socially vulnerable population are possible, more than 50% of
buildings damaged or destroyed, complete shutdown of
critical facilities for 30 days or more.
4 Spatial
Extent
Negligible Limited to one specific area. 1
20%
Small Small areas affected. 2
Moderate Large areas affected. 3
Large All areas affected. 4
Warning
Time
More than
24 hours Self-explanatory 1
10%
12 to 24
hours Self-explanatory 2
6 to 12 hours Self-explanatory 3
Less than
6 hours Self-explanatory 4
Climate
Change
Decreasing
Risk
Climate change is likely to result in a decrease in the frequency and/or severity of hazard events.
1 10%
No Impact Climate change is not expected to impact frequency and/or severity of hazard events. 2
Risk Unknown Not enough data currently exists to make accurate projections on the impact of climate change on hazard
events.
3 Increasing
Risk
Climate change is likely to result in an increase in the frequency/severity of hazard events. 4
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Hazard Ranking 14-3
Table 14-2. Priority Risk Index Scoring Criteria
Hazard Probability Impact
Spatial
Extent
Warning
Time
Climate
Change PRI
Risk
Ranking
Drought 1.2 .30 .80 .10 .40 2.8 Medium
Earthquake 1.2 .60 .80 .40 .20 3.2 High
Flood 1.2 .30 .20 .10 .40 2.2 Medium
Heat Wave 1.2 .90 .80 .20 .40 3.5 High
Landslide 1.2 .90 .60 .40 .40 3.5 High
Strong Wind 1.2 .90 .80 .20 .40 3.5 High
Wildfire .90 .90 .60 .40 .40 3.2 High
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Highway 49 (Photo Credit: LeTina Vanetti)
Part 3
Mitigation Strategy
Foxtail Agave, Palos Verdes Peninsula (Photo Credit: Megan Brotherton) Page 343 of 675 Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Mitigation Strategy 15-1
15. MITIGATION STRATEGY
15.1 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS MITIGATION ACTIONS
Local Plan Requirement E2 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(d)(3)
The plan must document how the plan was reviewed and revised to document changes in development, progress in mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities.
The prior individual Planning Partner mitigation plans identified recommended mitigation actions. For this MJHMP, the actions were reviewed by the Planning Partners, who provided a status update using the following guidance:
• No Progress – The mitigation action has not been completed. • In Progress – Implementation of the mitigation action has begun but has not been completed. • Ongoing Capability – The mitigation action has been implemented and will be completed on an annual or regular basis (for example, maintenance activities, annual outreach, etc.). These actions were removed from the updated mitigation strategy and included as jurisdictional capabilities in their respective annexes in Volume 2.
• Completed – The mitigation action has been fully implemented and was removed from the updated mitigation strategy.
Actions that were in progress or had no progress were evaluated to determine if they should be discontinued or included in this MJHMP. Reasons for discontinuing an action include that the action has been evaluated as being duplicative, impractical, unfeasible, or undesirable, or if the problem that the action was originally developed for is no longer present. Actions that were identified for inclusion in the updated mitigation strategy received additional evaluation to determine if the action should be revised to reflect any new information obtained as part of the plan update process (for example, changes in risk, capabilities, lead agency, or available funding sources).
15.1.1 Mitigation Accomplishments Since the Prior Mitigation Planning Efforts • Dewatering wells – Installed and maintained as funds are available. • Stabilization of the San Ramon Canyon and adjacent roadways; diverting runoff to minimize Tarapaca landslide movement, mudslides, and flooding on PVDS/25th Street.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Mitigation Strategy 15-2
15.2 MITIGATION GOALS
Local Plan Requirement C3 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(3)(i)
The mitigation strategy must include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid longterm vulnerabilities to identified hazards.
Mitigation goals represent broad statements that are consistent with the hazards identified in the MJHMP and achieved through the implementation of specific mitigation actions. The HMPC developed mitigation goals to reflect the current focus of Palos Verde Peninsula and its participating jurisdictions. The HMPC determined the following goals for this MJHMP:
• Goal 1. Reduce risk to life, property, community lifelines, the environment, and infrastructure from natural hazards and climate change.
• Goal 2. Expand and improve public awareness of hazards, risk, and mitigation strategies.
• Goal 3. Strengthen partnerships and communication
among government agencies, private sector businesses,
community-based, and nonprofit organizations.
• Goal 4. Integrate mitigation principles into regulations, policies, programs, and guidance to support equitable
outcomes to benefit the whole community.
• Goal 5. Conserve, enhance, rehabilitate, and protect natural and cultural resources from hazards to provide a more resilient and sustainable community.
Goals are directly linked to the mitigation actions identified in each jurisdictional annex in Volume 2.
15.3 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
Local Plan Requirement C3 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(3)(ii) The mitigation strategy shall include a section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effect of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.
A range of potential mitigation opportunities is included in each hazard risk assessment in Chapter 6 through Chapter 0. The potential actions are categorized by the following:
• Who may implement the action:
o Community scale (individuals or groups)
o Organizational scale (businesses, nonprofits, community-based organizations) o Government scale (any government agency that has permit authorities and police powers within the Planning Area)
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Mitigation Strategy 15-3
• What the alternative would do:
o Manipulate the hazard (actions to prevent hazard events from occurring) o Reduce exposure and vulnerability (actions to safeguard people, property, and the environment from the impacts of the hazard)
o Build local capacity (actions to improve abilities to mitigate and respond to hazard events)
o Use nature-based solutions (actions that use green solutions to mitigate the hazard and provide additional environmental services)
15.4 DEVELOPING MITIGATION ACTIONS
Local Plan Requirement C3 – 44 CFR Part
201.6(c)(3)(ii)
Local Plan Requirement C3 – 44 CFR Part
201.6(c)(3)(iii)
The mitigation strategy shall include a section that
identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of
specific mitigation actions and projects being
considered to reduce the effect of each hazard, with
particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and
infrastructure.
The hazard mitigation strategy shall include an
action plan, describing how the action identified in
paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section will be
prioritized, implemented, and administered by the
local jurisdiction.
Each jurisdiction reviewed the results of the risk and capability assessments, previous mitigation strategy, mitigation goals, catalogs of mitigation alternatives and selected actions to be included in their mitigation strategy in their jurisdictional annexes in Volume 2 of this plan.
15.5 PRIORITIZING MITIGATION ACTIONS
Local Plan Requirement E2 – 44 CFR Part
201.6(d)(3)
Local Plan Requirement C3 – 44 CFR Part
201.6(c)(3)(iii)
The plan must document how the plan was reviewed
and revised to document changes in development,
progress in mitigation efforts, and changes in
priorities.
The hazard mitigation strategy shall include an action
plan, describing how the action identified in
paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local
jurisdiction.
A broad range of potential mitigation actions were considered in the prior mitigation plans for this Planning Partnership. Tables in each plan were developed to rank the mitigation projects based on the STAPLEE criteria or a series of 18 questions.
For this MJHMP, the Planning Partnership followed the same prioritization method used in the 2023 California State HMP.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Mitigation Strategy 15-4
15.6 MITIGATION ACTION CATEGORIZATION
The identified mitigation actions are classified by the following action types.
15.6.1 Local Plans and Regulations
These activities are intended to keep hazard problems from getting worse and are typically administered through programs or regulatory actions that influence the way land is developed and assets are built. In the context of this plan, these measures also include security initiatives. Planning and regulatory measures are particularly effective in reducing a jurisdiction’s future vulnerability, especially in areas where development has not occurred, or capital improvements have not been substantial. Examples of these activities include the following:
• Planning and zoning
• Open space preservation
• Floodplain regulations
• Stormwater management regulations
• Drainage system maintenance
• Capital improvement programs
• Riverine / fault zone setbacks
• Security measures
15.6.2 Structure and Infrastructure Projects
These activities involve the modification of existing buildings, assets, and structures to help them better withstand the forces of a hazard, or removal of the structures from hazardous locations. Examples include the following:
• Acquisition
• Relocation
• Asset and building elevation
• Structural retrofitting
• Safe rooms, shutters, shatter-resistant
glass
• Road and bridge infrastructure
improvements
• Reservoirs
• Dams, levees, dikes, and floodwalls
• Diversions, detention, retention
• Stormwater infrastructure expansion
• Water, sewer, or other utility
infrastructure improvements
15.6.3 Education and Awareness Programs
Education and awareness activities are used to advise residents, elected officials, business owners, potential property buyers, and visitors about hazards, hazardous areas, and mitigation techniques they can use to protect themselves and their property. Examples of measures to educate and inform the public include the following:
• Outreach projects
• Speaker series and demonstration
events
• Hazard map information
• Library materials
• School-age educational programs
• Hazard expositions
• Social media campaigns
• Warning and communication systems
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Mitigation Strategy 15-1
15.6.4 Natural Systems Protection
Natural systems protection activities reduce the impact of natural hazards by preserving or restoring natural areas and their protective functions. Such areas include floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes, in addition to the following:
• Floodplain protection
• Watershed management
• Riparian buffers
• Habitat preservation
• Erosion and sediment control
• Wetland preservation and restoration
• Slope stabilization
• Forest and vegetation management
(e.g., fire resistant landscaping, fuel
breaks, etc.)
• Green infrastructure
15.6.5 Climate Resiliency
Climate resiliency actions incorporate methods to mitigate or adapt to the impacts of the changing climate. Examples include the following:
• Aquifer storage and recovery
• Incorporating future conditions projections in planning and project design • Actions that specifically address climate change risks such as drought and extreme heat
15.6.6 Community Capacity Building
These actions increase local capabilities to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences of hazards. Examples include the following:
• Staff training
• Memorandums of understanding
• Development of plans and studies
• Monitoring programs
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Mitigation Strategy 15-1
Part 4
Maintaining the Plan
Palos Verdes Peninsula Flora (Photo Credit: Megan Brotherton)
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Adopting and Maintaining the Mitigation Plan 16-1
16. ADOPTING AND MAINTAINING THE
MITIGATION PLAN
16.1 PLAN ADOPTION
Local Plan Requirement F1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(5)
The plan shall include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan.
DMA compliance and its benefits can only be achieved after the Plan is adopted. For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval must document that has been formally adopted. The Planning Partnership has chosen the option for pre-approval adoption. Each City Council and District Board will adopt this plan while it is being reviewed by Cal OES and FEMA Region 9. Copies of the FEMA approval and Planning Partner resolutions adopting this plan can be found in Appendix G of this volume.
16.2 PLAN MAINTENANCE
This section describes a formal plan maintenance process to ensure that the hazard mitigation plan remains an active and relevant document. The Assistant to the City Manager for Rolling Hills Estates will take the lead on monitoring, evaluating, and updating the MJHMP over the 5-year performance period, in coordination with all Planning Partners. This position will rotate among the participating cities for each subsequent update. Table 16-1 summarizes this plan maintenance strategy. The sections below further describe each element.
Table 16-1. Plan Maintenance Matrix
Approach Timeline Lead Responsibility
Plan Monitoring
Track the implementation of plan
actions
Continuous All Planning Partners will report
annually or in alignment with
potential grant opportunities to
Assistant to the City Manager for
Rolling Hills Estates on action
implementation. Points of contact
are listed in Volume 2.
Plan Evaluation
Review the status of previous
actions; assess changes in risk;
evaluate success of integration
Upon initiation of hazard mitigation
plan update, comprehensive
General Plan update, or major
disaster
All Planning Partners
Grant Notification
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Adopting and Maintaining the Mitigation Plan 16-2 Approach Timeline Lead Responsibility
Assistant to the City Manager for
Rolling Hills Estates will notify
Planning Partners of grant funding
opportunities to fund actions
identified in this plan
Continuous, as grants become
available
Assistant to the City Manager for
Rolling Hills Estates
Plan Update
Initiate the process to
comprehensively update the plan
at least every 5 years.
At the end of year 3, coordinate
with the Planning Partners, and
work to identify grant funding
opportunity for update. Obtain
grant funding by the end of year 4.
Assistant to the City Manager for
Rolling Hills Estates will lead the
plan update. All Planning Partners
will support the effort.
Integration into Other Planning Mechanisms
Create a linkage between the
hazard mitigation plan and
individual jurisdictions’ general
plans the Community Wildfire
Protection Plan or similar plans
identified in the core capability
assessments
Continuous All Planning Partners
Continuing Public Involvement
Maintain and update the website
with relevant hazard mitigation
information and public
participation opportunities.
Continuous Assistant to the City Manager for
Rolling Hills Estates will lead
continuing public participation. All
Planning Partners will support the
effort.
16.2.1 Integrating the Plan
Local Plan Requirement D3 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(4)(ii) The plan maintenance process shall include a process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.
The Planning Partners will integrate this MJHMP into relevant decision-making processes, plans, or mechanisms, where feasible. This includes integrating the requirements of the MJHMP into other planning documents, processes, or mechanisms, such as strategic planning initiatives, general plans, local capital improvement plans, stormwater plans, emergency plans, and other future plans.
Opportunities to integrate the requirements of this plan into other planning mechanisms shall continue to be identified through future planning efforts. The Planning Partnership outlined the following mechanisms underway and under consideration:
• Ensuring that the goals and mitigation actions of new and updated local planning documents are consistent, or do not conflict with the goals and actions of the HMP and will not contribute to increased hazard vulnerability in the Planning Area.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Adopting and Maintaining the Mitigation Plan 16-3 • Integration of the HMP will be considered on a case-by-case basis and identified at the onset of plan development.
• Integration of the HMP into the capital improvement program scoring criteria (e.g., does the project advance mitigation) will be implemented if deemed feasible.
16.2.2 Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan Through Existing Programs To successfully reduce future losses, implementing the actions within this plan is highly recommended.
The Planning Partners involved a wide range of staff in the plan development process and many departments, divisions, or other partners participating in the Plan are responsible for implementing specific mitigation actions identified by each jurisdiction. Every proposed action listed in the mitigation action plan is assigned to a specific “lead” department or partner in order to assign responsibility and accountability and increase the likelihood of implementation.
In addition to the assignment of a local lead department or partner, an implementation time period or a specific implementation date has been assigned in order to assess whether actions are being implemented in a timely fashion. The Planning Partners will seek outside funding sources to implement mitigation projects in both the pre-disaster and post-disaster environments. When applicable, specific potential funding sources have been identified for proposed actions listed in the mitigation action plan.
The Planning Partnership will meet once annually during the 5-year performance period of this Plan. This frequency of meeting will also assist in implementation, as meetings will be coordinated with the strategic planning process. A key agenda item will be to determine which actions are being implemented by members of the Planning Partnership
16.2.3 Ongoing Public Involvement
Local Plan Requirement D1 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(4)(iii) The plan maintenance process shall include a discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.
Public participation is an integral component to the mitigation planning process and will continue to be essential as this plan evolves over time. Public involvement procedures were reviewed as part of the 2026 MJHMP development process. Significant changes or amendments to the plan shall require an opportunity for public comment prior to any adoption procedures by the Planning Partners. Assistant to the City Manager for Rolling Hills Estates also maintains a hazard mitigation planning website that can be used to provide updates and post the most current version of the plan:
https://www.pvpready.gov/resources/hazard-mitigation/
By keeping the plan available on the website with an invitation and instructions on providing feedback, public awareness will be maintained on a continuous basis. Public comment opportunities will be provided during any process to revise or update the plan, prior to jurisdictional approval and/or adoption.
Other efforts to involve the public in the maintenance, monitoring, evaluation, and revision process will be made as necessary. These efforts may include the following:
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Adopting and Maintaining the Mitigation Plan 16-4 • Posting minutes from Planning Partnership meetings to the hazard mitigation website. • Utilizing available Planning Partner communication channels to update the public on any maintenance and/or periodic review activities taking place. • Keeping a current version on the MJHMP at Planning Partner facilities and on the web page.
Additionally, continued public involvement will be accomplished through implementation of mitigation actions.
16.2.4 Monitoring the Plan
Local Plan Requirement D2 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(4)(i)
The plan shall include a plan maintenance process that includes a section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan within a 5-year-cycle.
Periodic revisions and updates of the Plan are required to ensure that the goals of the Plan are kept current, taking into account potential changes in hazard vulnerability and mitigation priorities. In addition, revisions may be necessary to ensure that the Plan is in full compliance with applicable federal and state regulations. Periodic monitoring and evaluation of the plan will also ensure that specific mitigation actions are being reviewed and carried out according to the mitigation action plan. Monitoring refers to tracking the implementation of the plan over time. Evaluating refers to assessing the overall effectiveness of the plan intent and goals.
The Planning Partnership shall meet once annually to monitor and evaluate the progress attained and to revise, where needed, the activities set forth in the plan. The Assistant to the City Manager for Rolling Hills Estates will be responsible for reconvening the Planning Partnership for these reviews. Plan maintenance meeting agenda templates are included in Appendix E.
The annual meetings provide the Planning Partnership with an opportunity to perform the following:
• Review plan goals.
• Document hazard occurrences that occurred during the prior year and their impacts on the Planning Area.
• Document mitigation action implementation or status.
• Evaluate the mitigation actions that have been successful. • Discuss why mitigation actions were not completed.
• Revise the action plan if new timelines need to be established for projects (e.g., changing a longterm project to a short-term project because of funding availability). • Consider recommendations for new mitigation projects. • Review new funding options, including grant opportunities, and determine if contract grant-writing support is needed to pursue the opportunities.
• Document potential losses avoided due to the implementation of specific mitigation measures or other planning programs, if feasible.
• Identify any new or additional vulnerabilities that may be faced by the Planning Partnership and may need to be addressed in a future update of this plan.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Adopting and Maintaining the Mitigation Plan 16-5 • Update the hazard mapping and impact tool to reflect new or revised hazard data.
Any findings or recommendations made during the annual review shall be documented in the form of a memo that can be shared with the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions and interested stakeholders, including the public, through the website. Further, mitigation action progress can be monitored (i.e., tracked) in an Excel version of the mitigation action plan. The Planning Partnership will also meet following any disaster event warranting a reexamination of the mitigation actions being implemented or proposed for future implementation. This will ensure that the plan is continuously updated to reflect changing conditions and needs within the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
16.2.5 Updating the Plan
Updating
Local Plan Requirement D2 – 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(4)(i)
The plan maintenance process shall include a section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a 5-year cycle.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula MJHMP will be thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Partnership every 5 years in alignment with federal regulations to ensure its consistency with these requirements. This update is also used to determine whether there have been any significant changes in the Planning Area that may, in turn, necessitate changes in the types of mitigation actions proposed, goals, or priorities.
New development in identified hazard areas, an increased exposure to hazards, an increase or decrease in capability to address hazards, and changes to federal or state legislation are examples of factors that may affect the necessary content of the plan. The Assistant to the City Manager for Rolling Hills Estates will be responsible for reconvening the Planning Partnership and conducting the 5-year review. In general, the plan update development process begins approximately 2 years prior to plan expiration. First, resources to develop the plan must be obtained, such as obtaining a planning grant. This will be followed by the plan update process, led by the Core Planning Team and Steering Committee. Upon completion of the review and update/amendment process, the Palos Verdes Peninsula MJHMP will be submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer at Cal OES for a compliance review in accordance with 44 CFR 201.
The plan will then be reviewed by FEMA Region 9. Once an “approved pending adoption” status has been issued by FEMA Region 9, the Planning Partnership can then review, approve, and adopt the plan. The Planning Partnership review consists of final approval by the respective city councils and district boards during their public meetings.
Disaster Declaration
Following a federal disaster declaration, the Palos Verdes Peninsula MJHMP may be revised as necessary to reflect lessons learned, or to address specific issues and circumstances arising from the event. It will be the responsibility of the Assistant to the City Manager for Rolling Hills Estates to reconvene the Planning Partnership and ensure the appropriate stakeholders are invited to participate in the plan revision and update process following declared disaster events.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Adopting and Maintaining the Mitigation Plan 16-6 Plan Amendment Process
Unique circumstances, such as availability of critical data or an omission, may necessitate a plan amendment. Upon the initiation of the amendment process, Assistant to the City Manager for Rolling Hills Estates will forward information on the proposed change(s) to all interested parties including, but not limited to, all directly affected departments, community partners, and customers. Information will also be forwarded to Cal OES and FEMA. This information will be disseminated in order to seek input on the proposed amendment(s) for no less than a 45-day review and comment period (unless circumstances necessitate a shorter review). At the end of the 45-day review and comment period, the proposed amendment(s) and all comments will be forwarded to the Planning Partnership for final consideration. The Planning Partnership will review the proposed amendment along with the comments received from other parties, and if acceptable, the Planning Partnership will submit a recommendation for the approval and adoption of changes to the plan. In determining whether to recommend approval or denial of a plan amendment request, the following factors may be considered by the Planning Partnership:
• There are major errors, inaccuracies, or omissions made in the identification of issues or needs in the Plan.
• New or previously unknown issues or needs have been identified which are not adequately addressed in the Plan.
• There has been a change in information, data, or assumptions from those on which the Plan is based.
If the Planning Partnership opts to move forward with the amendment, the revised plan must be reviewed and approved by Cal OES and FEMA. The Planning Partners will also need to approve the revised plan.
Prior to adoption, Assistant to the City Manager for Rolling Hills Estates shall post the updated plan to the website for public comment. Each participating jurisdiction will review the recommendation from the Planning Partnership (including the factors listed above) and comments received from the public.
Following that review, the governing bodies will take one of the following actions:
• Adopt the proposed amendments as presented.
• Adopt the proposed amendments with modifications.
• Refer the amendments request back to the Planning Partnership for further revision. • Defer the amendment request back to the Planning Partnership for further consideration and/or additional hearings.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix A A-1
APPENDIX A. PUBLIC OUTREACH
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix B B-1
APPENDIX B. HAZARD SELECTION
Refer to the table below for a complete comparison of hazards included in the 2023 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the prior plans from the Planning Partnership, and this plan update.
Table B. Hazard Comparison—State and Palos Verdes Peninsula 2023 California State
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Palos Verdes Estates
2018 Plan, Rancho
Palos Verdes & Rolling
Hills Estates 2020 Plan,
Rolling Hills 2019 Plan
2026 Palos Verdes
Peninsula MultiJurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation
Plan Comment
Air Pollution Not included Wildfire Air pollution from wildfire smoke is a concern for the
Planning Area and is
discussed in the Wildfire
chapter
Civil Disorder Human-Caused Human-Caused Discussed in Other Hazards of Interest
Cyber Threats Human-Caused Human-Caused Discussed in Other Hazards of Interest
Dam Failure Earth Movement Not included The only dam in the Planning Area is decommissioned and
no longer in use
Drought Drought Drought This local hazard aligns with
the State
Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake This local hazard aligns with the State
Electromagnetic Pulse
Attack
Not included Not included Not a concern for the Planning Area
Energy Shortage Not included Utility-Related Discussed in Other Hazards of Interest
Epidemic/Pandemic/VectorBorne DiseaseNot included Not included Addressed in other plans Extreme Cold or Freeze Not included Not included Not a concern for the Planning Area
Extreme Heat Not included Heat Wave This local hazard aligns with the State
Geomagnetic Storm Not included Not included Not a concern for the Planning Area
Hazardous Materials
Release
Hazardous Materials Hazardous
Materials
Discussed in Other Hazards of
Interest
Invasive and Nuisance
Species
Not included Not included Addressed in other plans
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix B B-2
2023 California State
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Palos Verdes Estates
2018 Plan, Rancho
Palos Verdes & Rolling
Hills Estates 2020 Plan,
Rolling Hills 2019 Plan
2026 Palos Verdes
Peninsula MultiJurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation
Plan Comment
Landslide, Debris Flow, and
other Mass Movements
Landslide Landslide This local hazard aligns with
the State
Levee Failure Not included Not included No levees in the Planning Area Natural Gas Pipeline
Hazards
Not included Utility-Related Discussed in Other Hazards of Interest
Oil Spills Not included Not included Not a concern for the Planning Area
Other Potential Long-Term
Electrical Outrages
Not included Not included Addressed in other plans
Public Safety Power Shutoff Utility-Related Utility-Related Discussed in Other Hazards of Interest
Radiological Accidents Not included Not included Not a concern for the Planning Area
Riverine, Stream, and
Alluvial Flood
Flood Flood This local hazard aligns with
the State
Sea-Level Rise, Coastal
Flooding and Erosion
Sea Level Rise Flood Discussed in the Flood chapter
Severe Wind, Weather, and
Storms
Not included Strong Wind This local hazard aligns with
subsections in the SHMP
Snow Avalanche Not included Not included Not a concern for the Planning Area
Subsidence Not included Landslide Discussed in the Landslide chapter
Terrorism Not included Human Caused This local hazard aligns with the State
Transportation accidents
Resulting in Explosions or
Toxic Releases
Not included Not included Not a concern for the Planning Area
Tree Mortality Not included Wildfire Discussed in the Drought and Wildfire chapters
Tsunami and Seiche Not included Flood Tsunami discussed in the Flood chapter
Urban Structural Fire Not included Not included Not a concern for the Planning Area
Volcano Not included Not included Not a concern for the Planning Area
Well Stimulation and
Hydraulic Fracturing
Not included Not included Does not occur in the Planning Area
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix B B-3
2023 California State
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Palos Verdes Estates
2018 Plan, Rancho
Palos Verdes & Rolling
Hills Estates 2020 Plan,
Rolling Hills 2019 Plan
2026 Palos Verdes
Peninsula MultiJurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation
Plan Comment
Wildfire Wildfire Wildfire This local hazard aligns with the State
Not included Not included Groundwater
Seepage
This is a concern for the
Planning Area due to flooding
from the aquifer
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix C C-1
APPENDIX C. MEETING DOCUMENTATION
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix D D-1
APPENDIX D. RISK ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGY
LANDSLIDE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
To help understand the potential impact of the landslide hazard, a probabilistic approach was used to quantify potential impacts for a series of landslide scenarios. These impacts were used to calculate a landslide average annualized loss. The scenarios described in this section are generated using a computer model and are not historical events.
This region experiences two types of landslides: (1) deep-seated landslides which occur with little to no warning causing a range of loss depending on the location and magnitude of the event; and (2) slow, constant landslides which has a movement that is tracked several times a year and causes consistent damage across specific parts of the region. These differences required two approaches for the risk assessment. The deep-seated landslide model uses historical events, soil data, and elevation data to determine where a potential landslide may occur; an inventory model to identify the locations, values, and susceptibilities of the buildings and infrastructure; and damage functions which help quantify the loss. The shallow landslide methodology includes the annual loss due to the slow moving landslide and predicts future losses in the current areas of impact.
The following approach was used to assess the deep-seated landslide risk:
1) Identify Scenarios
2) Calculate Losses
3) Calculate Landslide Annual Average Loss
Step 1: Identify Scenarios
To determine which parts of the region are susceptible to landslides, the landslide inventory from CGS data was used. Figure D-1 shows a map of these historical landslide areas. The scenario areas are modeled in and adjacent to these areas as well as in areas with the same environmental conditions (slope and soil type). A map of the slopes is shown on Figure D-2.
The elevation model was then used to determine the slope’s direction. Areas with a common direction were grouped together in polygons to identify potential landslide scenarios. 750 of these scenarios were identified using this approach. A map of the slope direction is shown on Figure D-3.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix D D-2
Figure D-1. Historical Landslide Occurrences (CGS, 2022) Figure D-2. Steep Slopes
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix D D-3
Figure D-3. Slope Direction (Aspect)
Step 2: Calculate Losses
To calculate losses, the building inventory which was developed for the other hazards in this HMP was used. This inventory includes the structure and content values for each structure. To assign damage and loss to these individual structures, a damage function was identified (refer to Figure D-4). This damage function provided minimum and maximum damage curves based on the overall landslide area so for each scenario, a minimum and maximum damage was identified and multiplied by the structure and contents values to get the loss values. The losses were added up for each scenario.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix D D-4
Figure D-4. Landslide Damage Function (CNR–IRPI, 2007)
Step 3: Calculate Landslide Annual Average Loss
Small landslides occur approximately once every 2 to 7 years in the region, while larger occurrences have a 1 to 2 percent chance of occurring every year1. The losses for the 750 scenarios were sorted based on magnitude and assigned a probability of the occurrence being exceeded. The values for five specific return periods are plotted on Figure D-6. The deep-seated landslide average annual loss is calculated to have an upper bounds of $77,505 and a lower bounds of $44,282.
Figure D-6. Landslide Risk
1 Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2025.
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Landslide Loss ($)
Landslide Probability
Landslide Risk
Upper Bounds
Lower Bounds
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix D D-5
For the shallow, constant landslides, the damage and loss associated with damage to the utilities, roads2, buildings, and other infrastructure; and emergency spending primarily on dewatering is more than $10 million per year3.
2 Background | Rancho Palos Verdes, CA - Official Website 3 Rancho Palos Verdes landslide has slowed with below average rainfall, but costs continue to mount | LAist
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix D D-6
EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY METHODOLOGY
In accordance with guidance provided by the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) for Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMPs), the Palos Verdes Peninsula Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) includes an assessment of populations that may experience disproportionate impacts during hazard events. Cal OES guidance emphasizes identifying communities that may be disadvantaged in preparing for, responding to, or recovering from disasters. This methodology was developed to align with the requirements outlined in the 2023 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) and Appendix M:
Equity Priorities Communities Guidance for LHMPs.
Planning Process and Stakeholder Input
The methodology for identifying Equity Priorities Communities was developed through collaboration with the MJHMP Core Planning Team. Planning partners representing each participating jurisdiction provided local knowledge and guidance in defining vulnerability factors most relevant to the Palos Verdes Peninsula context. This collaborative process ensured that the selected indicators reflect both state guidance and local conditions influencing disaster risk and response capacity.
Rationale for Indicator Selection
Cal OES guidance encourages jurisdictions to use appropriate datasets and analytical approaches to identify populations that may be disproportionately affected by hazards. Commonly used indices, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), rely heavily on socioeconomic variables including income, poverty, and housing conditions. However, given the overall affluence and relatively high socioeconomic status of Palos Verdes Peninsula communities, and the lack of differentiation in the SVI between property and income wealth that impacts the full understanding of vulnerability, particularly on the Peninsula, use of the SVI alone would not effectively capture locally relevant vulnerability conditions.
To address this limitation, the Core Planning Team identified alternative indicators that better reflect potential disaster-related disadvantage within the Planning Area. The selected indicators focus on demographic and physical access characteristics that influence residents’ ability to receive warnings, evacuate safely, and recover following hazard events.
Selected Vulnerability Indicators
Three primary indicators were selected for the Equity Priorities Communities analysis:
1. Age – Census populations aged 65 years and older. Older adults may have mobility limitations, increased medical needs, and greater challenges during evacuation and recovery.
2. Disability Status – Census populations reporting a disability. Individuals with disabilities may face barriers in evacuation, communication, and access to post-disaster services.
3. Evacuation Access Constraints – Residential areas located along road segments with limited ingress and egress options to designated evacuation routes. Limited roadway connectivity may restrict evacuation options during emergencies, increasing exposure to hazard impacts.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix D D-7
These indicators collectively capture social and physical vulnerability factors consistent with CAL OES guidance on identifying communities that may be disproportionately impacted by disasters.
Data Sources
Demographic data for age and disability status were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey at the census tract level. Road network and evacuation route data were compiled from jurisdictional GIS datasets and regional transportation databases.
Demographic Vulnerability Analysis
Demographic vulnerability was evaluated using two indicators: population aged 65 years and older and population reporting a disability. These characteristics are recognized in CAL OES guidance as factors that may increase challenges in receiving warnings, evacuating safely, and accessing post-disaster services.
For each census tract, the percentage of residents aged 65 and older and the percentage of residents with disabilities were calculated. Census tracts were ranked separately for each indicator, with higher ranks representing higher concentrations of potentially vulnerable populations. The two ranks were then added together to produce a combined demographic vulnerability score for each census tract. This ranking approach provides a clear and consistent way to compare demographic vulnerability across the Planning Area.
Ranking of Demographic Vulnerability – Age and Disability Status Census Tract
Total
Population
% With
Disability
Disability
Rank
% of
Population
Over 65
Age
Rank
Total Rank
Score
6704.05 2640 17% 17 36% 16 33
6704.06; 1705 12% 15 29% 12 27
6704.17 2780 13% 16 28% 10 26
6705 1511 9% 11 32% 15 26
6707.02 5891 12% 14 28% 11 25
6703.26 3237 8% 8 32% 14 22
6706.04 4953 8% 9 29% 13 22
6703.24 5485 11% 13 26% 7 20
6702.01 3647 8% 10 28% 9 19
6706.03 1856 6% 2 36% 17 19
6704.18 4438 11% 12 22% 4 16
6703.28 4325 7% 5 26% 8 13
6704.16 4098 8% 6 26% 6 12
6707.01 6460 8% 7 24% 5 12
6704.07 5849 7% 4 22% 3 7
6702.02 2559 6% 3 20% 2 5
6704.13 4801 5% 1 19% 1 2
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix D D-8
Evacuation Access Vulnerability Analysis
A geospatial analysis was conducted to identify neighborhoods that may have limited evacuation options due to roadway layout and connectivity. On the Palos Verdes Peninsula, steep terrain and a limited number of arterial roads mean that some residential areas have only one practical route to reach major evacuation corridors.
Using geographic information system (GIS) software, the local road network was analyzed to identify groups of residential streets that rely on a small number of exit points to connect to the broader road system. These groups of streets were treated as “network islands,” meaning areas that share internal road connections but have limited external connections to major roads.
Neighborhoods were considered vulnerable if they relied on only one practical route to reach an evacuation corridor or the broader road network. Vulnerable road segments and network islands were mapped, and residential address data were used to estimate the number of homes located along these vulnerable roadways. This number was then compared to the total number of residences in each census tract. Those tracts with a higher portion of single ingress/egress roads, including 6705, 6707.02, 6706.04 and 6702.01 are considered priority areas, as they would be more difficult to evacuate during an emergency.
Map of Palos Verdes Peninsula Vulnerability Analysis
Red represents streets. These streets have exactly one viable path leading to an evacuation route. If that path is disrupted, residents would be isolated from major evacuation corridors. Streets that terminate directly onto an evacuation route were not classified as vulnerable.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix D D-9
Integration of Vulnerability Dimensions
The demographic vulnerability analysis and the evacuation access vulnerability analysis measure two distinct dimensions of disaster disadvantage — social sensitivity and physical access constraints.
Because these analyses rely on different units of measurement and represent different aspects of vulnerability, they were not combined into a single composite index.
Instead, both datasets were retained as complementary lenses of vulnerability. In subsequent hazard exposure analyses, hazard footprints were overlaid with the following:
• Census tracts exhibiting elevated demographic vulnerability, and • Neighborhoods exhibiting evacuation access vulnerability.
This dual-overlay approach allows the plan to identify locations where hazard exposure intersects with one or both forms of vulnerability, supporting targeted mitigation strategies, equitable outreach, and informed prioritization of mitigation investments.
Census Tract Total Population
Total Rank Score
(Disability & 65+)
Evacuation Access
Vulnerability
6704.05 2640 33
6704.06; 1705 27
6704.17 2780 26
6705 1511 26 HIGH
6707.02 5891 25 HIGH
6703.26 3237 22
6706.04 4953 22 HIGH
6703.24 5485 20
6702.01 3647 19 HIGH
Use of Results
The resulting Equity Priorities Communities map and associated tract rankings are used to inform mitigation strategy development, prioritize outreach and engagement efforts, and guide equitable allocation of mitigation investments. This approach ensures that mitigation actions consider the needs of populations that may face increased barriers in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery.
Consistency with Cal OES Guidance
This two-part vulnerability assessment approach fulfills Cal OES LHMP requirements for identifying Equity Priorities Communities by the following:
• Using locally appropriate indicators and datasets,
• Incorporating stakeholder input in indicator selection, • Applying transparent and repeatable analytical methods, and • Demonstrating how identified vulnerable communities inform subsequent hazard and mitigation planning decisions.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-1
APPENDIX E. FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES,
PROGRAMS, AND REGULATIONS
FEDERAL
Americans with Disabilities Act
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 Act in emergency management and disasterrelated 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 accessibility needs of people with disabilities, as well as medical needs and service animals.
The ADA intersects with disaster preparedness programs in regard to transportation, social services, temporary housing, and rebuilding. Persons with disabilities may require additional assistance in evacuation and transit (e.g., vehicles with wheelchair lifts 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
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 local 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 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
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
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-2
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, sourceby-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. 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.
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.
Community Development Block Grant Disaster Resilience Program 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 rebuild 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 often 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:
• 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.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-3
Community Rating System
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 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
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
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 roads 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 program is a possible funding source for actions identified in this plan.
Emergency Watershed Program
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program, which responds to emergencies created by natural disasters. Eligibility for
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-4
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
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 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 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
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-5
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 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.
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.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program 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 5 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 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.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-6
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 frequently updated and tested to ensure that everyone knows what to do in emergency situations.
National Dam Safety Act
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 Safety 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
• 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 encourages 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 needed 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
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 decisionmaking 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, 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
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.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-7
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-annualchance 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 data 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 accessible 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, 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 planning 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
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 incident 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 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.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-8
National Landslide Preparedness Act
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 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 wherever there is a 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.
Presidential Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 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.
All actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with all applicable presidential executive orders.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program
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.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-9
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Hazard Management
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-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.
• 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. • 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 nonstructural capital projects to address flood risks at specific locations or within a specific watershed:
o 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 specific authorization from Congress.
o 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, typically at 65 percent federal and 35 percent non-federal.
o Watershed management planning studies can be specifically authorized and are costshared at 50 percent federal and 50 percent non-federal. • 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:
o 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.
o 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 flood fight efforts require a project cooperation agreement signed by 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
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-10
and allows for “advance measures” assistance to prevent or reduce flood damage conditions of imminent threat of unusual flooding.
o 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 predisaster 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 works 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 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 Public Law 106-377, in 2002 under Public Law 107-117, and in 2004 under Public Law 108-439. 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 evaluations 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
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.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-11
STATE
AB 32: The California Global Warming Solutions Act
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 andtrade” 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, 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 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 hardening and facilitate vegetation management, contingent upon appropriation by the Legislature.
AB 70: Flood Liability
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.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-12
AB 162: Flood Planning
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 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 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
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 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
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-13
comply with 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 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 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 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.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-14
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
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 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
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
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 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.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-15
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
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
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 facilitating annual statewide workshops. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and by the DWR.
California Division of Safety of Dams
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
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 development projects. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California state and local agency’s decisionmaking process.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-16
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
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, coordinate, and implement fire prevention activities.
California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan 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
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
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 MultiHazard Mitigation Plan is to reduce or prevent 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
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-17
• 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 (refer to Section 3.7).
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.
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 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 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
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-18
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 federal 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
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, socioeconomic, public 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 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
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:
• 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.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-19
• 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
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 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 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 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 79: Housing Development: Transit-Oriented Development Senate Bill 79, enacted in October 2025, establishes a statewide framework that significantly increases allowable residential density near major transit stops and corridors. Beginning July 1, 2026, Senate Bill 79 requires cities within designated urban transit counties to allow qualifying transit‑oriented housing projects “as an allowed use” on land zoned for residential, mixed‑use, or commercial development within one‑quarter to one‑half mile of major transit stations.
Senate Bill 99: Evacuation Route Planning
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
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-20
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 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 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 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
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 (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.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E E-21
Senate Bill 1035: Fire, Flood, and Adaptation Safety Element Updates 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 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
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 (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.
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix F F-1
APPENDIX F. PLAN MAINTENANCE AGENDAS
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix G G-1
APPENDIX G. FEMA APPROVAL AND PLANNING
PARTNER ADOPTION
PALOS VERDES
PENINSULA
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2026
PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
FEBRUARY 2026
Volume 2
Planning Partner Annexes
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................1-7
1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................1-7
1.2 The Planning Partnership...............................................................................................................1-8
1.2.1 Initial Solicitation and Letters of Commitment.....................................................................1-8
1.2.2 Planning Partner Expectations...............................................................................................1-8
1.2.3 Final Coverage.........................................................................................................................1-9
1.3 Annex Development........................................................................................................................1-9
1.3.1 Capability Assessment...........................................................................................................1-9
1.3.2 Mitigation Action Plan Development...................................................................................1-11
1.3.3 Annex-Preparation Process..................................................................................................1-13
2. Palos Verdes Estates .............................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team.......................................................................................2-1
2.2 Jurisdictional Profile ......................................................................................................................2-2
2.2.1 Location and Features............................................................................................................2-2
2.2.2 History......................................................................................................................................2-2
2.2.3 Governance..............................................................................................................................2-2
2.3 Current Trends ................................................................................................................................2-3
2.3.1 Population................................................................................................................................2-3
2.3.2 Development ...........................................................................................................................2-3
2.4 Capability Assessment...................................................................................................................2-4
2.4.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities....................................................................................2-4
2.4.2 Development and Permitting Capabilities.............................................................................2-7
2.4.3 Fiscal Capabilities...................................................................................................................2-7
2.4.4 Administrative and Technical Capabilities............................................................................2-8
2.4.5 Education and Outreach Capabilities ....................................................................................2-9
2.4.6 Community Classifications ..................................................................................................2-11
2.4.7 Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change................................................................................2-11
2.5 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance ........................................................................2-13
2.6 Integration .....................................................................................................................................2-15
2.6.1 Existing Integration ...............................................................................................................2-15
2.6.2 Opportunities for Future Integration....................................................................................2-16
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-2
2.7 Risk Assessment ..........................................................................................................................2-16
2.7.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History ...........................................................2-16
2.7.2 Hazard Ranking.....................................................................................................................2-17
2.7.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ....................................................................................2-18
2.8 Status of Previous Plan Mitigation Actions ................................................................................2-19
2.9 Hazard Mitigation Strategy ..........................................................................................................2-21
2.10 Public Outreach.........................................................................................................................2-26
2.11 Information Sources Used for This Annex..............................................................................2-26
3. Rancho Palos Verdes...........................................................................................................................3-42
3.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team.....................................................................................3-42
3.2 Jurisdictional Profile ....................................................................................................................3-43
3.2.1 Location and Features..........................................................................................................3-43
3.2.2 History....................................................................................................................................3-43
3.2.3 Governance............................................................................................................................3-44
3.3 Current Trends ..............................................................................................................................3-44
3.3.1 Population..............................................................................................................................3-44
3.3.2 Development .........................................................................................................................3-44
3.4 Capability Assessment.................................................................................................................3-45
3.4.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities..................................................................................3-45
3.4.2 Development and Permitting Capabilities.............................................................................3-1
3.4.3 Fiscal Capabilities...................................................................................................................3-1
3.4.4 Administrative and Technical Capabilities............................................................................3-2
3.4.5 Education and Outreach Capabilities ....................................................................................3-3
3.4.6 Community Classifications ....................................................................................................3-3
3.4.7 Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change..................................................................................3-4
3.5 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance ..........................................................................3-5
3.6 Integration .......................................................................................................................................3-6
3.6.1 Existing Integration .................................................................................................................3-7
3.6.2 Opportunities for Future Integration......................................................................................3-8
3.7 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................3-8
3.7.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History .............................................................3-8
3.7.2 Table 3-11 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in this jurisdiction. Other hazard events that broadly affected the entire planning area,
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-3
including this jurisdiction, are listed in the risk assessments in Volume 1 of this hazard mitigation plan. 3-8
3.7.3 Hazard Ranking.......................................................................................................................3-9
3.7.4 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ....................................................................................3-10
3.8 Status of Previous Plan Mitigation Actions ................................................................................3-12
3.9 Hazard Mitigation Strategy ..........................................................................................................3-23
3.10 Public Outreach.........................................................................................................................3-50
4. Rolling Hills .............................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team.......................................................................................4-1
4.2 Jurisdictional Profile ......................................................................................................................4-2
4.2.1 Location and Features............................................................................................................4-2
4.2.2 History......................................................................................................................................4-3
4.2.3 Governance..............................................................................................................................4-3
4.3 Current Trends ................................................................................................................................4-3
4.3.1 Population................................................................................................................................4-3
4.3.2 Development ...........................................................................................................................4-3
4.4 Capability Assessment...................................................................................................................4-5
4.4.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities....................................................................................4-5
4.4.2 Development and Permitting Capabilities.............................................................................4-8
4.4.3 Fiscal Capabilities...................................................................................................................4-8
4.4.4 Administrative and Technical Capabilities............................................................................4-9
4.4.5 Education and Outreach Capabilities ..................................................................................4-10
4.4.6 Community Classifications ..................................................................................................4-11
4.4.7 Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change................................................................................4-11
4.5 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance ........................................................................4-12
4.6 Integration .....................................................................................................................................4-14
4.6.1 Existing Integration ...............................................................................................................4-14
4.6.2 Opportunities for Future Integration....................................................................................4-14
4.7 Risk Assessment ..........................................................................................................................4-15
4.7.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History ...........................................................4-15
4.7.2 Hazard Ranking.....................................................................................................................4-16
4.7.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ....................................................................................4-17
4.8 Status of Previous Plan Mitigation Actions ................................................................................4-18
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-4
4.9 Hazard Mitigation Strategy ..........................................................................................................4-25
4.10 Public Outreach.........................................................................................................................4-43
4.11 Information Sources Used for This Annex..............................................................................4-44
5. Rolling Hills Estates ...............................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team.......................................................................................5-1
5.2 Jurisdictional Profile ......................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.1 Location and Features............................................................................................................5-2
5.2.2 History......................................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.3 Governance..............................................................................................................................5-2
5.3 Current Trends ................................................................................................................................5-3
5.3.1 Population................................................................................................................................5-3
5.3.2 Development ...........................................................................................................................5-3
5.4 Capability Assessment...................................................................................................................5-4
5.4.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities....................................................................................5-4
5.4.2 Development and Permitting Capabilities.............................................................................5-7
5.4.3 Fiscal Capabilities...................................................................................................................5-7
5.4.4 Administrative and Technical Capabilities............................................................................5-8
5.4.5 Education and Outreach Capabilities ....................................................................................5-9
5.4.6 Community Classifications ..................................................................................................5-10
5.4.7 Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change................................................................................5-11
5.5 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance ........................................................................5-11
5.6 Integration .....................................................................................................................................5-13
5.6.1 Existing Integration ...............................................................................................................5-13
5.6.2 Opportunities for Future Integration....................................................................................5-14
5.7 Risk Assessment ..........................................................................................................................5-15
5.7.1 Jurisdiction-Specific Natural Hazard Event History ...........................................................5-15
5.7.2 Hazard Ranking.....................................................................................................................5-16
5.7.3 Jurisdiction-Specific Vulnerabilities ....................................................................................5-17
5.8 Status of Previous Plan Mitigation Actions ................................................................................5-18
5.9 Hazard Mitigation Strategy ..........................................................................................................5-26 Public Outreach........................................................................................................................................5-35
5.10 Information Sources Used for This Annex..............................................................................5-36
6. Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-5
7. Klondike Canyon Geological Hazard Abatement Distrcit....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 1-1. Malaga Cove, Palos Verdes Estates....................................................................................................2-1 Figure 1-2. Facebook Post ......................................................................................................................................2-26 Figure 1-3. Earthquake Hazard Map – 100-Year Probability Earthquake Scenario......................................2-28 Figure 1-4. Earthquake Hazard Map – Compton M7.45 Earthquake Scenario.............................................2-29 Figure 1-5. Earthquake Hazard Map – Palos Verdes M7.38 Earthquake Scenario......................................2-30 Figure 1-6. Earthquake Hazard Map – Redondo Canyon M6.65 Earthquake Scenario...............................2-31 Figure 1-7. Flood Hazard Map – FEMA Flood Hazard Areas............................................................................2-32 Figure 1-8.Landslide Hazard Map – Landslide Scenario Losses.........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 1-9. Landslide Hazard Map – Landslide Occurrences...........................................................................2-33 Figure 1-10. Landslide Hazard Map – Landslide Susceptibility .......................................................................2-34 Figure 1-11. Landslide Hazard Map – Steep Slope Areas.................................................................................2-35 Figure 1-12. Liquefaction Hazard Map – Liquefaction Zones..........................................................................2-36 Figure 1-13. Liquefaction Hazard Map – NEHRP Seismic Site Class.............................................................2-37 Figure 1-14. Sea Level Rise Hazard Map – 25-cm Sea Level Rise with 100-Year Storm Surge ................2-38 Figure 1-15. Sea Level Rise Hazard Map – 200-cm Sea Level Rise with 100-Year Storm Surge..............2-39 Figure 1-16. Tsunami Hazard Map – Tsunami Hazard Area............................................................................2-40 Figure 1-17.Fire Hazard Map – Fire Hazard Severity Zones.............................................................................2-41 Figure 3-1. Rancho Palos Verdes Point Vicente Lighthouse.............................................................................3-42 Figure 3-2. RPV Virtual Outreach Infographic for the MJLHMP Community Survey ...................................3-51 Figure 3-3. Earthquake Hazard Map – 100-Year Probability Scenario ...........................................................3-52 Figure 3-4. Earthquake Hazard Map – Compton M7.45 Scenario ..................................................................3-53 Figure 3-5. Earthquake Hazard Map – Palos Verdes M7.78 Scenario............................................................3-54 Figure 3-6. Earthquake Hazard Map – Redondo Canyon M6.65 Scenario ....................................................3-55 Figure 3-7. Flood Hazard Map – FEMA Flood Hazard Areas............................................................................3-56 Figure 3-8. Landslide Hazard Map – Landslide Scenario Losses........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 3-9. Landslide Hazard Map – Landslide Occurrences...........................................................................3-57 Figure 3-10. Landslide Hazard Map – Landslide Susceptibility .......................................................................3-58 Figure 3-11. Landslide Hazard Map – Steep Slope Areas.................................................................................3-59 Figure 3-12. Liquefaction Hazard Map – Liquefaction Susceptibility .............................................................3-60 Figure 3-13. Liquefaction Hazard Map – NEHRP Seismic Site Class.............................................................3-61 Figure 3-14. Sea Level Rise Hazard Map – 25 cm with 100-Year Storm Surge............................................3-62 Figure 3-15. Sea Level Rise Hazard Map – 200 cm with 100-Year Storm Surge .........................................3-63 Figure 3-16. Tsunami Hazard Map – Tsunami Hazard Area............................................................................3-64 Figure 3-17. Wildfire Hazard Map – Fire Hazard Severity Zones.....................................................................3-65 Figure 4-1. Rolling Hills ..............................................................................................................................................4-1 Figure 4-2. Outreach Materials Posted to Promote the Survey........................................................................4-43 Figure 4-3. Earthquake Hazard Map – 100-Year Probability Scenario ...........................................................4-45 Figure 4-4. Earthquake Hazard Map – Compton M7.45 Scenario ..................................................................4-46 Figure 4-5. Earthquake Hazard Map – Palos Verdes M7.78 Scenario............................................................4-47 Figure 4-6. Earthquake Hazard Map – Redondo Canyon M6.65 Scenario ....................................................4-48 Figure 4-7. Flood Hazard Map – FEMA Flood Hazard Areas............................................................................4-49
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-6
Figure 4-8. Landslide Hazard Map – Landslide Scenario Losses........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4-9. Landslide Hazard Map – Landslide Occurrences...........................................................................4-50 Figure 4-10. Landslide Hazard Map – Landslide Susceptibility .......................................................................4-51 Figure 4-11. Landslide Hazard Map – Steep Slope Areas.................................................................................4-52 Figure 4-12. Liquefaction Hazard Map – Liquefaction Susceptibility .............................................................4-53 Figure 4-13. Liquefaction Hazard Map – NEHRP Seismic Site Class.............................................................4-54 Figure 4-14. Wildfire Hazard Map – Fire Hazard Severity Zones.....................................................................4-55 Figure 5-1. City of Rolling Hills Estates 2024 Mayor’s Ride ................................................................................5-1 Figure 5-2. Screenshot of the City’s Emergency Preparedness Page.............................................................5-14 Figure 5-3. City Facebook Post from January 15, 2026 ....................................................................................5-36 Figure 5-4. Earthquake Hazard Map – 100-Year Probability Earthquake Scenario......................................5-37 Figure 5-5. Earthquake Hazard Map – Compton M7.45 Earthquake Scenario.............................................5-38 Figure 5-6. Earthquake Hazard Map – Palos Verdes M7.38 Earthquake Scenario......................................5-39 Figure 5-7. Earthquake Hazard Map – Redondo Canyon M6.65 Earthquake Scenario...............................5-40 Figure 5-8. Flood Hazard Map – FEMA Flood Hazard Areas............................................................................5-41 Figure 5-9. Landslide Hazard Map – Landslide Scenario Losses........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 5-10. Landslide Hazard Map – Landslide Occurrences ........................................................................5-42 Figure 5-11. Landslide Hazard Map – Landslide Susceptibility .......................................................................5-43 Figure 5-12. Landslide Hazard Map – Steep Slope Areas.................................................................................5-44 Figure 5-13. Liquefaction Hazard Map – Liquefaction Susceptibility .............................................................5-45 Figure 5-14. Liquefaction Hazard Map – NEHRP Seismic Site Class.............................................................5-46 Figure 5-15. Wildfire Hazard Map – Fire Hazard Severity Zones.....................................................................5-47
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-7
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Palos Verdes Peninsula cities and two special-purpose districts have jointly developed a hazard mitigation plan (HMP) to advance their shared commitment to reducing natural hazard risks to residents, community assets, and critical lifelines throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Planning Area). This plan includes annexes for each of the jurisdictions, outlining their unique capabilities, vulnerabilities, and mitigation opportunities.
While the cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Rolling Hills Estates previously maintained existing local hazard mitigation plans, the 2026 update marks their first combined, multi-jurisdictional planning effort. The City of Rolling Hills Estates served as the lead agency for the 2026 Palos Verdes Peninsula Multi‑Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP).
Multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation planning can be an effective process to build partnerships between communities that face common hazard risks, leading to shared solutions. It can also help build a foundation to shift priorities as risks and vulnerabilities change. Multi-jurisdictional planning processes are encouraged by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and offer the following advantages:
• Improves communication and coordination among jurisdictions and other regional entities • Enables comprehensive mitigation approaches to reduce risks that affect multiple jurisdictions • Maximizes economies of scale by leveraging individual capabilities and sharing costs and resources
• Avoids duplication of efforts, and
• Provides an organizational structure that local jurisdictions may find supportive.
For the Palos Verde Peninsula MJHMP 2026, a planning partnership was formed and was made up of jurisdictional representatives seeking Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) compliance. They were responsible for participating throughout the process, reviewing information and providing input, informing the risk assessment, developing mitigation strategies, and adopting the MJHMP. The DMA 2000 defines a local government as follows:
“Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity.” All participating jurisdictions in a multi-jurisdictional plan must meet the requirements of Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR):
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-8
“Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan.” (Section 201.6(a)(4)).
Each participating planning partner prepared a jurisdiction-specific annex to this plan. These annexes, as well as information on the process by which they were created, are contained in this volume.
1.2 THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP
1.2.1 Initial Solicitation and Letters of Commitment
The City of Rolling Hills Estates coordinated with the Peninsula jurisdictions to participate in this planning effort. The contacts each jurisdiction identified in the letter of intent to participate were informed of the planning process, attended meetings, provided direct input, and reviewed plan documents.
Municipalities
City of Palos Verdes Estates
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Rolling Hills
City of Rolling Hills Estates
Special-Purpose Districts
Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement
District
Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District
Risk assessment maps for the planning areas are provided in Volume 1 of this MJHMP while maps showing the risk assessment results for each of the participating jurisdictions are provided in the individual annexes for each jurisdiction.
1.2.2 Planning Partner Expectations
The planning team and consultant, Black & Veatch Corporation (Black & Veatch), developed the following list of planning partner expectations, which were provided and discussed at a formal kickoff meeting held in May 2025:
• Re-confirm lead and primary points of contact for the update effort. • Support and participate in the Planning Committee meetings. • Provide support required to implement the public involvement strategy. • Participate in the planning process through the following:
o Planning Committee meetings
o Public meetings and outreach efforts
o Workshops and planning partner-specific training sessions, and o Public review and comment periods prior to adoption.
• Perform a “consistency review” of all technical studies, plans, and ordinances specific to hazards. • Review the risk assessment and identify hazards and vulnerabilities specific to the jurisdiction. • Attend the mandatory jurisdictional annex workshop.
• Review and determine if the mitigation recommendations chosen in Volume 1 will meet the needs of the jurisdiction.
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-9
• Create an action plan that identifies each project, who will oversee the task, how it will be financed, and when it is estimated to occur.
• Formally adopt the MJHMP.
By adopting the MJHMP, each planning partner also agrees to the plan implementation and maintenance protocol established in Volume 1. Failure to meet these criteria would result in a planning partner being dropped from the planning partnership by the Planning Committee, and thus losing eligibility under the scope of the plan. All planning partners met the planning partner expectations, including attendance at mandatory workshops.
1.2.3 Final Coverage
All of the above jurisdictions submitted letters of commitment to participate, completed an annex template, fully met the participation requirements for this update, and will be covered by the 2026 Palos Verde Peninsula Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan upon FEMA’s approval of the plan and adoption of the plan by their individual governing bodies.
1.3 ANNEX DEVELOPMENT
1.3.1 Capability Assessment
A capability assessment creates an inventory of a jurisdiction’s mission, programs, and policies, and evaluates its capacity to carry them out. All participating jurisdictions compiled a capability assessment which helped to identify potential gaps in the jurisdictions’ capabilities. Specifically, if the capability assessment identified an opportunity to add a missing core capability or expand an existing one, then doing so has been selected as an action in the jurisdiction’s action plan. The sections below describe specific capabilities evaluated under the assessment.
Planning and Regulatory Capabilities
Jurisdictions can develop policies and programs and implement rules and regulations to protect and serve residents. Local policies are typically identified in planning documents, implemented via a local ordinance, and enforced by a governmental body. Because the planning and regulatory authority of counties and municipalities is generally broader than that of special-purpose districts, the assessment of these capabilities is more detailed for those partners.
Development and Permitting Capability
The County and its municipalities regulate land use through the adoption and enforcement of zoning, subdivision, and land development ordinances, building codes, building permit ordinances, floodplain, and stormwater management ordinances. When effectively prepared and administered, these regulations can mitigate hazards. As special-purpose districts typically do not have the ability to regulate land use, this capability was assessed only for the County and municipality.
Fiscal Capability
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-10
Assessing a jurisdiction’s fiscal capability provides an understanding of the ability to fulfill the financial needs associated with hazard mitigation projects. This assessment identifies both outside resources, such as grant-funding eligibility, and local jurisdictional authority to generate internal financial capability, such as through impact fees (fees charged to a development project).
Administrative and Technical Capability
Without appropriate personnel, the mitigation strategy may not be implemented. Administrative and technical capabilities focus on the availability of personnel resources responsible for implementing all the facets of hazard mitigation. These resources include technical experts, such as engineers, scientists, and grant writers.
Education and Outreach Capability
Regular engagement with the public on hazard mitigation provides opportunities to open a two-way dialogue that can result in a more resilient community. Use of a jurisdictional website, social media outlets, and other outreach resources to communicate mitigation information are assessed for each planning partner. Assessing outreach and education capability illustrates the connection between the government and community members.
Compliance with National Flood Insurance Program Requirements Flooding is the costliest natural hazard in the United States and homeowners face increasingly high flood insurance premiums. Community participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) opens up opportunities for additional grant funding associated specifically with flooding issues. Assessment of a jurisdiction’s current NFIP status and compliance provides a greater understanding of the local flood management program, opportunities for improvement, and available grant funding opportunities. The NFIP is not available to special-purpose districts, so this set of capabilities was assessed only for the County and municipality.
Participation in Voluntary Programs
Participation in voluntary programs, such as the National Weather Service’s StormReady and the National Fire Protection Association’s Firewise USA, can enhance a jurisdiction’s ability to mitigate, prepare for, and respond to natural hazards. These programs complement each other by focusing on communication, mitigation, and community preparedness to save lives and minimize the impact of natural hazards on a community. Participation in these programs demonstrates a jurisdiction’s commitment to go beyond the minimum requirements set forth by local, state, and federal regulations to create a more resilient community. The programs reviewed here are only applicable to the County and municipality, so were not included in the capability assessments for the special-purpose districts.
Adaptive Capacity
An adaptive capacity assessment evaluates a jurisdiction’s ability to anticipate impacts that may occur in the future. By looking at public support, technical adaptive capacity, and other factors, jurisdictions can identify their core capability for resilience against issues such as sea level rise and climate change.
The assessment provides jurisdictions with an opportunity to identify areas for improvement by ranking their adaptive capacity as high, medium, or low.
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-11
1.3.2 Mitigation Action Plan Development
Risk Ranking
The risk-ranking methodology for partner annexes was the same as that used for the Planning Area risk ranking described in Volume 1. Each planning partner was asked to review the ranked risk for its jurisdiction, based on the impact on its population and/or facilities. The cities based this ranking on the probability of occurrence of each hazard, and its potential impact on people, property, and the economy.
Special-purpose districts based this ranking on probability of occurrence and the potential impact on their constituency, vital facilities, and the facilities’ functionality after a hazard event.
The objectives of this exercise were to familiarize the planning partnership with how to use the risk ranking, part of the assessment results, as a tool to support other planning and hazard mitigation processes and to help prioritize types of mitigation actions that should be considered. Hazards that were ranked as “high” and “medium” for each jurisdiction were considered to be priorities for identifying mitigation actions, although jurisdictions also identified actions to mitigate hazards ranked “low,” as appropriate.
Information Reviewed to Develop the Action Plan
In July 2025, each planning partner was provided with a toolkit of relevant documents to assist in developing their jurisdiction’s action plan and was required to attend a workshop that provided guidance to develop their action plans. The toolkits were used during the mandatory workshops and in follow-up work conducted by the planning partners. Planning partners reviewed the following information included in the toolkit to assist in the identification of proposed mitigation actions:
• Capability assessment—Reviewed to identify capabilities that the jurisdiction does not currently have but should consider pursuing, or capabilities that should be revisited and updated to include best available information; also reviewed to determine how existing capabilities can be leveraged to increase or improve hazard mitigation in the jurisdiction. • NFIP compliance table—Reviewed to identify opportunities to increase floodplain management capabilities.
• Adaptive capacity—Reviewed to identify ways to leverage or continue to improve existing capacities and to improve understanding of other capacities. • Future integration opportunities—Reviewed to identify specific integration actions to be included in the mitigation strategy.
• Jurisdiction-specific vulnerabilities—Reviewed to identify actions that could reduce known vulnerabilities.
• Mitigation best practices catalog—Reviewed to identify actions that the jurisdiction should consider including in its action plan.
• Public input—Reviewed to identify potential actions and community priorities.
Action Plan Prioritization
The mitigation actions recommended in each jurisdiction’s action plan were prioritized using the same prioritization method in the 2023 California State HMP. Each action is reviewed and scored based on 15 questions, as presented in Table 1-1.
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-12
Table 1-1. Mitigation Action Prioritization Categories
Category Question
Life Safety Will the action result in life safety?
Property Protection Will the action result in property protection? Cost-Effective Will the action be cost-effective (future benefits exceed cost)? Technically Feasible Is the action technically feasible? Legal Authority Does the jurisdiction have the legal authority to implement? Funding Available Is funding available for the action?
Environmental Will the action have a positive impact on the natural environment? Climate Change Will the action mitigate impacts from climate change? Equity Priority Community Does the action benefit equity priority communities? Administrative Capacity Does the jurisdiction have the administrative capability to execute the action? Multi-Hazard Will the action reduce risk to more than one hazard? Timeline Can the action be completed in less than 5 years? Stakeholder Support Is there stakeholder (outside of jurisdiction staff) support for the action? Other Local Objective Will the action meet other local objectives (such as capital improvements, economic development, environmental quality, or open space preservation?) Support Policies Does the action support the policies of other plans and programs? The answers to each of these questions are weighted as follows:
• Yes = 3 points
• Not sure/could be either yes or no/question is difficult to quantify = 1 point • No = 0 points
After the scoring of each action, priorities are assigned based on the following:
• 31 or more = High Priority
• 15 to 30 = Medium Priority
• 0 to 14 = Low Priority
Classification of Actions
Each recommended action was also classified based on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. Mitigation types used for this classification are as follows:
• Local Plans and Regulations—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations.
• Structure and Infrastructure Projects—Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass. • Education and Awareness Programs—Actions to inform residents and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education. • Natural Resource Protection—Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, wetland restoration and preservation, and green infrastructure.
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-13
• Climate Resiliency—Actions that incorporate methods to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of climate change. Includes aquifer storage and recovery activities, incorporating future conditions projections in project design or planning, or actions that specifically address jurisdiction-specific climate change risks, such as sea-level rise or urban heat island effects. • Community Capacity Building—Actions that increase or enhance local capabilities to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities to build capacity, or to respond to consequences of insufficient capacity. Includes staff training, memorandums of understanding, development of plans and studies, and monitoring programs.
1.3.3 Annex-Preparation Process
Templates
Templates were created for the two types of jurisdictions (municipalities and special districts) participating in this plan to help the planning partners prepare their jurisdiction-specific annexes. The templates were designed so that all criteria of Section 201.6 of 44 CFR for local governments would be met based on the partners’ capabilities and mode of operation.
The templates were designed to lead all partners through the necessary steps to generate the Disaster Mitigation Act-required elements specific to their jurisdictions. The templates and accompanying instructions were used by every planning partner to develop the jurisdictional annexes.
Toolkit
Each planning partner was provided with a toolkit to assist in completing the annex template and developing their jurisdiction’s action plan. The toolkits contained the following:
• Information on past hazard events that have impacted the planning area. • The risk assessment results developed for the plan update. • Jurisdiction-specific annex templates, with instructions for completing them. • A catalog of mitigation best practices and suggested actions to enhance adaptive capacity. • The results of the public survey on community awareness of hazards conducted as part of the public involvement strategy.
Workshop
All partners were required to attend and participate in a virtual technical assistance workshop held December 2, 2025, where key elements of the annex template were discussed. The workshops focused on how the toolkit could be used to facilitate completion of the template and develop each jurisdiction’s mitigation action plan. The templates were subsequently completed by a designated point of contact for each partner and a member of the planning team. The workshop addressed the following topics:
• The jurisdictional annex templates and the toolkit.
• Natural events history.
• Jurisdiction-specific issues.
• Risk ranking.
Palos Verde Peninsula, California | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction 1-14
• Status of prior actions.
• Developing the action plan.
• Benefit-cost review.
• Prioritization protocol.
• Next steps.
Following the conclusion of the workshop, a copy of the presentation given at the workshop session was provided to each of the planning partners.
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-1
2. PALOS VERDES ESTATES
Figure 2-1. Malaga Cove, Palos Verdes Estates
Source: (City of Palos Verdes Estates 2025)
2.1 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM
Table 2-1. Local Planning Team
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Name and Title: Kristen Jo, Emergency Preparedness &
Community Outreach Coordinator
George Gabriel, Deputy City Manager
Address: 340 Palos Verdes Drive West
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
340 Palos Verdes Drive West
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
Phone Number: 310-750-9788 424-506-8623
Email: [email protected] [email protected]
Contributors:
Name and Title:
Method of Participation:
Kristen Jo, Emergency Preparedness & Community Outreach Coordinator Served as the primary point of contact for the City throughout the planning process, participated on the Steering Committee, attended meetings, provided input on the City’s annex, identified mitigation strategies, and reviewed the draft plan.
Name and Title:
Method of Participation:
Kerry Kallman, City Manager
Attending meetings, provided input and feedback on the City’s annex, and reviewed the draft plan.
Name and Title:
Method of Participation:
Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-2
Attended meetings, provided input on the City’s annex, identified mitigation strategies, and reviewed the draft plan.
Name and Title:
Method of Participation:
Sheryl Brady, Community Development Director
Attended meetings, provided input on the City’s annex, identified mitigation strategies, and reviewed the draft plan.
2.2 JURISDICTIONAL PROFILE
2.2.1 Location and Features
The City of Palos Verdes Estates is within the Los Angeles, Long Beach metropolitan area, approximately 30 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles. The City is a coastal community advantageously sited on the beautiful rugged shoreline of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Elevations range from sea level to 217 feet above sea level (City of Palos Verdes Estates 2019).
Palos Verdes Estates lies on the western side of the Palos Verdes Hills from the coastal bluffs up to western crest of the hills. The Palos Verdes Hills constitute an isolated land peninsula projecting into the ocean at the southwest border of the Los Angeles Basin. In general, the peninsula resembles the islands off the coast of Southern California. Northwest of the Palos Verdes Hills, a belt of irregular dune-sand topography extends inland from the coast and overlaps the lowland and northwest border of the hills (City of Palos Verdes Estates 2019).
The Palos Verdes Hills represent a miniature Coast Range mountainous area of low altitude. They have a maximum northwest-southeast length of about 9.5 miles and a width of four to five miles. The crest and greater part of the upper slopes of the hills form a rolling land, characterized by smoothly rounded hills and wide, gently sloping valleys. The lower slopes are marked by a series of coastal terraces, with canyons, some deep, advancing inland across the terraces. The west and south coasts are bordered by a sea cliff that has in general a height of 100 to 150, but up to 300 feet in Palos Verdes Estates. At Bluff Cove and Malaga Cove, the cliffs are 300 and 200 feet high, respectively (City of Palos Verdes Estates 2019).
2.2.2 History
The City of Palos Verdes Estates, incorporated on December 20, 1939, is the oldest of the four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (City of Palos Verdes Estates 2025). Palos Verdes Estates first functioned as an unincorporated community and the Homes Association was liable for taxes on all parkland. After the economic crash in 1929, the association owed parkland taxes to Los Angeles County and area residents were afraid that the parklands might be sold for payment. City incorporation was voted in 1939 and the parklands were deeded to the new City in 1940 by the Homes Association (City of Palos Verdes Estates 2019).
2.2.3 Governance
Palos Verdes Estates, which was incorporated in 1939, is a General Law City operating within rules established by the California Legislature. The organizational structure of the local government is of the City Council–City Manager form. The City Manager, hired by the City Council, is responsible for Planning, organizing, and directing all administrative activities such as enforcing municipal laws, directing the daily operations of the City, and preparing and observing the municipal budget. The City Council is composed
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-3
of five City Council members elected at large by the citizens of Palos Verdes Estates, with one member elected by the City Council to serve as Mayor. The City Council acts upon all legislative matters concerning Palos Verdes Estates, approving and adopting all ordinances, resolutions, contracts, and other matters requiring overall policy decisions and leadership (City of Palos Verdes Estates 2019).
The City of Palos Verdes Estates City Council assumes responsibility for adoption of this plan; Emergency Preparedness will oversee its implementation.
2.3 CURRENT TRENDS
2.3.1 Population
According to the California Department of Finance, the population of City of Palos Verdes Estates as of January 2024 was 12,999. Since 1970, the population has declined by an average annual rate of 0.6 percent.
2.3.2 Development
Table 2-2. Recent and Expected Future Development Trends Criterion Response
Has your jurisdiction annexed any land
since the preparation of the previous
hazard mitigation plan?
No.
Is your jurisdiction expected to annex any
areas during the performance period of
this plan?
No.
Provide the number of new construction
permits for each hazard area or provide a
qualitative description of where
development has occurred.
Infill development occurs within the city. According to the updated California Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, adopted July 8, 2025 by Ordinance No 768, the majority of the City has been removed from the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
Regardless of the location within the city, all structures and building continue to be subject to the code required under CBC Chapter 7A
Are any areas targeted for development
or major redevelopment in the next five
years?
No.
How many permits for new construction
were issued in your jurisdiction since the
preparation of the previous hazard
mitigation plan?
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Single Family 12 4 8 10 16
Multi-Family 0 0 0 0 0
Other (mobile homes,
accessory dwellings, mixed
use, etc.)
12 8 8 7 14
Commercial 0 0 0 0 0
Total 24 12 16 17 30
Describe the level of buildout in the
jurisdiction, based on your jurisdiction’s
buildable lands inventory. If no such
Infill development occurs throughout the city. This includes new single-family residences, structure additions to existing singlefamily residences, and remodeling existing residences
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-4
Criterion Response
inventory exists, provide a qualitative
description.
2.4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
This section describes an assessment of existing capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation strategies. The introduction at the beginning of this volume of the hazard mitigation plan describes the components included in the capability assessment and their significance for hazard mitigation planning.
Findings of the capability assessment were reviewed to identify opportunities to expand or improve upon capabilities to further hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Where such opportunities were identified and determined to be feasible, they are included in the action plan.
2.4.1 Planning and Regulatory Capabilities
Jurisdictions have the ability to develop policies and programs and to implement rules and regulations to protect and serve residents. Local policies are typically identified in community plans, implemented through local ordinance, and enforced through a governing body. An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 3-3.
Table 2-3. Planning and Regulatory Capabilities
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Codes, Ordinances, & Requirements
Building Code Yes No Yes No
Comment: Chapter 15 (Buildings and Construction); passed January 28, 2025; provides requirements for buildings in the City and includes the Floodplain Management regulations (Chapter 15.50).
Zoning Code Yes No Yes No
Comment: • Chapter 17 (Zoning Procedures) was established to provide the economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources and to conserve and promote the public interest, health, comfort, and convenience of the city and its inhabitants, and to preserve the public peace, safety, morals, order, and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.
• Chapter 18 (Zoning Requirements) has specific permitted and prohibited uses for each zone within the City. The City has a coastal zone overlay zone to protect the coastal bluffs and protect parklands within the coastal zone.
Subdivisions Yes No Yes No
Comment: Chapter 16 (Subdivisions)
Stormwater Management Yes No Yes No
Comment: Chapter 13.08 (Storm Drains and Stormwater Management and Pollution Control) is for the protection and enhancement of the quality of surface waters and surface water bodies, including the Santa Monica Bay and Machado Lake, in a manner consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
Sections 1251 et seq.), the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal. Water Code
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-5
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Sections 13000 et seq.), and the municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Post-Disaster Recovery No No No No
Comment: -
Real Estate Disclosure No Yes Yes No
Comment: California Civil Code 1102
Growth Management Yes No No No
Comment: The City’s General Plan sets forth broad policy guidance in the areas of land use, circulation, conservation, recreation, open space, housing, scenic highways, seismic safety, safety and noise. The various General Plan elements provide a consistent set of policies and programs intended to preserve and enhance the quality of life, while accommodating growth and change in a proactive manner.
As part of the Housing Element, the City incorporated findings of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment to identify the total new housing needed for the City between 2021 and 2029. The City included a goal in the element to provide adequate sites for new housing consistent with the capacity of roadways, sewer lines, and other infrastructure to handle increased growth.
Site Plan Review Yes No No No
Comment: Chapter 17.22 (Site Plan Permits) which requires site plan reviews in the R-M and C zones when a new structure is added, when a second story is added, when one thousand square feet or more of floor area is added, or when a grading permit is required. The site plan review process shall ensure that the development standards and other city land use regulatory ordinances are applied in a coordinated fashion. The process shall incorporate architectural review conducted by the Palos Verdes Homes Association art jury and any other function of the Homes Association in order to assist in project coordination. This process is intended to promote coordination and consistency by providing all interested parties with sufficient facts to fully understand the implications and merits of a project and by facilitating well-informed decisions.
Environmental Protection Yes No Yes No
Comment: • Chapter 17.10 (Environmental Quality) provides guidelines for study of proposed activities and the effect that such activities would have on the environment in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) • Chapter 19 (Coastal Regulations)
Flood Damage Prevention Yes Yes Yes No
Comment: Chapter 15.5 (Floodplain Management); appoints the Planning Director as the floodplain administrator; new or substantial improvement of structures in the floodplain must have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot above the effective base flood elevation. The City requires a development permit for any construction or development within any area of special flood hazard established in PVEMC.
Emergency Management Yes No Yes No
Comment: Chapter 2.28 (Emergency Services) – Chapter 2.28.080 establishes the City’s response organization, responsibilities, functions, and interactions required to mitigate the effects of hazards affecting the City. Hazards identified in this Plan include earthquakes, hazardous material, multi-casualty incident, storm/flood, wildland/major fire, and civil disturbance/terrorism.
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-6
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Climate Change No No Yes No
Comment: -
Planning Documents
General Plan Yes No Yes No
Is the General Plan compliant with Assembly Bill 2140? Yes Comment: • Establishes policies, programs, goals and objectives to protect the community from risks associated with seismic, tsunami, flood, land movement, and fire hazards. • Safety Element was updated in November 2023 and compliant with SB 379. The Safety Element integrates climate change and discusses how the element relates to the LHMP. It also includes summarizes the impacts of the hazards of concern in the City. • Housing Element was updated in May 2024 and was certified by HCD as being in substantial compliance with State Housing Law.
Capital Improvement Plan Yes No No Yes
How often is the plan updated? Every 5 years
Comment: Palos Verdes Estates' Capital Improvement Program (CIP) lays out the 5-year (Fiscal Year 2025-26 through Fiscal Year 2029-30) plan for the financing, scheduling, and maintenance of the City's major public assets.
Disaster Debris Management Plan No No No No
Comment:
Floodplain or Watershed Plan No No No No
Comment:
Stormwater Plan Yes No No Yes
Comment: The City’s Storm Water Master Plan is currently being updated to ensure it continues to mitigate the impacts of flooding, water pollution, erosion, and property damage throughout the City. During the update process, the City will review the current LHMP and integrate where appropriate.
Urban Water Management Plan No No No No
Comment:
Habitat Conservation Plan No No No No
Comment:
Economic Development Plan No No No No
Comment:
Community Wildfire Protection Plan No No No No
Comment:
Forest Management Plan No No No No
Comment:
Climate Action Plan Yes No Yes Yes
Comment: The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was finalized in January 2018 which was developed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City. The plan serves as a guide for action by setting GHG emission reduction goals and establishing strategies and policies to achieve over the next 20 years (through 2038). The CAP aligns with the State’s Climate Change Action Plan by advancing its goals and identifying specific initiatives and programs that target greenhouse gas emission reduction.
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-7
Local
Authority
Other
Jurisdiction
Authority
State
Mandated
Integration
Opportunity?
Threat & Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment
(THIRA)
No No No No
Comment: -
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No No No No
Comment:
Continuity of Operations Plan No No No No
Comment:
Public Health Plan No No No No
Comment:
Other No - - No
Comment: -
Opportunities to Expand Planning and Regulatory Capabilities The City has identified several opportunities to integrate the LHMP into plans, codes, and ordinances.
During the LHMP update process, the Capital Improvement Plan, Storm Water Master Plan, and Climate Action Plan were all identified as integration opportunities. Refer to Table 3-14 for a mitigation action to integrate these plans.
2.4.2 Development and Permitting Capabilities
Jurisdictions regulate land use through the adoption and enforcement of zoning, subdivision and land development ordinances, building codes, building permit ordinances, floodplain, and stormwater management ordinances. When effectively prepared and administered, these regulations can lead to hazard mitigation. Development and permitting capabilities are presented in Table 3-4.
Table 2-4. Development and Permitting Capabilities
Criterion Response
Does your jurisdiction issue
development permits?
Yes
If no, who does? If yes, which
department?
Planning Commission – has final authority on housing and commercial development projects, neighborhood compatibility applications, conditional use permits and variances. The Commission makes recommendations to the Council for pre-zoning and rezoning projects, tentative parcel and tract maps, annexations, General Plan amendments and zone text (municipal code) amendments.
Does your jurisdiction track permits
by hazard area?
No, it is based on address.
Does your jurisdiction have a
buildable lands inventory?
Yes – located in Chapter III of the 2021-2029 Housing Element
2.4.3 Fiscal Capabilities
Assessing a jurisdiction’s fiscal capability provides an understanding of the ability to fulfill the financial needs associated with hazard mitigation projects. This assessment identifies both outside resources, such as grant funding eligibility, and local jurisdictional authority to generate internal financial capability, such as through impact fees. An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 3-5.
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-8
Table 2-5. Fiscal Capabilities
Financial Resource Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants No
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes – can be used for any hazard mitigation activity; however, it is only eligible for use with
voter approval.
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service No
If yes, specify: -
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Accessible – can be used for any hazard mitigation activity; however, it is only eligible for
use with voter approval.
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Accessible – can be used for any hazard mitigation activity; however, it is only eligible for
use with voter approval.
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Accessible – can be used for any hazard mitigation activity; however, it is only eligible for
use with voter approval.
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Accessible - can be used for both on-site and offsite capital improvements, including seismic hazard repair and maintenance, drainage, and
critical facilities.
Opportunities to Expand Fiscal Capabilities
Through the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, the City will identify projects that can reduce hazard risk in the City. If feasible, the City will prioritize those projects and implement accordingly. The City will continue to identify grant opportunities as well to fund mitigation projects.
2.4.4 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
Planning regulatory, and fiscal capabilities provide the backbone for successfully developing a mitigation strategy; however, without the appropriate personnel, the strategy may not be implemented.
Administrative and technical capabilities focus on the availability of personnel resources responsible for implementing all the facets of hazard mitigation. These resources include technical experts, such as engineers and scientists, as well as personnel with capabilities that may be found in multiple departments, such as grant writers. An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 3-6.
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-9
Table 2-6. Administrative and Technical Capabilities
Staff/Personnel Resource Available?
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes If Yes, Department /Position: Director of Building and Planning Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes If Yes, Department /Position: Director of Public Works/City Engineering Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes If Yes, Department /Position: Director of Public Works/City Engineering Staff with training in benefit-cost analysis No
If Yes, Department /Position: -
Surveyors No
If Yes, Department /Position: -
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes
If Yes, Department /Position: Director of Public Works/City Engineering Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No If Yes, Department /Position: -
Emergency manager Yes
If Yes, Department /Position: City Manager
Grant writers No
If Yes, Department /Position: -
Procurement Services and Management No
If Yes, Department /Position: -
Opportunities to Expand Administrative and Technical Capabilities Due to the size of the City, hiring additional dedicated personnel is not feasible. However, there are opportunities for City personnel to get cross-trained in certain areas to help expand the current capabilities of the City.
2.4.5 Education and Outreach Capabilities
Regular engagement with the public on issues regarding hazard mitigation provides an opportunity to directly interface with community members. Assessing the education and outreach capability illustrates the connection between the government and community members, which opens a two-way dialogue that can result in a more resilient community, based on awareness and engagement. An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 3-7.
Table 2-7. Education and Outreach Capabilities
Criterion Response
Do you have a public information officer or communications office? Yes Do you have personnel skilled or trained in website development? Yes Do you have hazard mitigation information available on your website? Yes If yes, briefly describe: The City has a disaster preparedness page on its website that the City uses to communicate hazard-related information.
The four cities of the Palos Verdes Peninsula launched the Know Your Zone evacuation readiness website. With the aim to prepare Peninsula residents and businesses to evacuate in the event of an emergency, the site houses Zonehaven, a
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-10
Criterion Response
cloud-based evacuation platform with pre-established, Peninsula-wide evacuation zone maps. The evacuation zones will help fire, police and other emergency service agencies prepare for emergencies, streamline the evacuation process, and reduce confusion by enabling a single verified source of emergency information.
Do you use social media for hazard mitigation education and outreach? Yes If yes, briefly describe: The City uses Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Nextdoor, and Nixle for education and outreach purposes.
Do you have any citizen boards or commissions that address issues related to hazard mitigation?
Yes
If yes, briefly describe: PVP CERT (Palos Verdes Peninsula Community Emergency Response Team) is a government/community resource that provides basic training in disaster preparedness and disaster response to help residents, their neighborhoods, and their city in an emergency. This program prepares teams of residents as first responders to support regular emergency personnel in a disaster.
The DDP (Disaster District Program) is a comprehensive community-based resource that supports disaster preparedness and disaster response. The DDP is comprised of six disaster districts, each containing a cache of emergency supplies, resources, and communication equipment for disaster service workers to use during an incident. This program aims to increase disaster preparedness and survivability in neighborhoods during a disaster.
Additionally, the PVE NART (Palos Verdes Estates Neighborhood Amateur Radio Team) group is designed to support the city of Palos Verdes Estates by providing critical emergency radio communication through the equipment installed in the disaster caches and/or the EOC. The program is comprised of dedicated volunteers who can provide a redundant source of emergency communication.
Do you have any other programs in place that could be used to communicate hazard-related information?
Yes
If yes, briefly describe: The City uses Alert SouthBay where residents can sign up to receive emergency alerts. Lastly, the City utilizes their social media accounts to relay information before, during, and after emergencies.
Do you have any established warning systems for hazard events? Yes If yes, briefly describe: The City uses Alert SouthBay which is an emergency alert and warning notification system established as part of an integrated, interoperable regional platform by thirteen South Bay cities including the City of Palos Verdes Estates. The Alert SouthBay emergency notification system aims to keep communities informed about disasters and major emergencies via SMS (text), email, phone, and other means of communication. The notification system gives the police, fire department, the L.A. County Office of Emergency Management, and specific contract cities, the ability to deliver critical notifications to the City.
The City of Palos Verdes Estates has developed a comprehensive communitybased disaster preparedness and response program known as the Palos Verdes Estates Disaster District Program (DDP). With a select group of volunteers, the program is designed to increase disaster readiness and survivability at the neighborhood level during a disaster. The program divides the City into 6 Disaster
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-11
Criterion Response
Districts, each equipped with a cache of equipment and supplies to support community responders. Managed by sworn Disaster Service Worker Volunteers under the City's Disaster Services Coordinator, the program integrates the resources of disaster services including area CERT members, Neighborhood Amateur Radio Team (NART), Disaster Service Workers (DSW) and the Palos Verdes Estates Police Department's Reserve Corps.
Opportunities to Expand Education and Outreach Capabilities The City will continue to review, evaluate, and expand its current education and outreach capabilities as needed.
2.4.6 Community Classifications
Table 2-8. Community Classifications
Participating? Classification
or Number
Date Classified
FIPS Code N/A 06-037-2670 N/A
UEI# No N/A N/A
Community Rating System No - -
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule
(BCEGS)
No N/A N/A
Public Protection (ISO for Fire) Yes – LA County Fire
Division 1
2 May 11, 2018
Storm Ready No N/A N/A
Tsunami Ready No N/A N/A
Firewise No N/A N/A
2.4.7 Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Table 2-9. Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change
Criterion
Jurisdiction
Ratinga
Technical Capacity
Jurisdiction-level understanding of potential climate change impacts High Comment: The City developed a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2018 to reduce GHG emissions within the city.
The City’s CAP serves as a guide for action by setting GHG emission reduction goals and establishing strategies and policies to achieve desired outcomes over the next 20 years. The CAP includes an overview of GHG emissions in the City. The City’s LHMP was completed in 2018 and was developed to met SB 379 requirements for assessing vulnerabilities associated with climate change. Lastly, the City has access to numerous resources at the state and federal level to understand potential climate change impacts.
Jurisdiction-level monitoring of climate change impacts Medium Comment: The City has access to county and state data to monitor projected impacts of climate change.
Technical resources to assess proposed strategies for feasibility and externalities Medium Comment: -
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-12
Criterion
Jurisdiction
Ratinga
Jurisdiction-level capacity for development of greenhouse gas emissions inventory High Comment: Appendix A of the City’s CAP provides a complete report of the City’s GHG inventory Capital planning and land use decisions informed by potential climate impacts High Comment: The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) provides a five-year plan for financing, scheduling, and maintenance of the City's major public assets. It serves as the blueprint for how the City will maintain, protect, and improve, both the functions and ascetics of its systems. Projects focus on making improvements throughout, so the City remains efficient and prepared for the future.
Participation in regional groups addressing climate risks Medium Comment: -
Implementation Capacity
Clear authority/mandate to consider climate change impacts during public decision-making processes
Medium
Comment:
Identified strategies for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts High Comment: Chapters 6 through 11 of the CAP provide goals and mitigation measures in reducing the impacts of GHG and climate change. Chapter 12 of the CAP provides the City’s plan for implementation and monitoring of GHG emissions and climate change impacts.
Identified strategies for adaptation to impacts High
Comment: Chapters 6 through 11 of the CAP provide goals and mitigation measures in reducing the impacts of GHG and climate change. Chapter 12 of the CAP provides the City’s plan for implementation and monitoring of GHG emissions and climate change impacts.
Champions for climate action in local government departments Medium Comment: Through the integration and implementation of projects and improvements identified in the CAP and LHMP
Political support for implementing climate change adaptation strategies High Comment: Ensuring the City is in alignment with state and federal policies to address climate change and GHG emissions
Financial resources devoted to climate change adaptation Medium Comment: The City’s CIP identifies projects to protect the City and its residents. While not stand-alone funding devoted to climate change, the City has resources to make improvements that can factor in climate change projections when identifying and designing projects.
Local authority over sectors likely to be negative impacted Medium Comment: -
Public Capacity
Residents’ knowledge of and understanding of climate risk Medium Comment: The City has its CAP and LHMP posted online for residents.
Residents’ support of adaptation efforts Unsure
Comment: -
Residents’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium
Comment: Most residents have the capacity to adapt to climate impacts; however, some may require funding or assistance to implement any adaptation measures to their homes.
Local economy current capacity to adapt to climate impacts Medium Comment: Overall, the local economy has the capacity to adapt to climate impacts; however, funding and assistance may be required to implement any necessary measures.
Palos Verdes Peninsula | Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Palos Verdes Estates 2-13
Criterion
Jurisdiction
Ratinga
Local ecosystems capacity to adapt to climate impacts Unsure Comment: This depends on ecosystem health and how well it can adapt to changing climates. a. High = Capacity exists and is in use; Medium = Capacity may exist but is not used or could use some improvement; Low = Capacity does not exist or could use substantial improvement; Unsure= Not enough information is known to assign a rating.
2.5 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE
Table 2-10. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance Criterion Response
Flood Risk Summary
Please describe areas of the jurisdiction prone to
flooding, specifically those outside of the mapped
floodplain.
The City does not have any identified areas that are
consistently prone to flooding outside of the
mapped floodplain. While the City actively
maintains its storm drain system and clears inlets
prior to rain events, localized flooding can
occasionally occur. This is typically due to
temporary blockages caused by debris from the
large forested areas within the City or during
storms that exceed the design capacity of the
drainage infrastructure. These occurrences are
unpredictable and not tied to specific locations.
Do FEMA flood maps adequately address flood risk in the jurisdiction?
FEMA flood maps generally address the primary
flood risk within the jurisdiction; however, they do
not account for localized flooding that may result
from intense storm events or temporary inlet
blockages. Recent changes in storm frequency and
intensity have introduced conditions that can
exceed system design capacity, which is not
reflected in FEMA mapping.
How many structures in the jurisdictions Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA) have been determined to be
substantially damaged from any hazard event?
To date, the City has no record of any structures
within the SFHA being substantially damaged from
any hazard event.
Additional comments on flood risk Localized flooding may occur during severe storms due to factors such as debris accumulation at
storm drain inlets or rainfall exceeding system
capacity. Additionally, the regional flood control
district maintains larger conveyance systems that
carry water from other jurisdictions. During major
storm events, these systems can also become
overwhelmed, which may contribute to flooding
impacts within the City. The City has no control
over these regional systems.
Staff Resources
Provide an explanation of the jurisdiction’s NFIP
administration services (e.g. permit review, GIS,
education/outreach, inspections, engineering capability) Permit review, review and use of any other base
flood data, notification of other agencies, base
flood elevation changes due to physical alterations,
documentation of floodplain development, map
determinations, and remedial action