Salinas City Council
August 23, 2022

March 2022

COUNTY OF MONTEREY
Carmel-by-the-Sea Del Rey Oaks
Gonzales Greenfield
King City Marina
Monterey Pacific Grove
Salinas Sand City
Seaside Soledad
Carmel Area Wastewater District
Monterey County Water Resources Agency
Monterey One Water
Monterey Regional Waste Management District
Moss Landing Harbor District
VOLUME 2

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | i

MONTEREY COUNTY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

GERRY MALAIS, EMERGENCY MANAGER

TERESA MEISTER, SENIOR SECRETARY

KELSEY SCANLON, EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNER

JUSTIN LIN, EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNER

LAURA EMMONS, EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNER

DANIEL GONZALEZ, EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNER

LUBNA MOHAMMAD, COMMUNITY RESILIENCE PLANNER

TRACY MOLFINO, EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNER

1322 NATIVIDAD RD, SALINAS, CA
[email protected]
831-796-1905

IT IS THE POLICY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE DENIED THE BENEFITS OF

OR BE SUBJECTED TO DISCRIMINATION IN ANY CITY PROGRAM , SERVICE, OR ACTIVITY ON THE

GROUNDS OF RACE , RELIGION, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN , ENGLISH PROFICIENCY , SEX, AGE, DISABILITY, SEXUAL ORIENT ATION, GENDER IDENTITY , OR SOURCE OF INCOME . THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY ALSO REQUIRES ITS CONTRACTORS AND GRANTEES TO COMPLY WITH THIS POLICY.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | ii
PAG

E INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | iii

JURISDICTIONAL ANNEXES

This Volume, Volume 2 of the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan contains the following Jurisdictional Annexes for each participating jurisdiction.

A Unincorporated County of Monterey (and Monterey County Water Resources Agency) B City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
C City of Del Rey Oaks
D City of Gonzales
E City of Greenfield
F City of King
G City of Marina
H City of Monterey
I City of Pacific Grove
J City of Salinas
K City of Sand City
L City of Seaside
M City of Soledad
N Carmel Area Wastewater District
O Monterey One Water
P Monterey Regional Waste Management District
Q Moss Landing Harbor District

COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... ix Background ............................................................................................................................................. ix Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... ix The Planning Partnership ......................................................................................................................... x Annex-Preparation Process..................................................................................................................... xi Final Coverage Under This Plan ........................................................................................................... xvii A. Unincorporated Monterey County ......................................................................................... A-1 A.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ....................................................................................... A-1 A.2 Community Profile ......................................................................................................................... A-1 A.3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ A-5 A.4 Land Use and Development........................................................................................................... A-6 A.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ A-7 A.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................. A-15 A.7 Problem Statements .................................................................................................................... A-23 A.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions ................................................................................... A-24 B. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea .......................................................................................................B-1 B.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ....................................................................................... B-1 B.2 Community Profile ......................................................................................................................... B-1 B.3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ B-3 B.4 Land Use and Development ........................................................................................................... B-3 B.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ B-4 B.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................. B-13 B.7 Problem Statements .................................................................................................................... B-20 B.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions .................................................................................... B-21 C. City of Del Rey Oaks ................................................................................................................ C-1 C.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ....................................................................................... C-1 C.2 Community Profile ......................................................................................................................... C-1 C.3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ C-2 C.4 Land Use and Development ........................................................................................................... C-2 C.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ C-3 C.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................... C-9 C.7 Problem Statements .................................................................................................................... C-16 C.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions .................................................................................... C-16 D. City of Gonzales ..................................................................................................................... D-1 D.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ....................................................................................... D-1 D.2 Community Profile ......................................................................................................................... D-1 D.3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ D-3 D.4 Land Use and Development .......................................................................................................... D-3 D.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ D-4 COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | v
D.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................. D-10 D.7 Problem Statements .................................................................................................................... D-16 D.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions ................................................................................... D-17 E. City of Greenfield ................................................................................................................... E-1 E.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ....................................................................................... E-1 E.2 Community Profile ......................................................................................................................... E-1 E.3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ E-3 E.4 Land Use and Development ........................................................................................................... E-3 E.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ E-4 E.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................. E-10 E.7 Problem Statements .................................................................................................................... E-16 E.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions .................................................................................... E-17 F. City of King ............................................................................................................................. F-1 F.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ....................................................................................... F-1 F.2 Community Profile ......................................................................................................................... F-1 F.3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ F-3 F.4 Land Use and Development ........................................................................................................... F-3 F.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment ............................................................................................. F-4 F.6 Capability Assessment .................................................................................................................. F-10 F.7 Problem Statements .................................................................................................................... F-18 F.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions .................................................................................... F-19 G. City of Marina ........................................................................................................................ G-1 G.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ....................................................................................... G-1 G.2 Community Profile ......................................................................................................................... G-1 G.3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ G-3 G.4 Land Use and Development .......................................................................................................... G-3 G.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ G-4 G.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................. G-12 G.7 Problem Statements .................................................................................................................... G-18 G.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions ................................................................................... G-19 H. City of Monterey ................................................................................................................... H-1 H.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ....................................................................................... H-1 H.2 Community Profile ......................................................................................................................... H-1 H.3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ H-2 H.4 Land Use and Development .......................................................................................................... H-3 H.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ H-4 H.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................. H-13 H.7 Problem Statements .................................................................................................................... H-20 H.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions ................................................................................... H-21 I. City of Pacific Grove ................................................................................................................. I-1 I.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ......................................................................................... I-1 I.2 Community Profile ........................................................................................................................... I-1 I.3 Planning Process .............................................................................................................................. I-3 I.4 Land Use and Development ............................................................................................................. I-3 COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | vi
I.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment .............................................................................................. I-4 I.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................... I-14 I.7 Problem Statements ...................................................................................................................... I-22 I.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions ...................................................................................... I-23 J. City of Salinas ......................................................................................................................... J-1 J.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ......................................................................................... J-1 J.2 Community Profile ........................................................................................................................... J-1 J.3 Planning Process .............................................................................................................................. J-3 J.4 Land Use and Development ............................................................................................................. J-3 J.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment .............................................................................................. J-4 J.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................... J-18 J.7 Problem Statements ...................................................................................................................... J-25 J.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions ..................................................................................... J-26 K. City of Sand City ..................................................................................................................... K-1 K.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ....................................................................................... K-1 K.2 Community Profile ......................................................................................................................... K-1 K.3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ K-3 K.4 Land Use and Development ........................................................................................................... K-3 K.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ K-4 K.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................. K-11 K.7 Problem Statements .................................................................................................................... K-17 K.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions .................................................................................... K-18 L. City of Seaside ........................................................................................................................ L-1 L.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ........................................................................................ L-1 L.2 Community Profile ......................................................................................................................... L-1 L.3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................. L-3 L.4 Land Use and Development ........................................................................................................... L-3 L.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment ............................................................................................. L-4 L.6 Capability Assessment .................................................................................................................. L-12 L.7 Problem Statements ..................................................................................................................... L-19 L.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions .................................................................................... L-19 M. City of Soledad .................................................................................................................. M-1 M.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ..................................................................................... M-1 M.2 Community Profile ....................................................................................................................... M-1 M.3 Planning Process .......................................................................................................................... M-3 M.4 Land Use and Development ........................................................................................................ M-3 M.5 Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment .......................................................................................... M-4 M.6 Capability Assessment ............................................................................................................... M-10 M.7 Problem Statements .................................................................................................................. M-17 M.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions ................................................................................. M-18 N. Carmel Area Wastewater District (CAWD) .............................................................................. N-1 N.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact .......................................................................................N-1 N.2 District Profile ................................................................................................................................N-1 N.3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................N-3 COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | vii
N.4 Facilities .........................................................................................................................................N-3 N.5 District Specific Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................N-5 N.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................ N-11 N.7 Problem Statements ................................................................................................................... N-16 N.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions .................................................................................. N-17 O. Monterey One Water ............................................................................................................ O-1 O.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ...................................................................................... O-1 O.2 Agency Profile ............................................................................................................................... O-1 O.3 Planning Process ........................................................................................................................... O-2 O.4 Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ O-3 O.5 Agency Specific Risk Assessment ................................................................................................. O-5 O.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................ O-18 O.7 Problem Statements ................................................................................................................... O-24 O.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions .................................................................................. O-25 P. Monterey Regional Waste Management District ..................................................................... P-1 P.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ....................................................................................... P-1 P.2 District Profile ................................................................................................................................ P-1 P.3 Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ P-3 P.4 Facilities ......................................................................................................................................... P-3 P.5 District Specific Risk Assessment ................................................................................................... P-4 P.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................... P-8 P.7 Problem Statements .................................................................................................................... P-12 P.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions .................................................................................... P-12 Q. Moss Landing Harbor District ................................................................................................. Q-1 Q.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact ...................................................................................... Q-1 Q.2 District Profile ............................................................................................................................... Q-1 Q.3 Planning Process ........................................................................................................................... Q-3 Q.4 Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ Q-3 Q.5 District Specific Risk Assessment.................................................................................................. Q-4 Q.6 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................................ Q-10 Q.7 Problem Statements ................................................................................................................... Q-13 Q.8 Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Actions .................................................................................. Q-14

COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | viii

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | ix

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND
The hazards assessed in Volume 1 of this Plan know no legal and political boundaries and therefore, the County of Monterey determined that a multi-jurisdictional planning approach to hazard mitigation was important for long-term risk reduction. The multi-jurisdictional planning processes offered many benefits including:
• Improving communication and coordination among Monterey County jurisdictions and Operational Area partners on hazard mitigation
• Enabling a comprehensive mitigation approach to reduce risks that affect multiple jurisdictions • Maximizing economies of scale by leveraging individual capabilities and sharing costs and resources
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages multi-jurisdictional planning for hazard mitigation. All participating jurisdictions must meet the requirements of Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR §201.6). For the Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Plan, a Planning Partnership was formed to leverage resources and to meet requirements of the federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) for as many eligible local governments as possible. There are two types of Planning Partners that participated in this process, with distinct needs and capabilities:
• Incorporated Cities and the unincorporated County
• Special Purpose Districts
Each participating planning partner has 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.

PURPOSE
Annexes included in Volume 2 of the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan detail the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the participating jurisdictions.

The Annexes are not intended to be standalone documents but append to and supplement the information contained in Volume 1. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the participating jurisdictions.

The Annexes provide additional information specific to participating jurisdictions, with a focus on providing additional details on the planning process, risk assessment, and mitigation strategy for individual jurisdictions.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | x

THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP
For this update of the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Monterey County OES Planning Team formed a Steering Committee, which contained a representative from each participating jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction’s Steering Committee representative was also the lead for their respective Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder Team.

INITIAL SOLICITATION
The Monterey County OES Planning Team solicited the participation of all eligible municipalities and special purpose districts at the outset of this project. A kickoff meeting was held on May 22, 2019, to identify potential stakeholders and planning partners for this process. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the planning process to jurisdictions in the County that could have a stake in the outcome of the planning effort. All eligible local governments, including prior and potential planning partners, within the County were invited to attend. The goals of the meeting were as follows:
• Provide an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act.
• Review the 2016 MJHMP and Planning Partnership
• Outline the work plan for this hazard mitigation plan. • Describe the benefits of multi-jurisdictional planning. • Solicit planning partners.
• Outline planning partner expectations.
• Solicit volunteers/recommendations for the Steering Committee.

PLANNING PARTNERSHIP EXPECTATIONS
The Monterey County OES Planning Team developed the following list of planning partner expectations:
• Assign a Jurisdictional representative to the Steering Committee, who will concurrently serve as the lead for their respective Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder Team. • Participate in Steering Committee Meetings.
• Hold At least one Jurisdiction Specific Hazard Mitigation Planning Meeting. • Conduct at least one Public Presentation on the MJHMP Update and support the public involvement strategy.
• Perform a capability assessment, which includes completing the Capability Assessment, National Flood Insurance (NFIP), and Safe Growth Surveys. • Complete and review all elements of the Jurisdictional Annex template. • Participate in the creation of the Countywide mitigation strategy, including the development of Countywide hazard problem statements and mitigation actions. • Develop Jurisdiction-specific hazard problem statements and mitigation actions. • Review and approve Volume 1 of the MJHMP.
• Adopt the plan, including both Volume 1, and the respective Jurisdiction Annex.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xi
By adopting this plan, each planning partner also agrees to the plan implementation and maintenance protocol established in Volume 1. Failure to meet these criteria may result in a partner being dropped from the partnership by the Steering Committee, and thus losing eligibility under the scope of this plan.

ANNEX- PREPARATION PROCESS

JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN STAKEHOLDER TEAM
Each jurisdiction’s respective Steering Committee representative established their own Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder Team. Jurisdiction-specific Stakeholder Teams included, as applicable, representatives from the following departments: City Management, Economic Development, Emergency Management, Fire Department/District, Floodplain Administration (NFIP Coordinator), GIS and/or IT, Parks & Recreation, Planning/Community Development, Police Department, and Public Works. Additionally, Jurisdiction Leads included anyone else they deemed relevant for local hazard mitigation and disaster risk reduction efforts.

Details on the members of each Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder Team is included in each jurisdictions respective Annex.

CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Per 44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3), the plan must include a mitigation strategy based on existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources, therefore all participating jurisdictions undertook a review of their current capabilities to implement hazard mitigation actions. A capability assessment creates an inventory of a jurisdiction’s mission, programs, and policies, and evaluates its capacity to carry them out. This assessment identifies potential gaps in the jurisdiction’s capabilities. 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.

Specific capabilities evaluated under the assessment fell into in the following four different types of capabilities as defined by FEMA.
1 • Planning and Regulatory Capabilities: capabilities based on the jurisdiction’s implementation of ordinances, policies, local laws, and State statutes, and plans and programs that relate to guiding and managing growth and development.
• Administrative and Technical Capabilities: capabilities associated with the jurisdiction’s staff and their skills and tools that can be used for mitigation planning and to implement specific mitigation actions.
• Fiscal Capabilities: refers to the fiscal resources that a jurisdiction has access to or is eligible to us to fund mitigation actions.
• Education and Outreach Capabilities: refers to education and outreach programs and methods already in place that could be used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard- related information.

1 Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, Worksheet 4.1: Capability Assessment Worksheet, FEMA (March 2013) COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xii
The capability assessment also included an assessment of safe growth, defined as the extent to which each jurisdiction is positioned to safely grow relative to its natural hazards. This was used to provide some quantitative measures of how adequately existing planning mechanisms and tools are being used to address the notion of safe growth. Per 44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(ii), the capability assessment addressed each jurisdiction's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate.

Additionally, classifications under various community mitigation programs were included. Other programs, such as the Community Rating System, Storm/Tsunami Ready, and Firewise USA, can enhance a jurisdiction’s ability to mitigate, prepare for, and respond to natural hazards. These programs indicate a jurisdiction’s desire to go beyond minimum requirements set forth by local, state, and federal regulations in order to create a more resilient community. 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.

For participating special districts, a slightly different capability assessment was used in order to capture capabilities more specific to their individual services. Special district capability assessments are included in the respective annexes.

JURISDICTION SPECIFIC HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING MEETINGS Each participating jurisdiction held at least one Jurisdiction Specific Hazard Mitigation Planning Meeting. At these meetings, the respective Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder Team discussed hazard vulnerabilities, mitigation activities that had occurred since the last Plan update, hazard problem statements, and the mitigation action plan.

Each jurisdiction also went through a risk ranking process using the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey. In the risk-ranking exercise, each planning partner was asked to review and rank the hazards identified in Volume 1, specifically for their jurisdiction. This ranking was based on the geographic extent, the likelihood of future occurrences, the expected magnitude/ severity of the hazard, and the potential impact on people, property, and the economy. The methodology was the same as the one used for the Countywide risk ranking that was presented in Volume 1. The objectives of this exercise were to familiarize the Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder Team with how to use the risk assessment 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” for each jurisdiction as a result of this exercise were considered to be priorities for identifying appropriate mitigation actions.

HAZARD PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Problem Statements are statements of particular interest regarding primary hazards of concern, geographic areas of concern, or vulnerable community assets. As part of the planning process, the Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder Teams identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concern applicable to their jurisdiction. Hazard Problem Statements helped the Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder Teams identify common issues and weaknesses, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xiii

IDENTIFICATION OF MITIGATION ACTIONS
Each jurisdiction who participated in the 2016 planning process reviewed and updated their actions from the 2016 Plan. In order to improve the mitigation action plan for this Plan update and align with the Countywide Mitigation Action Plan, jurisdictions added more specificity and detail to previous plan actions in addition to the new actions added to the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.

In formulating the mitigation strategy, a wide range of actions were considered in order to help achieve mitigation goals and address specific hazard concerns. These activities were discussed during the Planning Team meetings. In general, all activities considered can be classified under one of the following five broad categories of mitigation techniques: local plans and regulations, structure and infrastructure projects, natural systems protection, education and outreach, and emergency preparedness and response. All of these categories are described in detail below.

Local Plans and Regulations
Mitigation actions that fall under this category include government authorities, policies, or codes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built. Examples of these types of actions include:
• Comprehensive and General Plans
• Climate Action and Adaptation Plans
• Land Use Ordinances and Subdivision Regulations
• Zoning and Building Code Updates
• Capital Improvement Plans, Stormwater Management Regulations, and Master Plans Structure and Infrastructure Projects
Mitigation actions that fall under this category involve modifying existing structures and infrastructure to protect them from a hazard or remove them from a hazard area. This could apply to public or private structures as well as critical facilities and infrastructure. This type of action also involves projects to construct manmade structures to reduce the impact of hazards. Examples of these types of actions include:
• Elevation of Flood-Prone Structures
• Utility Undergrounding
• Structural Retrofits
• Stormwater System Upgrades
Natural Systems Protection
Mitigation actions that fall under this category minimize damage and losses and also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Examples of these types of actions include:
• Stream Corridor and Wetland Restoration
• Sediment and Erosion Control
• Forest and Vegetation Management
• Conservation Easements and Open Space Preservation
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xiv
Education and Outreach
Mitigation actions that fall under this category inform and educate the public, elected officials, and property owners about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. Although this type of mitigation reduces risk less directly than structural projects or regulation, it is an important foundation. A greater understanding and awareness of hazards and risk among local officials, stakeholders, and the public is more likely to lead to direct actions. Examples of these types of actions include:
• Risk Communication and Education Programs
• Real Estate Disclosures
• Participation in StormReady or Firewise Program
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Though emergency preparedness and response activities do not always fall under hazard mitigation, stakeholders in Monterey County believe this is an incredibly important category of strategies for reducing the risk to life and property posed by the hazards in the MJHMP. Examples of these types of actions include:
• Warning Systems
• Emergency Operations Center Improvements
• Emergency Operations Plan Updates
• Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Programs
• Emergency Response Training and Exercises
• Evacuation Planning

MITIGATION ACTION PRIORITIZATION AND BENEFIT/COST REVIEW 44 CFR requires actions identified in the action plan to be prioritized (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(3)(iii))).

The Planning Team and the Steering Committee decided to use FEMA’s recommended prioritization criteria, STAPLEE, to assist in deciding why one recommended action might be more important, more effective, or more likely to be implemented than another. STAPLEE stands for the following:
• Social: Does the measure treat people fairly? (e.g., different groups, different generations) Does it consider social equity, disadvantaged communities, or vulnerable populations? • Technical: Will it work? (Is the action technically feasible? Does it solve the problem?) • Administrative: Is there capacity to implement and manage the project? Is there adequate staffing, funding, and other capabilities to implement the project? • Political: Who are the stakeholders? Did they get to participate? Will there be adequate political and public support for the project?
• Legal: Does the jurisdiction have the legal authority to implement the action? Is it legal? Are there liability implications?
• Economic: Is the action cost-beneficial? Is there funding available? Will the action contribute to the local economy?
• Environmental: Does the action comply with environmental regulations? Will there be negative environmental consequences from the action?
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xv
44 CFR requires the prioritization of the action plan to emphasize a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed actions. Because some actions may not be implemented for up to 10 years, the benefit/cost analysis was qualitative and not of the detail required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant program. A review of the apparent benefits versus the apparent cost of each project was performed. Parameters were established for assigning subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to benefits and costs as follows:

Cost ratings were defined as follows:
• High: Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source.
• Medium: The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re- apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years.
• Low: The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program.

Benefit ratings were defined as follows:
• High: Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property. • Medium: Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property. • Low: Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.

Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over medium, medium over low, etc.) are considered cost-beneficial and are prioritized accordingly. For many of the strategies identified in this action plan, funding might be sought under FEMA’s HMA program. This program requires detailed benefit/cost analysis as part of the application process. These analyses will be performed on projects at the time of application preparation. The FEMA benefit-cost model will be used to perform this review. For projects not seeking financial assistance from grant programs that require this sort of analysis, the Partners reserve the right to define “benefits” according to parameters that meet their needs and the goals and objectives of this Plan.

HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRICES
The mitigation strategy is the guidebook to future hazard mitigation administration, capturing the key outcomes of the planning process. The Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix for each jurisdiction lists each priority mitigation action, identifies a time frame, the responsible party, potential funding sources, and prioritization, which meet the requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

It should be noted that in addition to the mitigation actions within this Volume, jurisdictions have also prioritized the countywide actions included in Volume 1 of this plan. Collectively, this multi- jurisdictional mitigation strategy focuses on those actions and projects which reflect the actual priorities and capacity of each jurisdiction to implement over the next 5- years covered by this plan. It should further be noted, that although a jurisdiction may not have specific projects identified for each priority hazard for the five-year coverage of this planning process, each jurisdiction has focused on identifying those projects which are realistic and reasonable for them to implement and would like to COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xvi
preserve their hazard priorities should future projects be identified where the implementing jurisdiction has the future capacity to implement. All actions included in this Plan update were determined to have a positive benefit cost ratio.

Hazard Mitigation Actions Plan Matrices for each jurisdiction are available on the following pages:

A Unincorporated Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ........................................ A-26 B City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ...................................................... B-23 C City of Del Rey Oaks Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ............................................................... C-18 D City of Gonzales Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ..................................................................... D-19 E City of Greenfield Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ................................................................... E-19 F City of King Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ............................................................................. F-21 G City of Marina Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ........................................................................ G-21 H City of Monterey Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix .................................................................... H-23 I City of Pacific Grove Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ............................................................................. I-24 J City of Salinas Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ........................................................................... J-28 K City of Sand City Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ..................................................................... K-20 L City of Seaside Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ........................................................................ L-23 M City of Soledad Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ..................................................................... M-19 N Carmel Area Wastewater District Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ......................................... N-19 O Monterey One Water Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ........................................................... O-27 P Monterey Regional Waste Management District Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix .................. P-14 Q Moss Landing Harbor District Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix ............................................... Q-15

JURISDICTION ANNEX TEMPLATES
Following respective jurisdiction Specific Hazard Mitigation Planning Meetings, the Monterey County OES Planning Team compiled information from the capability assessment surveys, the risk ranking process, and discussions on hazard vulnerabilities, problem statements, and mitigation actions into Jurisdiction-Specific Annex Templates.

The templates were created to help the Planning Partners prepare and review their jurisdiction-specific Annexes. Since special purpose districts operate differently from incorporated municipalities, separate templates were created for the two types of jurisdictions. The templates were created so that all criteria of Section 201.6 of 44 CFR would be met, based on the partners’ capabilities and mode of operation.

Jurisdictions then edited, reviewed, and updated their respective Jurisdiction Annex template and provided final edits and approval to the Monterey County OES Planning Team.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xvii

FINAL COVERAGE UNDER THIS PLAN
All jurisdictions that intended to participate in the planning process fully met the participation requirements for this update, completed an annex template, and will be covered by the updated hazard mitigation plan upon FEMA approval and adoption by their governing bodies. This final coverage will apply to the following jurisdictions:
• Unincorporated Monterey County
• Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) (Included with unincorporated Monterey County)
• City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
• City of Del Rey Oaks
• City of Gonzales
• City of Greenfield
• City of King
• City of Marina
• City of Monterey
• City of Pacific Grove
• City of Salinas
• City of Sand City
• City of Seaside
• City of Soledad
• Carmel Area Wastewater District (CAWD)
• Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD)
• Monterey One Water (M1W)
• Moss Landing Harbor District

All participating jurisdictions will adopt Volume 1 in its entirety and their own jurisdiction-specific annex in Volume 2. It should also be noted that the Monterey County Water Resources Agency as a dependent special district is covered under the Unincorporated Monterey County Annex. The Agency participated extensively in both the Steering Committee and the unincorporated County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team. The Plan will also be adopted by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Board, in addition to its adoption by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xviii

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

A
ANNEX A:

MONTEREY COUNTY

2021 Monterey County
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-1 ANNEX A
A. UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY
COUNTY
A.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Kelsey Scanlon
Emergency Services Planner
1322 Natividad Road
Salinas, CA 93906
(831) 796-1902
[email protected]
Laura Emmons
Emergency Services Planner
1322 Natividad Road
Salinas, CA 93906
(831) 796-1993
[email protected]
A.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
A.2.1 LOCATION

UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-2 ANNEX A
A.2.2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
Monterey County is located on the north-central coast of California. Monterey County is bordered by Santa Cruz County to the North, San Benito, Fresno, and King Counties to the East, San Luis Obispo County to the South, and the Pacific Ocean to the West. Prominent land features in the county include two major northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges—the Santa Lucia Range along the coast, and the Gabilan Range along the county’s eastern border, both of which are part of the Pacific Coast Range.

Between the Santa Lucia and Gabilan mountain ranges lies the Salinas Valley; and at the center of the Valley flows the Salinas River, the largest river on California’s Central Coast.

Unincorporated Monterey County has many communities. Because of Monterey County’s large geographic area, the unincorporated communities are Census Designated Places:
• North County: Pajaro, Moss Landing, Las Lomas, Aromas, Elkhorn, Castroville and Prunedale • Salinas Valley: Boronda, Spreckels, Toro Park, East Garrison, San Benancio, and Corral de Tierra • Coastal Area: Carmel Valley Village, Del Monte Forest, Cachagua, and Big Sur • South County: Chualar, Pine Canyon, Lockwood, Bradley, San Lucas, and San Ardo The climate in Monterey County is considered Mediterranean, with dry summers, rainy winters, and moderate temperatures year-round. Precipitation in the region falls mainly between November and April. Large variations exist in rainfall amounts between coastal and inland areas, as well as from year to year and from sea level to altitude along the coast.

A.2.3 HISTORY
Before the European colonization, the Monterey area had been inhabited for over 8,000 years.

Indigenous peoples lived in the valleys and near the seaside and the area was inhabited by three major native groups: the Costanoan (Ohlone), Esselen, and Salinan groups. The Salinan Indigenous Americans lived in southern region of the County and had about 3,500-4,000 members. The Esselen Indigenous Americans had several hundred members and resided on the northwest coast of the County. The Costanoan (Ohlone) group was the largest in the area with around 7,000 people, occupying Monterey Peninsula and northern region of the County.

Spanish explorers first settled in Monterey Bay in the early 1600s and Franciscan missionaries began constructing missions in the late 1700s. The Presidio of Monterey was first founded on June 3, 1770, by Spanish soldiers. Spain established a formal pueblo government in 1791. By 1814, several non-Spanish immigrants had begun to settle in Monterey and in 1826, after Mexico’s secession from Spain, Alta California was controlled by Mexico. Following the Mexican American War, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in February 1848, formally ceded Alta California, which included Monterey County, to the United States.

Monterey County was one of the original counties of California, created in 1850 at the time of statehood. The discovery of gold in the Sierra Nevada foothills in 1849 brought droves of homesteaders to the county, and as the best parcels in Monterey and the Salinas Valley became occupied, homesteading spread to the rugged Big Sur coast. By 1870, commercial agriculture was well underway in the Salinas Valley. A major drought in 1863 and 1864 essentially wiped out the cattle industry, and grain production became the County’s principal agricultural activity. Sugar beet cultivation and dairying began to replace grain farming by 1897. The extension of the Southern Pacific UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-3 ANNEX A
Railroad from Pajaro to Salinas, along with improved irrigation systems, refrigerated freight cars, and other innovations in technology, encouraged more and more intensive row crop cultivation and set the stage for the Salinas Valley to become one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world.

A.2.4 POPULATION
Unincorporated Monterey County has a population of 104,482 people, a decrease of 4% since 2010.

Population of unincorporated communities in Monterey County, including percentage change since 2010, is summarized in Table A-1.

A.2.5 GOVERNING BODY F ORMAT
Unincorporated Monterey County is governed by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. Like all governing bodies in California, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors is empowered with both legislative and executive authority over the entirety of Monterey County and is the primary governing body for all unincorporated areas within the County boundaries.

The Board of Supervisors appoints members of the public to serve on a variety of advisory committees and commissions. The County Administrative Officer (CAO) is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the County.

The Board has five elected members, each of whom represents one of five supervisorial districts summarized below:

Table A-1
Population of Unincorporated Monterey County
Community 2020 Population 2010 Population Percent Change Aromas 2,708 1,358 99%
Boronda 1,760 1,710 3%
Bradley 69 93 -26%
Carmel Valley Village 4,524 4,407 3%
Castroville 7,515 6,481 16%
Chualar 1,185 1,190 0%
Del Monte Forest 4,204 4,514 -7%
Elkhorn 1,588 1,565 1%
Las Lomas 3,046 3,024 1%
Lockwood 368 379 -3%
Moss Landing 237 204 16%
Pajaro 2,882 3,070 -6%
Pine Canyon 1,871 1,822 3%
Prunedale 18,885 17,560 8%
San Ardo 392 517 -24%
San Lucas 324 269 20%
Spreckels 692 673 3%
Remaining Unincorporated Areas 52,250 51,377 2%
Total Unincorporated Population 104,482 100,213 4%
UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-4 ANNEX A
• District 1 is geographically the smallest supervisorial district in Monterey County and is entirely within the city limits of the city of Salinas.
• District 2 is the northernmost supervisorial district in Monterey County, the 2nd District includes the communities of Boronda, Castroville, Las Lomas, Moss Landing, Pajaro, Prunedale, Royal Oaks, the northern neighborhoods of the city of Salinas, and those portions of the community of Aromas that are located within Monterey County. • District 3 covers the majority of the Salinas Valley and southern Monterey County, extending to its border with San Luis Obispo County. The district includes the unincorporated communities of Spreckels, Chualar, Jolon, the eastern portion of the city of Salinas, and the cities of Gonzales, Greenfield, Soledad, and King City. Additionally, it includes the military installations at Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts, as well as portions of the Los Padres National Forest. • District 4 includes the southwest portion of the city of Salinas, the cities of Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Seaside, Sand City, and the former military installation at Fort Ord. • District 5 is geographically the largest of the five supervisorial districts and covers most of the Monterey Peninsula and southern coastline of Monterey County down to the southern county border with San Luis Obispo County. The 5th District includes the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey, and Pacific Grove, the unincorporated communities of Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Pebble Beach, San Benancio, Corral de Tierra, and Jamesburg. Additionally, it includes the military installations at the Presidio of Monterey, the Defense Language Institute, and the Naval Postgraduate School, as well as the Ventana Wilderness area of the Los Padres National Forest.

Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA)
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), which is included and covered under this Annex is a dependent special district. Dependent special districts are governed by other, existing legislative bodies (either a city council or a county board of supervisors). Prior to being formally established in 1991, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) was the Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, established in 1947 and organized as a division of the Public Works Department of the County of Monterey.

MCWRA provides services related to the control of flood and storm waters in Monterey County, conservation, protection of water quality, reclamation of water and the exchange of water.

Fundamental to the agency’s mission to sustainably manage water resources while minimizing impacts from flooding, MCWRA owns and operates two dams on principal tributaries to the Salinas River (Nacimiento and San Antonio) along with associated reservoirs.

The Board of Supervisors of Monterey County is ex officio the Board of Supervisors of the Agency. The Agency is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors who are appointed by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Board of Supervisors and the Board of Directors is under the governance of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Board of Supervisors. Directors must be residents of Monterey County and possess backgrounds and experience indicating a high level of interest or expertise in areas relating to the Agency's work. Each of the five members of the Board of Supervisors selects one member for the Board of Directors, with the remaining four directors being appointed by a majority vote of the Supervisors from nominees submitted by the following groups or organizations:

Monterey County Farm Bureau; Grower-Shipper Association; City Select Committee; and the Monterey UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-5 ANNEX A
County Agricultural Advisory Committee. The term of office for each director is four years. Directors may be reappointed at the end of their terms.

Duties of the Board of Directors, with the assistance of staff, include the following:
• Establishes short and long-term policy objectives for the Agency, subject to review by the Board of Supervisors
• Prepares an annual budget
• Holds public hearings on proposed budget
• Approves all contracts for which funds have been budgeted A.2.6 ECONOMY AND TAX BASE
Monterey County’s economy is primarily based upon tourism in the coastal regions and agriculture in the Salinas Valley. It is also home to an extensive array of education and research institutions which contribute greatly to the economy. The non-profit sector is also one of the largest business sectors in the County.

A.3 PLANNING PROCESS
Unincorporated Monterey County followed the planning process explained in Volume 1 of the plan. In addition to providing representation on the Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Planning Steering Committee, the County formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process.

Monterey County held a Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder meeting to discuss vulnerabilities, mitigation activities that had occurred since the last plan update, key problem statements, and mitigation strategies on August 30, 2021. Key stakeholders present at the meeting included:
• Erik V. Lundquist, Housing and Community Development Director • Bryan Flores, Interim Chief of Parks
• Randell Ishii, Director of Public Works, Facilities and Parks • Eric Chatham, Director Information Technology Department • John Dugan, Housing & Community Development Special Project Manager • Jennifer Bodensteiner, Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), Associate Hydrologist
• Melanie Beretti, Housing & Community Development Services Manager • Ashley Paulsworth, Sustainability Manager
• Shandy Carroll, Housing & Community Development Management Analyst III • Lindsay Lerable, Public Works Chief of Facilities
• Jamie Tuitele-Lewis, Fire Fuel Mitigation Program and Forest Health Coordinator, RCDMC • Kelsey Scanlon, Emergency Services Planner
• Laura Emmons, Emergency Services Planner
• Tracy Molfino, Emergency Services Planner
It should be noted that the Monterey County Water Resources Agency as a dependent special district is covered under this Annex, the Unincorporated Monterey County Annex. The Agency participated UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-6 ANNEX A
extensively in both the Steering Committee and the unincorporated County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team. The Plan will also be adopted by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Board, in addition to its adoption by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.

A.4 LAND USE AND D EVELOPMENT
Monterey County began land use planning in 1930 with the creation of a Planning Commission followed by the establishment of a Planning Department 20 years later. The Planning Department completed its first general plan in 1968 and by the mid-1970s had adopted the State of California’s mandated Safety Element as part of the plan.

Monterey County adopted its most recent General Plan in 2010. The 2010 General Plan applies in the unincorporated non-coastal area of the County. The policies of the General Plan underlie land use development decisions, and the County’s zoning ordinances, specific plans, development projects, and capital improvement programs must be consistent with the General Plan. Monterey County has historically been planned as a rural county. Approximately 1% of the unincorporated county has been developed with residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Most of this development has been concentrated in the northern one-third of the county. Public and quasi-public uses, such as educational, transportation, military, recreational, cultural, and religious facilities, account for about an additional 28% of the county’s total land area. Agriculture accounts for the largest land use, representing almost 60% of the unincorporated county’s total land area.

The County has a variety of Area Plans which include: Central Salinas Valley Area Plan, Agricultural & Winery Corridor Plan, Cachagua Area Plan, Carmel Valley Master Plan, Toro Area Plan, Fort Ord Master Plan, Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan, North County Inland Area Plan, South County Area Plan, and Greater Salinas Area Plan. The County also has community plans for the communities of Fort Ord, Chualar, Boronda, Castroville, Pajaro, Carmel Valley Village, and Spreckels. Within the coastal zone, the governing general plan is the County’s certified Local Coastal Program, which is broken into four segments represented by four Land Use Plans (LUPs) for specific defined areas: North County, Del Monte Forest, Carmel Area, and Big Sur.

Safe Growth
The purpose of the Safe Growth Survey was to evaluate the extent to which each jurisdiction is positioned to grow safely relative to its natural hazards. The survey covered 9 distinct topic areas and was also completed as part of the previous plan update process. This allowed survey results to be compared to help measure progress over time and to continue identifying possible mitigation actions as it relates to future growth and community development practices.

This survey was a subjective exercise used to provide some quantitative measures of how adequately existing planning mechanisms were being used to address the notion of safe growth. Each topic area included a number of statements, which were answered on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the degree to which the respondent agreed or disagreed with the statement as it relates to the County’s current plans, policies, and programs for guiding future community growth and development. Scores for each topic area statement were averaged to provide a topic area result and the topic area totals were averaged to provide an overall survey score. More information on the survey is provided in Capability Assessment in Volume 1.

UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-7 ANNEX A
The Monterey County Safe Growth Survey was completed by Dina Northcut, Management Analyst with the Monterey County Housing and Community Development Department. The results are summarized in Table A-2.

Table A-2
Monterey County Safe Growth Survey Results
Topic Area 2021 2016
Land Use 3.50 3.50
Transportation 4.00 3.00
Environmental Management 5.00 4.33
Public Safety 4.33 4.00
Zoning Ordinance 4.25 3.50
Subdivision Regulations 3.67 4.67
Capital Improvement Program & Infrastructure Policies 4.00 2.33 Building Code 4.00 5.00
Economic Development 3.00 2.00
Average Survey Ratings 3.97 3.59
A.5 JURISDICTION SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT
The intent of this section is to profile the Unincorporated Monterey County’s hazards and assess the vulnerability distinct from that of the countywide planning area, which has already been assessed in Volume 1 of the plan. The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the County and describes the hazards, as well as their extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences, and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard vulnerability specific to Unincorporated Monterey County is included in this Annex.

The Unincorporated Monterey County’s Planning Team used the same risk assessment process as the Monterey County Steering Committee. The County’s Planning Team used the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey to compare the impact of various hazards that could affect the unincorporated County. Each variable was scored by hazard by the Planning Team on a scale from 1 to 4, or negligible/unlikely to extensive/highly likely/catastrophic. The score for each variable was calculated using a weighted average of all survey responses. Scores were then added together to determine an overall hazard score between 1 and 16. Each score was associated with a qualitative degree of risk ranking from Negligible (between 1 and 4) to Very High (between 14.1 and 16). The Survey is described in more detail in Risk Assessment Methods in Volume 1.

Table A-3 displays the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise that was performed by the Unincorporated Monterey County’s Planning Team.

UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-8 ANNEX A
Table A-3
Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA): Unincorporated Monterey County Hazard Geographic
Extent
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Magnitude/
Severity Impact Total
Out of 16
Degree of
Risk
Agricultural Emergencies 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.7 9.9 Moderate
Coastal Erosion 2.5 2.9 2.8 2.7 10.9 Substantial
Coastal Flooding 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.7 11.0 Substantial
Cyber-Attack 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.4 9.4 Moderate
Dam Failure 2.8 1.5 2.9 3.0 10.1 Substantial
Drought & Water Shortage 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.2 12.4 High
Earthquake 2.9 2.4 2.9 2.9 11.1 Substantial
Epidemic 2.6 2.1 2.4 2.3 9.4 Moderate
Extreme Cold & Freeze 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 7.6 Possible
Extreme Heat 2.8 2.7 2.3 2.1 9.9 Moderate
Flash Flood 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.3 9.0 Moderate
Hazardous Materials Incident 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8 7.1 Possible Invasive Species 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.0 9.1 Moderate
Levee Failure 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.6 9.3 Moderate
Localized Stormwater Flooding 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.6 11.0 Substantial Mass Migration 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.6 6.8 Possible
Pandemic 2.9 2.6 2.9 2.9 11.2 Substantial
Riverine Flooding 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.6 10.2 Substantial
Sea Level Rise 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.6 10.9 Substantial
Severe Winter Storms 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.5 10.6 Substantial
Slope Failure 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.7 10.8 Substantial
Targeted Violence 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 7.1 Possible
Terrorism 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 7.3 Possible
Tsunami 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.5 9.0 Moderate
Utility Interruption/ PSPS 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.1 9.4 Moderate Water Contamination 2.6 2.1 2.6 2.8 10.1 Substantial
Wildfire 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.3 13.1 High
Windstorms 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.9 8.4 Moderate
A.5.1 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
The agricultural industry is a major economic driver in the County. Agricultural disasters pose a serious threat to the local economy and populations directly employed by the agriculture industry. Including production and local processing, and after subtracting significant subsidies, estimates put agriculture’s net 2018 tax contribution at $61.9 million to $122.7 million. This included excise, sales, and property UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-9 ANNEX A
taxes, as well as fees, licenses, and permits (but not income taxes). 2 Therefore, even small impacts from agricultural emergencies could have a large impact on County services.

A.5.2 COASTAL EROSION
To determine coastal erosion risk, USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center Coastal Storm Modeling (CoSMos) shoreline change, and cliff retreat projection data was used. For cliff retreat modeling an end of century (2100) forced sea level rise amount of 200 cm was used based on Ocean Protection Council (OPC) High Risk Aversion Guidance.

For shoreline change, winter erosion uncertainty modeling was used to capture the degree of uncertainty associated with future shoreline erosion. Hold the Line scenario modeling was chosen for both types of erosion. Three sea level rise levels (25 cm, 75 cm, and 200 cm) to represent planning horizons based on OPC Sea Level Rise Projections for the Monterey Tide Gauge. 25 cm of sea level rise represents near term (2030) risk, 75 cm represent mid-term (2060) risk, and 200 cm represent long- term (2100) risk. Table A-4 summarizes population and property exposure to coastal erosion risk.

Table A-4
Population and Property Exposed to Coastal Erosion Risk in Unincorporated Monterey County Sea Level Rise Scenario/
Erosion Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Cliff Erosion
Sea Level Rise (25 cm) 909 199 $1,107,044,203 180 $212,903,839 Sea Level Rise (75 cm) 1,470 219 $1,167,783,359 179 $212,903,839 Sea Level Rise (200 cm) 1,646 233 $1,231,807,382 186 $154,510,855 Shoreline Erosion
Sea Level Rise (25 cm) 455 4 $3,099,857 28 $73,864,312
Sea Level Rise (75 cm) 179 4 $3,099,857 28 $73,864,312
Sea Level Rise (200 cm) 179 4 $3,099,857 29 $74,374,903 A.5.3 DAM AND LEVEE FAILURE
Dam Failure
Table A-5 summarizes population and property in the County exposed to spillway and dam failure of the Nacimiento, San Antonio, Los Padres, and Forest Lake dams. It should be noted that both the San Antonio and Nacimiento dams are owned and managed by MCWRA.

2 Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner, 2020, Economic Contributions of Monterey County Agriculture UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-10 ANNEX A
Table A-5
Population and Property Exposed to Dam Failure Risk in Unincorporated Monterey County Dam Failure Scenario Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Nacimiento Spillway Failure 8,451 170 $81,972,951 2,389 $1,710,686,191 Nacimiento Dam Failure 13,466 1,163 $475,463,687 3,165 $2,649,111,539 San Antonio Spillway Failure 3,581 62 $22,456,021 1,941 $1,085,304,869 San Antonio Dam Failure 12,361 977 $450,695,254 3,178 $2,303,214,030 Los Padres Dam 5,784 943 $779,795,548 419 $196,382,343
Forest Lake Dam Scenario 1
North Embankment Failure 302 38 $47,663,347 12 $97,873,581 Forest Lake Dam Scenario 2
South Embankment Failure 403 48 $54,833,015 16 $62,584,773 Forest Lake Dam Scenario 3
Outlet Structure Failure 23 0 $0 0 $0
Forest Lake Dam Scenario 4
NW South Embankment Failure 834 266 $356,389,582 52 $77,207,153 Levee Failure
Data on levee location, leveed area, and population and property exposed to levee failure risk was from the US Army Corp of Engineers, National Levee Database. Leveed Area, which is defined as the estimated area of a floodplain from which flood water is excluded by the levee system, was used to determine the population and property exposed to levee failure. Population and property exposed to levee failure in unincorporated Monterey County by waterbody is summarized in Table A-6.

Table A-6
Population and Property Exposed to Levee Failure in Unincorporated Monterey County Waterbody Miles of Levee Leveed Area in
Square Miles Population Structures Property
Value
Bennett Slough 0.9 0.35 6 1 $544,000
Carmel River 2.1 0.17 633 111 $258,000,000
Elkhorn Slough 5.6 0.62 0 0 $0
Moro Cojo Slough 4.3 0.87 0 0 $0
Pajaro River 9.2 5.97 3,597 811 $481,000,000
Salinas River 29.6 8.51 23 8 $55,501,000
Total 51.7 16.49 4,259 931 $795,045,000
Source: US Army Corp of Engineers, National Levee Database Many levees in the County also protect important agricultural lands and a significant levee failure could have a large economic effect on the agricultural industry and the economy. Additionally, it should be noted that left (southern) bank of the Pajaro River Levee System is maintained by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA). The MCWRA has an emergency plan that identifies critical stages of the river and the related actions that the Office of Emergency Services takes such as declaring UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-11 ANNEX A
an emergency and mobilizing emergency responders. The MCWRA also has an ALERT system that monitors river levels whenever significant storms approach the area.

A.5.4 DROUGHT AND WATER SHORTAGE
The entire population of Unincorporated Monterey County is vulnerable to drought events. Drought can affect people’s health and safety, including health problems related to low water flows, poor water quality, or dust. Other possible impacts include recreational risks; effects on air quality; diminished living conditions related to energy, air quality, and hygiene; compromised food and nutrition; and increased incidence of illness and disease. Water shortages can affect access to safe, relatively affordable water, with substantial impacts on low-income families and communities burdened with environmental pollution.

A prolonged drought could also cause economic impacts. Increased demand for water and electricity may result in shortages and higher costs of these resources. While economic impacts will be most significant on industries that use water or depend on water for their business, cascading economic effects can hurt many sectors of the economy. Agriculture, which will likely be impacted by drought conditions, is a major economic driver in the County, and could impact the County economically.

A.5.5 EARTHQUAKE
The entire population of the unincorporated County is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impacted, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. Similarly, all property and critical infrastructure in the County is potentially exposed to earthquake risk.

According to Monterey County Assessor records, there are 128,966 residential and non-residential buildings in the unincorporated County, with a total value of $73,489,253,104. Since all structures in the County are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this represents the property exposure to seismic events.

Additionally, liquefaction risk was assessed. Table A-7 summarizes population and property in the County exposed to liquefaction risk.

Table A-7
Population and Property Exposed Liquefaction Risk in Unincorporated Monterey County Liquefaction Risk Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High Liquefaction Susceptibility 67,840 6,777 $4,468,219,528 8,240 $4,277,956,816 Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility 26,413 2,941 $1,932,144,395 4,353 $3,427,952,047 A.5.6 FLOODING
FEMA flood zones were used to assess flooding risk. Table A-8 summarizes population and property in the County in the 100-year and 500-year floodplain.

UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-12 ANNEX A
Table A-8
Population and Property Exposed to Flooding Risk in Unincorporated Monterey County FEMA Flood Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
100-Year Flood Zone 48,259 3,474 $3,179,753,966 6,015 $4,194,752,812 500-Year Flood Zone 33,756 3,806 $1,782,983,176 3,472 $1,328,314,568 A.5.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT
To assess hazardous materials incident risk, buffer distances were used. The chosen buffer distance was based on guidelines in the US Department of Transportation’s Emergency Response Guidebook that suggest distances useful to protect people from vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic if inhaled. The recommended buffer distance referred to in the guide as the “protective action distance” is the area surrounding the incident in which people are at risk of harmful exposure. For purposes of this plan, a buffer distance of one mile was used, but actual buffer distances will vary depending on the nature and quantity of the release, whether the release occurred during the night or daytime, and prevailing weather conditions.

To analyze the risk to a transportation-related hazardous materials release, a one-mile buffer was applied to highways in the US Dept of Transportation, National Transportation Atlas Database. The result is a two-mile buffer zone around each transportation corridor that is used for this analysis. Risk from a fixed facility hazardous materials release, was analyzed using a one-mile buffer was applied facilities identified in the Monterey County 2019 Hazardous Materials Plan. The result was a one-mile buffer zone around each facility.

Table A-9 summarizes population and property that could be exposed to both mobile and fixed hazardous materials incidents.

Table A-9
Population and Property Exposed to Hazardous Materials Risk in Unincorporated Monterey County Hazardous Materials
Incident Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Mobile Source 54,877 12,901 $10,393,026,686 9,171 $4,695,598,628 Fixed Source 18,968 1,971 $894,344,653 1,917 $1,897,531,429 A.5.8 HUMAN CAUSED HAZARDS
It is often quite difficult to quantify the potential losses from human-caused hazards. While facilities themselves have a tangible dollar value, loss from a human-caused hazard often inflicts an even greater toll on a community, both economically and emotionally. The impact to identified values will vary from event to event and depend on the type, location, and nature of a specific incident.

A.5.9 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
All citizens in the County could be susceptible to the human health hazards. A large outbreak or epidemic, a pandemic or a use of biological agents as a weapon of mass destruction could have devastating effects on the population. While all of the population is at risk to the human health UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-13 ANNEX A
hazards, the young and the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and those with special needs are most vulnerable. The introduction of a disease such as influenza or the COVID-19 virus have impacted the whole population of the County, specifically vulnerable populations.

A.5.10 SEVERE WEATHER
All severe weather events profiled in this Plan have the potential to happen anywhere in the County.

Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Properties in poor condition or in high-risk locations may be susceptible to the most damage. All critical facilities in the County likely exposed to severe weather hazards. The most common problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities and compromised access to roadways. Prolonged periods of extreme heat could result in power outages caused by increased demand for power for cooling.

The FEMA National Risk Index calculates annualized frequency, exposure and annual expected loss of building value and population to some severe weather hazards identified in this Plan. Based on zip code and census tract County-wide data was used to identify annualized frequency, exposure, and annual expected loss in the County from severe weather hazards. Though the entire County is considered vulnerable to these hazards, the FEMA data was used in this risk assessment to provide scale for the potential risk and impacts.

FEMA National Risk Index data from frequency and exposure to severe weather hazards is summarized in Table A-10.

Table A-10
Annualized Frequency and Exposure to Severe Weather Events in Unincorporated Monterey County Hail Strong Wind
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.93 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.24 Exposed Population 126,327 Exposed Population 126,327
Exposed Building Values $15,543,681,000 Exposed Building Values $15,543,681,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0.41 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $7,156.12
Heat Wave Tornado
Frequency (Event-Days) 2.02 Frequency (Distinct Events) 1.47 Exposed Population 125,672 Exposed Population 10,997
Exposed Building Values $15,431,313,849 Exposed Building Values $1,095,753,342 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $38.91 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $24,994,532
Lightning Winter Weather
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.53 Frequency (Event-Days) 0.16 Exposed Population 126,327 Exposed Population 12,797
Exposed Building Values $15,543,681,000 Exposed Building Values $2,211,140,076 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $2,476.82 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $4,179.83
Source: FEMA National Risk Index
UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-14 ANNEX A
A.5.11 SLOPE FAILURE
Based on the FEMA National Risk Index, 57,314 people and $8,028,885,261 in building value in the unincorporated Monterey County is exposed to landslide risk.

Additionally, exposure of population and property in the unincorporated Monterey County to earthquake induced landslides is summarized in Table A-11.

Table A-11
Population and Property Susceptible to Earthquake Induced to Landslides in Unincorporated County Landslide
Susceptibility Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High 33,185 2,525 $2,451,693,405 4,080 $13,97,470,150
Moderate 75,118 7,553 $6,362,285,018 6,378 $1,869,376,327 A.5.12 TSUNAMI
Population and property in the County located in a mapped tsunami inundation zone is summarized in Table A-12.

Table A-12
Population and Property in Tsunami Inundation Zone in Unincorporated Monterey County Inundation Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Tsunami Inundation Zone 5,320 490 $1,544,367,267 1,971 $652,059,712 A.5.13 UTILITY INTERRUPTION
All residents, visitors, and property in the County is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruptions. All critical facilities and infrastructure in the County that is operated by electricity is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruption.

A.5.14 WILDFIRE
For purposes of this analysis CAL FIRE Fire Threat data was used. Fire Threat combines expected fire frequency with potential fire behavior to create 4 threat classes, extreme, very high, high, and moderate.

Table A-13 summarizes population and property in the County in very high, high, and moderate fire threat areas.

Table A-13
Population and Property Exposed to Wildfire Risk in Unincorporated Monterey County CAL FIRE Wildfire Threat Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Very High Fire Threat 35,842 4,449 $3,734,795,405 7,109 $2,670,537,241 High Fire Threat 65,901 9,885 $8,135,807,203 10,242 $4,421,792,063 Moderate Fire Threat 82,713 14,086 $14,585,627,278 10,060 $5,653,773,683 UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-15 ANNEX A
A.5.15 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The effects of climate change are varied and include warmer and more varied weather patterns and temperature changes. Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems in unincorporated Monterey County and will exacerbate the risk posed by many of the hazards previously profiled in this Plan. Climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards. Increasing temperatures and rising sea-levels will have direct impacts on public health and infrastructure. Drought, coastal and inland flooding, and wildfire will likely affect people’s livelihoods and the local economy. Changing weather patterns and more extreme conditions are likely to impact tourism and the local economy, along with changes to agriculture and crops, which are a critical backbone of the County’s economy. There will also be negative impacts to ecosystems, both on land and in the ocean, leading to local extinctions, migrations, and management challenges.

Sea level rise risk exposure in the unincorporated County was calculated based on the NOAA Office for Coastal Management sea level rise viewer
projections. Three sea level rise levels (25 cm, 75 cm, and 200 cm) were chosen to represent planning horizons based on OPC Sea Level Rise Projections for the Monterey Tide Gauge. 25 cm of sea level rise represents near term (2030) risk, 75 cm represent mid- term (2060) risk, and 200 cm represent long-term (2100) risk.

Population and property exposed to sea level rise risk is summarized in Table A-14.

Table A-14
Population and Property Exposed to Sea Level Rise in Unincorporated Monterey County Sea Level Rise Amount Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
1 ft Sea Level Rise (2030) 2,876 202 $903,841,574 1,562 $486,030,632 3 ft Sea Level Rise (2060) 3,677 235 $1,054,134,804 1,682 $579,033,642 7 ft Sea Level Rise (2100) 7,297 496 $1,285,737,327 2,033 $750,288,107 A.6 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Unincorporated Monterey County performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs, and policies that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table A-15 • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table A-16 • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table A-17 • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table A-18 • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table A-19 • A summary of participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is provided in Section A.6.1 in Table A-20
• An overall self-assessment of capability is presented in Section A.6.2 in Table A-21 UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-16 ANNEX A
Table A-15
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Planning Documents
General Plan ☒ • HCD
Capital Improvement Plan ☒ • Public Works
Floodplain Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
• HCD
Open Space Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Stormwater Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Coastal or Shoreline
Management Plan ☒ • HCD
Local Coastal Program ☒ • HCD
Four LCP segments: North County, Del
Monte Forest, Carmel Area, and Big
Sur Coast.

Climate Action/ Adaptation
Plan ☒ • Sustainability In progress
Emergency Operations Plan ☒ • OES
Continuity of Operations Plan ☒ • All Departments
• OES
All Departments have developed
Continuity of Operations Plans
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan ☒ • Fire Safe Council The plan was last updated in 2010 Evacuation Plan ☒ • OES Update in progress.

Disaster Recovery Plan ☒ • OES
Economic Development Plan ☒ • CAO
• HCD The plan was last updated in 2015.

Historic Preservation Plan ☐ •
Historical Preservation during disasters
has been identified as a future annex
to the EOP.

Transportation Plan ☒ • Public Works
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Floodplain Ordinance ☒ • Public Works Chapter 16.16 - REGULATIONS FOR

FLOODPLAINS IN MC
Zoning Ordinance ☒ • HCD Title 21 - ZONING
Subdivision Ordinance ☒ • HCD Title 19 - SUBDIVISIONS
Site Plan Review Requirements ☒ • HCD
Post-Disaster Redevelopment/
Reconstruction Ordinance ☒ • HCD
Following significant disasters, the BOS
will adopt resolutions to streamline
the rebuilding process
Building Code ☒ • HCD CHAPTER 18.02 - BUILDING CODE
Fire Prevention Code ☒ • HCD CHAPTER 18.09 - FIRE CODE UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-17 ANNEX A
Table A-16
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development
and land management practices
☒ • HCD
• Public Works
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
☒ • HCD
• Public Works
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
an understanding of manmade
or natural hazards
☒
• HCD
• Public Works
• OES

Building Inspector ☒ • Building
Emergency Manager ☒ • OES Emergency Manager
Floodplain Manager ☒ • HCD
• Public Works
Land Surveyors ☐ •
Resource development staff or
grant writers ☒ • Various Monterey County departments
apply for grants individually
Public Information Officer ☒ • Health Department
• CAO
Scientist(s) familiar with the
hazards of the community ☒ • Water Resources
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
☒
• HCD
• Public Works
• OES

Personnel skilled in Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) ☒ • Information Technology
Maintenance programs to
reduce risk ☒ • Public Works
Warning systems/services ☒ • OES Nixle/ Everbridge
Mutual Aid Agreements ☒ • OES

Table A-17
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
General Funds ☒ • Finance
Capital Improvements Project Funding ☒ • Public Works
• Finance
Special Purpose Taxes ☒ • Finance
Stormwater Utility Fees ☐
UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-18 ANNEX A
Table A-17
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
Gas / Electric Utility Fees ☐
Water / Sewer Fees ☐ •
Development Impact Fees ☒ • HCD
General Obligation Bonds ☒ • Finance
Special Tax and Revenue Bonds ☒ • Finance
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) ☐

Table A-18
Education and Outreach Capability
Educational and Outreach Resources Department Comments Local citizen or non-profit groups
focused on environmental protection,
emergency preparedness, access and
functional needs populations, etc.
☒ CCIL, CERV, CERT, SPCA, etc.

Ongoing public education or
information program (e.g., responsible
water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental
education)
☒ • OES
Monterey County OES has full-
time Community Resilience
Planner focused on outreach
and education.

Natural disaster or safety related
school programs ☒ • Sherriff’s Office
• MCOE
Run, Hide, Fight Program,
General disaster preparedness
education
Public-private partnership initiatives
addressing disaster-related issues ☐

Table A-19
Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Effective Date
Community Rating System (CRS) Yes 5 10/1/2020
ISO Public Protection Classification - - -
StormReady Certification Yes 8/2/2018
TsunamiReady Certification Yes 8/2/2018
Firewise Communities Certification Community of Robles del Rio Community of Rancho Tierra Grande

Political Capability
The Monterey County Board of Supervisors has outlined their vison for the long-term development and health and safety of the community in the Strategic Plan.

UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-19 ANNEX A
A.6.1 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) COMPLIANCE Table A-20
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Designated Floodplain Administrator: Josh Bowling, Chief of Building Services NFIP Community Number: 060195
Flood Insurance Policies in Force: 1,277
Insurance Coverage in Force: $362,723,300
Written Premium in Force: $1,732,791
Total Loss Claims: 1,163
Total Payments for Losses: $23,735,682
Adopted Regulations that meet NFIP Requirements:
• Chapter 16.16 - REGULATIONS FOR FLOODPLAINS IN MONTEREY COUNTY Ord. No. 5139, § 1, adopted October 6, 2009, amended Chapter 16.16 in its entirety to read as herein set out. Formerly, Chapter 16.16 pertained to similar subject matter, and derived from Ord. No. 2966, adopted 1984; Ord. No. 3152, §§ 1—5, adopted 1986; Ord. No. 3272, adopted 1987; Ord. No. 3568, adopted 1991, and Ord. No. 3876, adopted 1996.

Date of last NFIP Community Assistance Visit (CAV):

Unknown.

Higher standards that exceed minimum NFIP requirement:
 MC Code, Chapter 16.16, requires 1.0 ft freeboard
 Monterey County ensures building codes standards are enforced for protection against differential settling, scour/erosion, and positive drainage for building foundations and ground surface within 10 ft of any structure. MC Chapter 18 – Buildings and Construction, Ord. No. 5337 adopted the 2019 California Building Standards Code (BCSC) with County amendments. BCSC Section 1803.5.8 and 1804.4 which include all buildings on compacted fill be protected from erosion and scour (but no compensatory storage); BCSC Sections 1803 and 1805 have positive foundation drainage requirements; BCSC Appendix J, § J109 has drainage and terracing requirements for earthwork involving cuts and fills.
 MC Code, Chapter 16.16 enforces cumulative substantial improvement regulations  Monterey County regulates development along the shoreline for coastal erosion protection.

Section 30253 of the California Coastal Act is the key policy that applies to new development and why MC addresses coastal erosion hazards.
 Bluff top and shoreline set-back requirements are based on coastal erosion rates established in various Local Coastal Programs (LCP) to help minimize coastal hazards. For example, the LCP within MC typically use a 50-year economic lifetime setback, approximately 40 to 50 feet from a designated setback point (either bluff top or point of maximum wave run-up). To determine the 50-year economic lifetime setback, the average coastal erosion rates are evaluated.

Additional floodplain management provisions:

Monterey County’s 2010 General Plan, Safety Element:
 S-1.6 prohibits development in areas of (a) moderate or high relative landslide susceptibility, (2) high relative erosion susceptibility, (c) moderate or high relative liquefaction susceptibility, (d) coastal erosion and sea cliff retreat, or (e) tsunami run-up hazards.

UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-20 ANNEX A
Table A-20
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
 S-2 reduces the amount of new development in floodplains and, for any development that does occur, minimize the risk from flooding and erosion.
 S-3 ensures effective storm drainage and flood control to protect life, property, and the environment.
 S-5 assures the County is prepared to anticipate, respond, and recover from emergencies.

Floodplain management activities performed that go beyond FEMA minimum requirements:
 MC Environmental services in coordination with MC Information Technology department maintain a Geographic Information System (GIS) map of the County’s drainage system and the MC Public Works department and MC Water Resources Agency (RMA) provide maintenance and clearing of the drainage system.
 MC WRA maintains the ALERT2 flood warning system.
 Monterey County’s public education or outreach activities related to promoting flood risk awareness, risk reduction, and the availability of flood insurance are performed by the HCD, Public Works, WRA, the Monterey County OES, the Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program (MRSWMP). Examples of outreach activities include:
o Annual flood preparedness mailers and print ads in local newspapers o “Do Not Dump – Drains to the river where fish live” stencils next to storm drain inlets in the urbanized storm water boundary for MRSWMP
o Social media Twitter and Facebook posts from OES, HCD, and Public Works o MRSWMP school outreach (K-12) classroom presentations and assemblies o Our Water Our World flyers and in-store events in local Home Depot stores Existing impediments to running an effective NFIP program:

The only difficulty is identifying resources for the program.

Specific actions that are ongoing or considered related to continued compliance with the NFIP:
• Develop a checklist for review of building/development permit plans and for inspection of development in floodplains.
• Establish a goal to have each plan reviewer and building inspector attend training periodically. • Sponsor a periodic NFIP workshop for local surveyors and builders. • Hold informative work sessions for newly elected officials and new appointees to planning commissions and appeals/variance boards, to provide an overview of floodplain management, the importance of participating in the NFIP, and the implications of failing to enforce the requirements of the program or failing to properly handle variance requests. • Obtain FEMA’s Substantial Damage Estimator and attend training to be prepared to use it when damage occurs; develop mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions to augment local inspection personnel after major disasters.
• Develop handouts for permit applications on specific issues such as installation of manufactured homes in flood hazard areas according to HUD’s installation standards, or guidance on improving/repairing existing buildings to better withstand potential hazards.

UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-21 ANNEX A
A.6.2 SELF- ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY
Table A-21
Self-Assessment of Capability
Capability Degree of Capability
Planning and Regulatory Capability High
Administrative and Technical Capability Moderate
Fiscal Capability Limited
Education and Outreach Capability Moderate
Political Capability Moderate
Overall Capability Moderate
A.6.3 OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND/ IMPROVE MITIGATION CAPABILITIES Planning, regulatory, fiscal, administrative, technical, education, and outreach capabilities can all be expanded or improved using a combination of the following strategies:
• Increase capacity through staffing
• Training, and enhanced coordination among all department and jurisdictions • Emergency management/hazard specific program enhancements, training, and exercising • Increased funding opportunities and capacity
• Implementation of mitigation actions and projects
• Continuous research on grant opportunities for emergency management, hazard mitigation, and infrastructure and community development.

Capabilities and abilities to expand or improve existing policies and programs will be re-evaluated during the next Hazard Mitigation Plan update and annual plan review meetings.

A.6.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital improvement planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa. Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.

Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, the County made progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and actions into other planning initiatives.

The following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Capital Improvement Plan: The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate potential hazards. The County will strive to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future capital improvement plan. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-22 ANNEX A
possible funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk assessment. • Building Code: The County’s adoption of the 2016 California Building Code incorporated local modifications addressing seismic and fire hazards.
• Regulatory Codes: A number of the County’s existing codes and ordinances include provisions to reduce hazard risk including the zoning code, storm water management code and flood damage prevention ordinance
• Salinas River Management Program: This program approved over the previous performance period incorporates the principles of hazard mitigation and provides a comprehensive river ecosystem and flood mitigation planning and restoration program for the river vegetation and channel.
• Community Resilience Plan: The Monterey County Community Resilience Plan is a countywide framework outlining the challenges and opportunities to building a more resilient Monterey County. This Plan incorporates the hazard mitigation plan into its framework. • Monterey County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan: The Emergency Operations Plan addresses the County’s responsibilities in emergencies associated with natural disaster, human- caused emergencies and technological incidents. It provides a framework for coordination of response and recovery efforts within the operational area in coordination and with local, State, and federal agencies. The Plan establishes an emergency organization to direct and control operations during a period of emergency by assigning responsibilities to specific personnel. Information from the hazard mitigation plan is incorporated as appropriate.

Opportunities for Future Integration
The General Plan and the hazard mitigation plan are complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure. The General Plan is considered to be an integral part of this plan. An update to the General Plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. Monterey County, through adoption of a General Plan and zoning ordinance, has planned for the impact of natural hazards. The process of updating this hazard mitigation plan provided the opportunity to review and expand on policies in these planning mechanisms. Monterey County will create a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and the General Plan by identifying a mitigation action as such and giving that action a high priority. Other planning processes and programs to be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
• General Plan, including the Safety Element
• Emergency Operations Plans
• Climate Action and Adaptation Plans
• Debris management plans
• Recovery plans
• Capital improvement programs
• Municipal codes
• Community design guidelines
• Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
• Stormwater management programs
• Water system vulnerability assessments
UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-23 ANNEX A
• Community wildfire protection plans
• Comprehensive flood hazard management plans
• Resiliency plans
• Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery action plans • Public information/education plans
Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be integrated via the update process.

A.7 PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Problem Statements are statements of particular interest regarding primary hazards of concern, geographic areas of concern, or vulnerable community assets. As part of the planning process, Unincorporated Monterey County Planning Committee identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concern applicable to their jurisdiction. The Hazard Problem Statements were based on the risk assessment, the vulnerability analysis, and local knowledge.

Hazard Problem Statements helped the Planning Committee identify common issues and weaknesses, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation. Hazard Problem Statements for Unincorporated Monterey County are identified below:
• Overgrown vegetation and sediment build-up in the Carmel River and Salinas River channels have increased the potential for destructive flooding and vegetation fires for many communities in Monterey County.
• Multiple low-lying communities in the County near rivers and water bodies, such as the Pacific Ocean, the Elkhorn Slough, the Pajaro River, the Salinas River, the Carmel River, and the Carmel Lagoon, are susceptible to flooding and flood damage.
• Following a significant earthquake critical infrastructure, such as the Natividad Medical Center, may experience structural damage and service interruptions that pose risks to the public. • The water and wastewater infrastructure for the unincorporated communities of Castroville, San Lucas, and San Ardo is not mapped and deemed particularly vulnerable to unmitigated losses. • Due to the topography and terrain of unincorporated areas, telecommunications and radio communications can be extremely limiting to first responders and residents during emergencies. • The extensive inventory of roads in moderate to high-risk wildfire areas which require annual vegetation maintenance exceed the County’s current capability. • The Nacimiento Reservoir Dam Spillway is eroding at a concerning rate. • While flooding already poses a risk in Monterey County, rising seas will put new areas at risk and increase the likelihood and intensity of floods in areas already at risk. Sea level rise poses a threat to various communities in Monterey, including Moss Landing and the Carmel Lagoon, as well as several natural habitats, such as the Elkhorn Slough. Additionally, agriculture in the Salinas Valley is incredibly vulnerable to sea level rise, with approximately 15,000 acres of agricultural land less than 10ft above the current mean sea level elevation.

UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-24 ANNEX A
A.8 MITIGATION GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS
The mitigation strategy is the guidebook to future hazard mitigation administration, capturing the key outcomes of the MJHMP planning process. The mitigation strategy is intended to reduce vulnerabilities outlined in the previous section with a prescription of policies and physical projects. These mitigation actions should be compatible with existing planning mechanisms and should outline specific roles and resources for implementation success.

The Unincorporated Monterey County Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Mitigation Strategy in Volume 1, which included a benefit-cost analysis and consideration of mitigation alternatives. Based upon the risk assessment results and the County’s planning committee priorities, a list of mitigation actions was developed. The Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix, in Table A-23 lists each priority mitigation action, identifies time frame, the responsible party, potential funding sources, and prioritization, which meet the requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

Status of Previous Plan Actions
All actions from the 2016 Plan were reviewed and updated by the County during the planning process.

Table A-22 includes the status of actions completed or removed from the previous plan.

In order to improve the mitigation action plan for this Plan update and align with the countywide Mitigation Action Plan, the County added more specificity and detail to previous plan actions in addition to the new actions added to the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.

Table A-22
Unincorporated Monterey County Completed Mitigation Actions from 2016 MJHMP 2016
Action # Description Status Narrative Update
2 Develop a sustained public outreach
program that encourages consistent hazard
mitigation content. For example, consider
publishing tsunami inundation maps in
telephone books, wildland fire defensible
space tips with summer water bills, and the
safe handling and disposal of hazardous
waste and chemicals with garbage bills.

Completed Completed as part of
MJHMP update
3 Review and update County inundation maps
every five years and participate in DSOD
mapping updates.

Completed
/ Ongoing
Completed and maps will
continue to be reviewed and
updated as required.
4 Examine and mitigate critical infrastructure
that has been identified as currently being
too narrow to ensure the safe transportation
of truck loads within Monterey County.

Deleted Major throughfares in the
County meet this standard.

UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-25 ANNEX A
Table A-22
Unincorporated Monterey County Completed Mitigation Actions from 2016 MJHMP 2016
Action # Description Status Narrative Update
6 Include provisions for dust erosion control
methods in building, grading, and land
clearing permits.

Completed Permit applications include
and require these provisions.
11 Conduct bi-annual core capability
assessments of Monterey County public
safety agencies.

Completed
/ Ongoing
This item has been removed
from future mitigation
actions since it is a
sustainable implementation
practice.
13 Implement Business Operations Center and
Private Sector Advisory Committee to ensure
private/public partnerships.

Deleted
Staff time and resources are
not available for
implementation.
15 Require and maintain safe access for fire
apparatus to wildland/urban interface
neighborhoods/properties, and defensible
space around structures.

Complete/
Ongoing
Roads meet current state
standards for fire apparatus
access and safe access will
continue to be maintained.

Defensible space is covered
in other actions listed below.
18 Create and fund positions to support the
Fire Warden and Fuel Mitigation Officer.

Partially
Completed
The County funded RCDMC
as Fuel Mitigation Officer.

Fire Warden included in new
action.
19 Support outreach and education programs,
in conjunction with fire authorities having
jurisdiction.

Complete/
Ongoing
The County does and will
continue to support
outreach and education
programs in conjunction
with fire authorities.
20 Salinas River Management Program will
provide a comprehensive river ecosystem
and flood mitigation planning and
restoration program for the river vegetation
and channel.

Completed
/ Ongoing
Permits have been obtained
for the Salinas River Stream
Maintenance Program and
this is ongoing
21 Elkhorn Slough Road Improvement: develop
plan to improve circulating tidal waters,
emergency access that Elkhorn Road is
currently blocking during periods of king
tides and future sea level rise.

Deleted
Long term mitigation for this
road will not occur and the
County is not familiar with
this project.

UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-26 ANNEX A
A Unincorporated Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Table A-23
Unincorporated Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
1 Ongoing All
Identify hazard-prone critical facilities and infrastructure and carry out acquisition, relocation, and structural and nonstructural retrofitting measures, as necessary.

Moderate Public Works General Fund,
Grants
2 Ongoing Wildfire
Continue to conduct fuel management programs and
investigate and apply new and emerging fuel
management techniques. Create and maintain community
fuel breaks and other fuel management projects. Use
prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads that threaten
public safety and property, and to manage for ecological values and functions.

Priority /
High
Public Works,
RCDMC
General Fund,
Grants, California
Fire Safe Council
3 In Progress Flooding Implement the Carmel River Floodplain Restoration and Environmental Enhancement (CRFREE) Project
Priority /
High Public Works General Fund,
HMGP Grants
4 Ongoing Flooding
Work with property owners subject to flood losses to
implement property protection activities including
constructing retaining walls, berms, and terrace drains, as well as installing debris fences and high-capacity pumping ability. Additionally, work with property owners to elevate structures such that the lowest habitable floor is a
minimum of 1-foot above the base flood elevation.

Priority /
High HCD General Fund,
HMGP Grants
5 In Progress All, Climate
Change
Develop and implement a multi-hazard public awareness
program to include risks of sea level rise and climate
change impacts.

Moderate OES, HCD
Sustainability
General Fund,
Grants
6 5-Year
Timeframe
All,
Earthquake,
Wildfire
Develop a debris management plan. Low/
Moderate
Public Works,
Environmental
Health, OES
General Fund
7 Ongoing Drought Encourage water conservation measures to home and business owners through public awareness outlets. Moderate OES General Fund UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-27 ANNEX A
Table A-23
Unincorporated Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
8 In Progress Tsunami
Develop and implement new tsunami evacuation and
maritime response playbooks to improve decision making
for protective actions that are specific for local
jurisdictions and coastal effects. Utilize maritime
playbooks to determine where maritime facilities and
infrastructure in Moss Landing Harbor can be
strengthened.

High
OES, Cal OES
and CGS
Tsunami
Steering
Committee
State and Federal
Tsunami Funding
9 Ongoing Flooding
Continue to implement the Salinas River Steam
Maintenance Program in order to reduce risk and seek
flood control solutions along the Salinas River.

Moderate MCWRA,
RCDMC
General Fund,
MCWRA
Enterprise Fund,
Grants, Private
10 New All Update the safety element of the Monterey County General Plan and adopt the MJHMP. High HCD General Fund 11 Ongoing Earthquake Consider seismic requirement updates to the Monterey County Building Code. Moderate HCD General Fund
12 In Progress Climate Change Complete the County’s Climate Action Plan and incorporate climate adaption. High Sustainability,
OES
General Fund,
Grants
13 New Wildfire Create and fund the position of County Fire Warden. Moderate HCD General Fund 14 New Flooding Assess solutions to flood control issues along the Pajaro River. Moderate

MCWRA, HCD,
Public Works,
Santa Cruz
County
General Fund,
MCWRA
Enterprise Fund,
Grants
15 New Dam Failure Implement the Nacimiento Dam Spillway Plunge Pool Erosion Mitigation Project. High MCWRA
MCWRA
Enterprise Fund,
HMGP Grants
16 New Dam Failure Install a new low-level flow control valve on the Nacimiento Dam. High MCWRA
MCWRA
Enterprise Fund,
HMGP Grants
UNINCORPORATED MONTEREY COUNTY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | A-28 ANNEX A
Table A-23
Unincorporated Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
17 New Dam Failure Implement the San Antonio Dam spillway rehabilitation or replacement project. High MCWRA
MCWRA
Enterprise Fund,
HMGP Grants
18 New Dam Failure Complete low-level outlet repairs on the San Antonio Dam. Moderate MCWRA
MCWRA
Enterprise Fund,
HMGP Grants
19 New All Create a standardized post-disaster rebuilding ordinance. Moderate HCD General Fund 20 New Wildfire Streamline the fuel reduction permitting process. Moderate HCD General Fund 21 New Wildfire
Consider opportunities to work with private property
owners to implement hazardous fuels reduction and
ignition resistant construction projects
Moderate OES
General Fund,
HMGP Grants,
Private Funding
22 New Wildfire Continue to work cooperatively with public agencies with responsibility for fire protection Moderate OES, HCD General Fund, HMGP Grants,
23 New Wildfire
Locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities
outside of high fire risk areas, including, but not limited to, hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, emergency command centers, and emergency
communications facilities, or identify construction or
other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in a state responsibility area or very high fire hazard severity zone
Moderate HCD General Fund,
HMGP Grants,
24 New Wildfire
Avoid and/or minimize the wildfire hazards associated
with new uses of land. Design adequate infrastructure if a new development is located in a state responsibility area or in a very high fire hazard severity zone, including safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street
signs, and water supplies for structural fire suppression.

Moderate HCD General Fund,
HMGP Grants

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

B
ANNEX B:

CARMEL-BY-THE SEA

2021 Monterey County
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-1 ANNEX B
B. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
B.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Brandon Swanson
Director of Community Planning and Building
Community Planning and Building Department
Monte Verde Street
Carmel, CA 93923
(831-620-2024
[email protected]
Gaudenz Panholzer
Fire Chief
Monterey Fire Department
610 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 646-3900
[email protected]
B.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
B.2.1 LOCATION

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-2 ANNEX B
B.2.2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
Carmel-by-the-Sea is primarily a residential community on the Monterey Peninsula covering approximately one square mile in area. It is a densely forested city with a popular commercial district that attracts tourists and visitors to California’s central coast from near and far. The city, known for its natural scenery and rich artistic history. Carmel-by-the-Sea experiences a cool summer Mediterranean climate. Summers are typically mild, with overcast mornings produced by marine layer clouds which can bring drizzles that typically give way to clear skies in the afternoon.

B.2.3 HISTORY
Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo was founded on 3 June 1770 in the nearby settlement of Monterey but was relocated to Carmel Valley by Junípero Serra due to interactions between soldiers stationed at the nearby Presidio and the native populations. A welder, John Martin, acquired lands surrounding the Carmel Mission in 1833, which he named Mission Ranch.

Known as "Rancho Las Manzanitas", the area that was to become Carmel-by-the-Sea was purchased by French businessman Honore Escolle in the 1850s. Escolle was well known and prosperous in the City of Monterey, owning the first commercial bakery, pottery kiln, and brickworks in Central California. In 1888, Escolle and Santiago Duckworth, a young developer from Monterey with dreams of establishing a Catholic retreat near the Carmel Mission, filed a subdivision map with the County Recorder of Monterey County. By 1889, 200 lots had been sold. Abbie Jane Hunter first used the name "Carmel-by- the-Sea" on a promotional postcard. In 1902 James Frank Devendorf and Frank Powers, on behalf of the Carmel Development Company, filed a new subdivision map of the core village that became Carmel. The Carmel post office opened the same year. Carmel-by-the-Sea incorporated in 1916.

In 1905, the Carmel Arts and Crafts Club was formed to support and produce artistic works. After the 1906 San Francisco earthquake the village was inundated with musicians, writers, painters, and other artists turning to the establishing artist colony after San Francisco was destroyed. The Carmel Arts and Crafts Club held exhibitions, lectures, dances, and produced plays and recitals at numerous locations in Carmel, including the Pine Inn Hotel, the Old Bath House on Ocean Ave, the Forest Theater, a small building in the downtown area donated by the Carmel Development Company, and finally, purchasing their own lot on Casanova Street, where they built their own clubhouse in 1907.

B.2.4 POPULATION
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has a population of 3,220 people (2020 Census), a 13% decrease since 2010.

B.2.5 GOVERNING BODY FORMAT
T
he City of Carmel-by-the Sea is a General Law city. The City Council consists of an elected Mayor holding a two-y
ear term and four Council Members elected at large for four-y ear staggered terms. The
Mayor and City Council appoint the City Administrator.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-3 ANNEX B
B.2.6 ECONOMY AND TAX BASE
The City is primarily residential, with Tourism and the Arts as its major industries. Retail trade and other businesses oriented toward visitors, including many inns and hotels, art galleries, boutiques, restaurants, and other small businesses drive the primary economic activity in the City.

B.3 PLANNING PROCESS
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea followed the planning process explained in Volume 1 of the plan. In addition to providing representation on the Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Planning Steering Committee, the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process.

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea held a Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder meeting to discuss vulnerabilities, mitigation activities that had occurred since the last plan update, key problem statements, and mitigation strategies on June 15, 2021. Key stakeholders present at the meeting included:
• Chip Rerig, City Administrator
• Paul Tomasi, Director of Public Safety/ Chief of Police • Robert Harary, Director of Public Works
• Wanda Vollmer, Team Captain Carmel CERT
• Brandon Swanson, Director of Community Planning and Building • Rob Culver, Public Works Superintendent
• Gaudenz Panholzer, Fire Chief
• Ashlee Wright, Library and Community Activities Director • Scot Smythe, Team Captain Carmel CERT
• Jeff Watkins, Admin Sergeant
B.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
The Carmel General Plan was adopted in 2003 and their Local Coastal Program was certified in 2004.

The General Plan was combined with its Local Coastal Land Use Plan to ensure coordination of the two policy documents. All of the incorporated City is located in the Coastal Zone. Carmel is a small coastal community with a residential village character. Early development was predominantly residential and commercial development was originally small-scale, designed to serve the needs of the local residents.

Over the years, commercial uses have expanded to cater largely to visitors.

L
ittle development is expected as the City is generally considered “built-o ut” with very little buildable
vacant land. The land use pattern within the City of Carmel-by-th e-S
ea is well established and unlikely
to change. The predominant land use in the City is residential (approximately 55%), and most of the residences are single-f
amily dwellings. The City’s Commercial District accounts for approximately 6% of the land area in the City. No land is designated for industrial use. The City limits include a significant amount of land devoted to parks and beaches (approximately 10%), including Carmel Beach Park, Mission Trail Nature Preserve, Devendorf Park, Piccadilly Park, First Murphy Park, and Forest Hill Park.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-4 ANNEX B
The City’s land use policies focus on maintaining the predominance of the residential character in the City through appropriate zoning and land development regulations in all districts.

Safe Growth
The purpose of the Safe Growth Survey was to evaluate the extent to which each jurisdiction is positioned to grow safely relative to its natural hazards. The survey covered 9 distinct topic areas and was also completed as part of the previous plan update process. This allowed survey results to be compared to help measure progress over time and to continue identifying possible mitigation actions as it relates to future growth and community development practices.

This survey was a subjective exercise used to provide some quantitative measures of how adequately existing planning mechanisms were being used to address the notion of safe growth. Each topic area included a number of statements, which were answered on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the degree to which the respondent agreed or disagreed with the statement as it relates to the City’s current plans, policies, and programs for guiding future community growth and development. Scores for each topic area statement were averaged to provide a topic area result and the topic area totals were averaged to provide an overall survey score. More information on the survey is provided in Capability Assessment in Volume 1.

The Carmel Safe Growth Survey was completed by Brandon Swanson, Director of Community Planning and Building and Robert Harary, P.E., Director of Public Works for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The results are summarized in Table B-1.

Table B-1
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Safe Growth Survey Results
Topic Area 2021 2016
Land Use 2.8 4.3
Transportation 3.7 3.0
Environmental Management 4.3 5.0
Public Safety 3.0 4.7
Zoning Ordinance 1.8 4.5
Subdivision Regulations 3.3 2.3
Capital Improvement Program & Infrastructure Policies 4.0 3.7 Building Code 2.0 3.0
Economic Development 5.0 4.0
Average Survey Ratings 3.3 3.8
B.5 JURISDICTION SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT
The intent of this section is to profile the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s hazards and assess the City’s vulnerability distinct from that of the countywide planning area, which has already been assessed in Volume 1 of the plan. The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the County and describes the hazards, as well as their extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences, and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard vulnerability specific to City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s is included in this Annex.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-5 ANNEX B
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Planning Team used the same risk assessment process as the Monterey County Steering Committee. The City’s Planning Team used the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey to compare the impact of various hazards that could affect the City. Each variable was scored by hazard by the Planning Team on a scale from 1 to 4, or negligible/unlikely to extensive/highly likely/ catastrophic. The score for each variable was calculated using a weighted average of all survey responses. Scores were then added together to determine an overall hazard score between 1 and 16.

Each score was associated with a qualitative degree of risk ranking from Negligible (between 1 and 4) to Very High (between 14.1 and 16). The Survey is described in more detail in Risk Assessment Methods in Volume 1. Table B-2 displays the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise that was performed by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Planning Team.

Table B-2
Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA): City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Hazard Geographic
Extent
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Magnitude/
Severity Impact Total
Out of 16
Degree of
Risk
Agricultural Emergencies 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 5.2 Slight
Coastal Erosion 3.0 2.8 2.7 3 11.5 Substantial
Coastal Flooding 2.4 2.7 2.0 2.3 9.4 Moderate
Cyber-Attack 2.9 2.6 3.0 3.3 11.8 Substantial
Dam Failure 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.4 5 Slight
Drought & Water Shortage 3.6 3.7 3.1 3.1 13.5 High
Earthquake 3.4 2.8 3.4 3.6 13.2 High
Epidemic 3.4 2.9 3.3 3.7 13.3 High
Extreme Cold & Freeze 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.1 7.8 Possible
Extreme Heat 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.3 8.6 Moderate
Flash Flood 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.4 8.7 Moderate
Hazardous Materials Incident 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.6 9.3 Moderate Invasive Species 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.3 10.6 Substantial
Levee Failure 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.6 6.1 Possible
Localized Stormwater Flooding 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.9 11.5 Substantial Mass Migration 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 5.8 Slight
Pandemic 3.4 3.0 3.8 3.8 13.9 High
Riverine Flooding 2.0 2.1 2.0 2 8.1 Moderate
Sea Level Rise 2.8 3.1 2.6 3 11.5 Substantial
Severe Winter Storms 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.6 10.8 Substantial
Slope Failure 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 9.9 Moderate
Targeted Violence 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.7 9.7 Moderate
Terrorism 2.2 1.0 3.0 3.3 9.5 Moderate
Tsunami 2.8 2.5 2.9 3 11.1 Substantial
Utility Interruption/ PSPS 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.3 13.3 High
Water Contamination 3.0 2.3 3.3 3.0 11.6 Substantial
Wildfire 3.8 3.1 3.4 3.8 14 High
Windstorms 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.1 12.9 High
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-6 ANNEX B
B.5.1 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
There is no agricultural land located within the City, so therefore an agricultural emergency does not pose a direct threat. Since agriculture is a major economic driver in the County, an agricultural emergency could have indirect economic impacts on the City.

B.5.2 COASTAL EROSION
To determine coastal erosion risk, USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center Coastal Storm Modeling (CoSMos) shoreline change, and cliff retreat projection data was used. For cliff retreat modeling an end of century (2100) forced sea level rise amount of 200 cm was used based on Ocean Protection Council (OPC) High Risk Aversion Guidance. For shoreline change, winter erosion uncertainty modeling was used to capture the degree of uncertainty associated with future shoreline erosion. Hold the Line scenario modeling was chosen for both types of erosion. Three sea level rise levels (25 cm, 75 cm, and 200 cm) to represent planning horizons based on OPC Sea Level Rise Projections for the Monterey Tide Gauge. 25 cm of sea level rise represents near term (2030) risk, 75 cm represent mid-term (2060) risk, and 200 cm represent long-term (2100) risk.

Table B-3 summarizes population and property exposure to coastal erosion risk.

Table B-3
Population and Property Exposed to Coastal Erosion Risk in Carmel-by-the-Sea Sea Level Rise Scenario/
Erosion Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Cliff Erosion
Sea Level Rise (25 cm) 34 4 $58,980,750 4 $857
Sea Level Rise (75 cm) 34 4 $58,980,750 4 $857
Sea Level Rise (200 cm) 34 4 $58,980,750 4 $857
Shoreline Erosion
Sea Level Rise (25 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Sea Level Rise (75 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Sea Level Rise (200 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Erosion on sloped inland areas and at the shoreline has been a problem for Carmel. Erosion of the beach bluffs is addressed in the City's Shoreline Management and Emergency Operations plans.

B.5.3 DAM AND LEVEE FAILURE
Dam Failure
There is no population or property in the City located in a mapped dam inundation zone of any of the dams (Nacimiento, San Antonio, Los Padres, and Forest Lake) analyzed in this Plan.

Levee Failure
Based on Leveed Area from the US Army Corps of Engineers, National Levee Database, there is no population or property in the City exposed to levee failure risk. Many levees in the County protect important agricultural lands and a significant levee failure could have an indirect economic impact.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-7 ANNEX B
B.5.4 DROUGHT AND WATER SHORTAGE
The entire population of the City is vulnerable to drought events. Drought can affect people’s health and safety, including health problems related to low water flows, poor water quality, or dust. Other possible impacts include recreational risks; effects on air quality; diminished living conditions related to energy, air quality, and hygiene; compromised food and nutrition; and increased incidence of illness and disease. Water shortages can affect access to safe, affordable water, with substantial impacts on low-income families and communities burdened with environmental pollution.

A prolonged drought could also cause economic impacts. Increased demand for water and electricity may result in shortages and higher costs of these resources. While economic impacts will be most significant on industries that use water or depend on water for their business, cascading economic effects can hurt many sectors of the economy. Agriculture, which will likely be impacted by drought conditions, is a major economic driver in the County, and the City could be impacted economically.

B.5.5 EARTHQUAKE
The entire population of the City is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impacted, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree.

Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. Similarly, all property and critical infrastructure in the City is potentially exposed to earthquake risk.

According to Monterey County Assessor records, there are 3,377 residential and non-residential buildings in the City, with a total value of $4,762,701,075. Since all structures in the City are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this represents the property exposure to seismic events.

Additionally, liquefaction risk was assessed. Table B-4 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to liquefaction risk.

Table B-4
Population and Property Exposed to Liquefaction Risk in Carmel-by-the-Sea Liquefaction Risk Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High Liquefaction Susceptibility 589 129 $314,606,407 30 $15,820,742 Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility 43 1 $2,930,757 2 $4,395,452 B.5.6 FLOODING
FEMA flood zones were used to assess flooding risk. Table B-5 summarizes population and property in the City in the 100-year and 500-year floodplain. Only a small portion of the City’s southern tip is designated as a FEMA 100-year Flood Zone. Mission Fields, a residential area, is within the 100-year floodplain, as are the Carmel Center/Carmel Rancho shopping centers.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-8 ANNEX B
Table B-5
Population and Property Exposed to Flooding Risk in Carmel-by-the-Sea FEMA Flood Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
100-Year Flood Zone 14 3 $44,702,609 7 $4,396,309
500-Year Flood Zone 22 2 $17,454,593 0 $0
There is also a high level of risk of localized stormwater flooding after major rain events. There are several areas of the City, which have been identified as being prone to localized flooding. The main area subject to localized flooding is located within the Mission Trail Nature Preserve. The City’s Storm Drain Master Plan identified citywide problems, with much of the City’s drainage infrastructure identified as only designed to handle 10-year storm event.

Historically, the City’s stormwater system has had sufficient capacity to accommodate a rainfall of up to two inches a week. However, several factors, such as an increased amount of debris and reduced ability for maintenance affect stormwater system capacity. The stormwater systems are maintained regularly, however, during storm events the maintenance often cannot keep up with the amount of debris entering the system. As a result, the system experiences serious failures during rainfall of approximately 10 inches in a week.

Carmel Beach is subject to flooding during high tide and beach sand is lost yearly during winter storms.

The beach is a clearly separated from adjacent roads and houses by a moderately steep hill, therefore, due to that topographical feature, the coastal flooding rarely extends past the beach.

B.5.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS I NCIDENT
To assess hazardous materials incident risk, buffer distances were used. The chosen buffer distance was based on guidelines in the US Department of Transportation’s Emergency Response Guidebook that suggest distances useful to protect people from vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic if inhaled. The recommended buffer distance referred to in the guide as the “protective action distance” is the area surrounding the incident in which people are at risk of harmful exposure. For purposes of this plan, a buffer distance of one mile was used, but actual buffer distances will vary depending on the nature and quantity of the release, whether the release occurred during the night or daytime, and prevailing weather conditions.

To analyze the risk to a transportation-related hazardous materials release, a one-mile buffer was applied to highways in the US Dept of Transportation, National Transportation Atlas Database. The result is a two-mile buffer zone around each transportation corridor that is used for this analysis. Risk from a fixed facility hazardous materials release, was analyzed using a one-mile buffer was applied facilities identified in the Monterey County 2019 Hazardous Materials Plan. The result was a one-mile buffer zone around each facility.

Table B-6 summarizes population and property that could be exposed to both mobile and fixed hazardous materials incidents.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-9 ANNEX B
Table B-6
Population and Property Exposed to Hazardous Materials Incident Risk in Carmel-by-the-Sea Hazardous Materials
Incident Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Mobile Source 3,451 2,441 $3,786,046,381 883 $691,543,641 Fixed Source 0 0 $0 0 $0
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has no facilities for permanent storage or transfer of hazardous waste.

The City has no industrial zone or zoning district compatible with a hazardous waste site. The City is not in the vicinity of any pipeline, nor on the route of an airline transporting potentially hazardous materials. As such the most probable exposure would be due to transport of hazardous materials on state highways.

Proximity to Highway 1 is the largest hazardous materials concern for the City. A portion of the City located east of Junipero Avenue is located within the one-mile hazards corridor along Highway 1.

Residents and structures located within this buffer would potentially be exposed to hazardous materials if there was an incident during transport of such materials on Highway 1. The City has a steep grade down to the ocean and a big spill from the Highway could move quickly and would be hard to contain.

B.5.8 HUMAN- CAUSED HAZARDS
It is often quite difficult to quantify the potential losses from human-caused hazards. While facilities themselves have a tangible dollar value, loss from a human-caused hazard often inflicts an even greater toll on a community, both economically and emotionally. The impact to identified values will vary from event to event and depend on the type, location, and nature of a specific incident.

B.5.9 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
All citizens in the City could be susceptible to the human health hazards. A large outbreak or epidemic, a pandemic or a use of biological agents as a weapon of mass destruction could have devastating effects on the population. While all of the population is at risk to the human health hazards, the young and the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and those with special needs are most vulnerable. The introduction of a disease such as influenza or the COVID-19 virus have impacted the whole population of the City, specifically vulnerable populations.

B.5.10 SEVERE WEATHER
All severe weather events profiled in this Plan have the potential to happen anywhere in the City.

Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Properties in poor condition or in high-risk locations may be susceptible to the most damage. All critical facilities in the City are likely exposed to severe weather hazards. The most common problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities and compromised access to roadways. Prolonged periods of extreme heat could result in power outages caused by increased demand for power for cooling.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-10 ANNEX B
The FEMA National Risk Index calculates annualized frequency, exposure and annual expected loss of building value and population to some severe weather hazards identified in this Plan. Based on zip code and census tract Countywide data was used to identify annualized frequency, exposure, and annual expected loss in the City from severe weather hazards. Though the entire City is considered vulnerable to these hazards, the FEMA data was used in this risk assessment to provide scale for the potential risk and impacts. FEMA National Risk Index data from frequency and exposure to severe weather hazards is summarized in Table B-7.

Table B-7
Annualized Frequency and Exposure to Severe Weather Events in Carmel-by-the-Sea Hail Strong Wind
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.19 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.03 Exposed Population 3,715 Exposed Population 3,715
Exposed Building Values $1,118,991,000 Exposed Building Values $1,118,991,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $175
Heat Wave Tornado
Frequency (Event-Days) 0.08 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.88 Exposed Population 3,715 Exposed Population 3,569
Exposed Building Values $1,118,991,000 Exposed Building Values $1,078,397,319 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $18,535,687
Lightning Winter Weather
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.36 Frequency (Event-Days) 0.00 Exposed Population 3,715 Exposed Population 0
Exposed Building Values $1,118,991,000 Exposed Building Values $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $160 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0
Source: FEMA National Risk Index
B.5.11 SLOPE FAILURE
Landslides in Carmel area historically have been caused by waterlogged soil rather than ground shaking due to an earthquake. Based on the FEMA National Risk Index, 533 people and $168,687,758 in building value in the City is exposed to landslide risk. Additionally, the City is susceptible to earthquake induced landslides. Exposure of population and property in the City to earthquake induced landslides is summarized in Table B-8.

Table B-8
Population and Property Susceptible to Earthquake Induced to Landslides in Carmel-by-the-Sea Landslide
Susceptibility Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High 0 0 $0 0 $0
Moderate 273 5 $8,311,546 3 $0
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-11 ANNEX B
There are two areas historically prone to landslides within the City limits. The first area is located in the northcentral portion of the City, which encompasses the Pescadero Canyon, including portions of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Avenues, and Camino Del Monte Avenue, between 2nd and 3rd Avenues. The second area prone to landslides is located in the eastern portion of the City and encompasses the eastern portion of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve.

B.5.12 TSUNAMI
Population and property in the City located in a mapped tsunami inundation zone is summarized in Table B-9.

Table B-9
Population and Property in Tsunami Inundation Zone in Carmel-by-the Sea Inundation Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Tsunami Inundation Zone 47 2 $44,423,372 6 $857
The City would be minimally affected by a moderate to extreme tsunami event. This can be accredited to coastal topography along the western boundary. The steep cliff between the Scenic Road and the beach, acts as a protective boundary during a tsunami. The relatively flat topography in the southern portion, on the other hand, lends itself to a more significant wave run-up.

B.5.13 UTILITY INTERRUPTION
All residents, visitors, and property in the City is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruptions. All critical facilities and infrastructure in the City that is operated by electricity is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruption. Additionally, the City has a large elderly population who would be particularly vulnerable in the event of a power outage or Public Safety Power Shut-Off.

B.5.14 WILDFIRE
For this analysis CAL FIRE Fire Threat data was used. Fire Threat combines expected fire frequency with potential fire behavior to create 4 threat classes, extreme, very high, high, and moderate. Table B-10 summarizes population and property in very high, high, and moderate fire threat areas.

Table B-10
Population and Property Exposed to Wildfire Risk in Carmel-by-the-Sea CAL FIRE Wildfire Threat Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Very High Fire Threat 0 0 $0 0 $0
High Fire Threat 0 0 $0 0 $0
Moderate Fire Threat 3,155 1,965 $3,077,482,448 218 $155,375,684 Areas in the City have also been mapped as located in Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) by CAL FIRE.

These zones are designated Very High or High Fire Hazard Severity based on factors such as fuel, slope, and fire weather. Areas designated as Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the City are mapped in Figure B-1.

Any future revisions or updates to the FHSZ maps will supersede current mapping.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-12 ANNEX B
Carmel’s land area is largely forested and contains a significant amount of open space. There are several areas in and around the City that qualify as wildland fire hazard areas. These areas are located to the north and east of the City boundaries and include to the north, Pescadero Canyon, Forest Hill Park, and Del Monte Forest; and to east the Mission Trails Nature Preserve. The City is also located on a hillside. Steep slopes promote spread of fire and increase its speed due to preheating of vegetation.

Canyons and hillsides also promote gusts of wind, which increase the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of wildfires. The topography also creates access issues. The unimproved and narrow roads are an obstacle to fighting fires. Firefighting personnel as well as fire trucks and heavy equipment have difficulty reaching some of the City’s areas. Containment being a key objective, areas of limited accessibility have a correspondingly greater potential for fire spreading.

Figure B-1
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Carmel-by-the-Sea

Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan, Environmental Safety Element

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-13 ANNEX B
B.5.15 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The effects of climate change are varied and include warmer and more varied weather patterns and temperature changes. Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems in the City and will exacerbate the risk posed by many of the hazards previously profiled in this Plan.

Climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards.

Increasing temperatures and rising sea-levels will have direct impacts on public health and infrastructure. Drought, coastal and inland flooding, and wildfire will likely affect people’s livelihoods and the local economy. Changing weather patterns and more extreme conditions are likely to impact tourism and the rural economies, along with changes to agriculture and crops, which are a critical backbone of Monterey County’s economic success. There will also be negative impacts to ecosystems, both on land and in the ocean, leading to local extinctions, migrations, and management challenges.

Sea level rise risk exposure in the City was calculated based on the NOAA Office for Coastal Management sea level rise viewer
projections. Three sea level rise levels (25 cm, 75 cm, and 200 cm) were chosen to represent planning horizons based on OPC Sea Level Rise Projections for the Monterey Tide Gauge. 25 cm of sea level rise represents near term (2030) risk, 75 cm represent mid-term (2060) risk, and 200 cm represent long-term (2100) risk.

Population and property exposed to sea level rise risk is summarized in Table B-11.

Table B-11
Population and Property Exposed to Sea Level Rise in Carmel-by-the-Sea Sea Level Rise Amount Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
1 ft Sea Level Rise (2030) 0 1 $621,268 2 0
3 ft Sea Level Rise (2060) 14 1 $621,268 5 0
7 ft Sea Level Rise (2100) 14 2 $44,423,372 5 0
B.6 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs, and policies that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table B-12 • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table B-13 • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table B-14 • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table B-15 • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table B-16 • A summary of participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is provided in Section L.6.1 in Table B-17
• An overall self-assessment of capability is presented in Section L.6.2 in Table B-18 CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-14 ANNEX B
Table B-12
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Planning Documents
General Plan ☒ • Community Planning & Building
Housing Element will be
updated in 2023, may be
opportunity to look at safety
element
Capital Improvement Plan ☒ • Public Works
Have 5-year CIP that is
implemented and updated on
a yearly basis
Floodplain Management Plan ☒ • Public Works New Storm Drainage Master Plan Completed
Open Space Management Plan ☒ • Public Works Forestry Master Plan Budgeted
Stormwater Management Plan ☒ • Public Works Have an ASBS Compliance Plan
Coastal Management Plan ☒ • Public Works Outdated Plan
Local Coastal Program ☒ • Community Planning & Building City has adopted LCP Climate Action/ Adaptation
Plan ☒ • Public Works
• Community Planning & Building
Completed Vulnerability
Report
Emergency Operations Plan ☐ • Police Department
Continuity of Operations Plan ☐ • Police Department
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan ☐ • Fire Department
Evacuation Plan ☒ • Fire Department
• Police Department
Carmel is participating in the
development of the
Countywide Evacuation Plan
Disaster Recovery Plan ☐ • Police Department
Economic Development Plan ☐
City does not have an ED
office, no official ED plan in
place. Work with Chamber
and Visit Carmel.

Historic Preservation Plan ☒ • Community Planning & Building Have Historic Preservation
Ordinance and
Historic Context Statement
Transportation Plan ☒ • Community Planning & Building
• Public Works
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Floodplain Ordinance ☒ • Public Works Municipal Code Section 15.56 – Community Floodplain
Zoning Ordinance ☒ • Community Planning & Building
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-15 ANNEX B
Table B-12
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Subdivision Ordinance ☒ • Community Planning & Building Site Plan Review Requirements ☒ • Community Planning & Building Zoning ordinance being
updated in 2022, could
provide opportunity for
additional site plan
requirements
Unified Development
Ordinance ☐
Post-Disaster Redevelopment/
Reconstruction Ordinance ☐
Building Code ☒ • Community Planning & Building Updated on an ongoing basis as code cycle changes
Fire Prevention Code ☒ • Fire
Carmel adopts and reinforces
the latest version of the
California Fire Code

Table B-13
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land
development and land
management practices
☒ • Community Planning & Building
• Public Works
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction
practices related to buildings
and/or infrastructure
☒ • Public Works
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
an understanding of
manmade or natural hazards
☒ • Public Works
Building Inspector ☒ • Community Planning & Building
Emergency Manager ☒ • Police Department
Chief of Police is Emergency
Manger (in tandem with City
Administrator)
Floodplain Manager ☒ • Public Works
Land Surveyors ☐ Contracted out
Resource development staff
or grant writers ☐
Public Information Officer ☐
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-16 ANNEX B
Table B-13
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Scientist(s) familiar with the
hazards of the community ☐
May have members of the
community with expertise in
various sciences
Staff with education or
expertise to assess the
community’s vulnerability to
hazards
☒ • Community Planning & Building
• Public Works
Personnel skilled in
Geographic Information
Systems (GIS)
☒ • Community Planning & Building
• Public Works
Maintenance programs to
reduce risk ☒ • Public Works
Warning systems/services ☒ • Police Department
• Fire Department
Carmel participates with
Monterey County’s
implementation of Everbridge
(reverse 911) and Nixle
Mutual Aid Agreements ☐
Carmel participates in the
Monterey County Fire Mutual
Aid Plan and the California Fire
Assistance Agreement

Table B-14
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
General Funds ☒ • Finance
Capital Improvements Funding ☒ • Finance
Special Purpose Taxes ☒ • Finance 20-Year Measure “C”
Approved
Stormwater Utility Fees ☐
Gas / Electric Utility Fees ☐
Water / Sewer Fees ☐
Development Impact Fees ☒
• Finance
• Community Planning & Building
• Public Works
• Police Department

General Obligation Bonds ☐ • Finance
Special Tax and Revenue Bonds ☐ • Finance
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) ☐ • Finance
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-17 ANNEX B

Table B-15
Education and Outreach Capability
Educational and Outreach Resources Department Comments Local citizen or non-profit groups
focused on environmental
protection, emergency
preparedness, access and
functional needs populations, etc.
☒
• Public Works
• Police Department
• Fire Department
Friends of Mission Trail
Nature Preserve, Carmel
Cares; Carmel has an
active CERT program.

Ongoing public education or
information program (e.g.,
responsible water use, fire safety,
household preparedness,
environmental education)
☒ • Public Works
• Community Planning & Building
The City has a Climate
Action Committee
Natural disaster or safety related
school programs ☐
Public-private partnership
initiatives addressing disaster-
related issues
☒ • Public Works
• Carmel Cares
Local Volunteer group
called “Carmel Cares”

Table B-16
Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Effective Date
Community Rating System (CRS) No - -
ISO Public Protection Classification Yes 2 June 17, 2015 StormReady Certification No - -
TsunamiReady Certification Yes -
Firewise Communities Certification No - -
Political Capability
Two city council members sit on the City’s Climate Change Committee/climate action and climate adaptation program.

B.6.1 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) COMPLIANCE Table B-17
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Designated Floodplain Administrator: Brandon Swanson, Community Planning and Building Director
NFIP Community Number: 060196
Flood Insurance Policies in Force: 29
Insurance Coverage in Force: $9,940,000
Written Premium in Force: $13,888
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-18 ANNEX B
Table B-17
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Total Loss Claims: 3
Total Payments for Losses: $127,113
Adopted Regulations that meet NFIP Requirements:
• Municipal Code Section 15.56 – Community Floodplain (Adopted 2018: Ord # 2018-03) Date of last NFIP Community Assistance Visit (CAV):

Unknown.

Higher standards that exceed minimum NFIP requirement:

None.

Additional floodplain management provisions:

Municipal Code Section 17.43 (Zoning Code) – Water Quality Protection Ordinance. This section has controls in place for construction BMPs to not aggravate flooding. Some measures include specific requirements (when appropriate) for things like retention ponds, restored wetlands, curbs, and gutters.

Floodplain management activities performed that go beyond FEMA minimum requirements:

Regular drainage system maintenance is performed by Public Works.

Existing impediments to running an effective NFIP program:

Unknown.

Specific actions that are ongoing or considered related to continued compliance with the NFIP:
• Evaluate permit application forms to determine possible modifications focused on flood hazard prevention.
• Develop a checklist for review of building/development permit plans and for inspection of development in floodplains.
• Establish a goal to have each plan reviewer and building inspector attend a related training periodically.
• Maintain supplies of FEMA/NFIP materials to help property owners evaluate measures to reduce potential hazard damage. Make available in public buildings, local library, website, etc. and inform people who they can call to learn more information.

B.6.2 SELF- ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY
Table B-18
Self-Assessment of Capability
Capability Degree of Capability
Planning and Regulatory Capability Moderate
Administrative and Technical Capability Moderate
Fiscal Capability Limited
Education and Outreach Capability Limited
Political Capability Limited
Overall Capability Limited

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-19 ANNEX B
B.6.3 OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND/ IMPROVE MITIGATION CAPABILITIES Planning, regulatory, fiscal, administrative, technical, education, and outreach capabilities can all be expanded or improved using a combination of the following strategies:
• Increase capacity through staffing
• Training, and enhanced coordination among all department and jurisdictions • Emergency management/hazard specific program enhancements, training, and exercising • Increased funding opportunities and capacity
• Implementation of mitigation actions and projects
• Continuous research on grant opportunities for emergency management, hazard mitigation, and infrastructure and community development.

Capabilities and abilities to expand or improve existing policies and programs will be re-evaluated during the next Hazard Mitigation Plan update and annual plan review meetings.

B.6.1 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital improvement planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa. Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.

Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, the City made progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and actions into other planning initiatives.

The following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Capital Improvement Plan: The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate potential hazards. The City will strive to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future capital improvement plan. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk assessment. • Building Code: The City’s adoption of the 2016 California Building Code incorporated local modifications addressing seismic and fire hazards.
• Regulatory Codes: A number of the City’s existing codes and ordinances include provisions to reduce hazard risk including the zoning code, storm water management code and flood damage prevention ordinance.

Opportunities for Future Integration
The General Plan and the hazard mitigation plan are complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure. The General Plan is considered to be an integral part of this plan. An update to the General Plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. The City, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-20 ANNEX B
through adoption of a General Plan and zoning ordinance, has planned for the impact of natural hazards. The process of updating this hazard mitigation plan provided the opportunity to review and expand on policies in these planning mechanisms. The City will create a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and the General Plan by identifying a mitigation action as such and giving that action a high priority. Other planning processes and programs that may be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
• General Plan, including the Safety Element
• Emergency Operations Plans
• Climate Action and Adaptation Plans
• Debris management plans
• Recovery plans
• Capital improvement programs
• Municipal codes
• Community design guidelines
• Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
• Stormwater management programs
• Water system vulnerability assessments
• Community wildfire protection plans
• Comprehensive flood hazard management plans
• Resiliency plans
• Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery action plans • Public information/education plans
Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be integrated via the update process.

B.7 PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Problem Statements are statements of particular interest regarding primary hazards of concern, geographic areas of concern, or vulnerable community assets. As part of the planning process, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Committee identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concern applicable to their jurisdiction. The Hazard Problem Statements were based on the risk assessment, the vulnerability analysis, and local knowledge.

Hazard Problem Statements helped the Planning Committee identify common issues and weaknesses, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation. Hazard Problem Statements for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea are identified below:
• Mission Trails Park and Pescadero Canyon are considered at particularly high risk to wildland fire, for which controlling excessive buildup of flammable vegetative material on vacant lots is an ongoing priority for the City. Other areas of primary concern include Forest Hill Park and Del Monte Forest.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-21 ANNEX B
• There are two areas historically prone to landslides within city limits. The first area is located in the north-central portion of the City, which encompasses the Pescadero Canyon, including portions of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Avenues, and Camino Del Monte Avenue, between 2nd and 3rd Avenues. The second area prone to landslides is located in the eastern portion of the City and encompasses the eastern portion of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve.
• High winds associated with winter storms are a major concern for the City due to the vast amount of trees (50% tree cover) that have proven to exacerbate damage and power outages. • The primary area of concern for coastal flooding is along Carmel Beach and within areas in proximity to Carmel Lagoon, including Mission Fields
• Localized flooding caused by drainage issues are a constant concern, as existing stormwater infrastructure is incapable of conveying runoff during heavy rainstorms or prolonged rainfall events. Storm drains also frequently become clogged with debris (pine needles, etc.) which makes the problem even worse. Primary areas of concern include the Mission Trail Nature Preserve (owned by the City and used as a park, with some on-site retention), the intersection area of Camino Real and 4th Street, and portions of 2nd Avenue along Pescadero Canyon. The Harrison Memorial Library is a critical community asset that has been flooded in the past. • Managing large events has become increasingly difficult for public safety partners and can place a strain on lifeline resources. The City is concerned with limited ingress/egress to the community following major disaster events. Following large winter storm events, downed trees can cause a major traffic hazard in the City. This can pose a threat to first responders who are unable to deploy in order to do their job.

B.8 MITIGATION GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS
The mitigation strategy is the guidebook to future hazard mitigation administration, capturing the key outcomes of the MJHMP planning process. The mitigation strategy is intended to reduce vulnerabilities outlined in the previous section with a prescription of policies and physical projects. These mitigation actions should be compatible with existing planning mechanisms and should outline specific roles and resources for implementation success.

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Mitigation Strategy in Volume 1, which included a benefit-cost analysis and consideration of mitigation alternatives. Based upon the risk assessment results and the City’s planning committee priorities, a list of mitigation actions was developed. The Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix, in Table B-20 lists each priority mitigation action, identifies time frame, the responsible party, potential funding sources, and prioritization, which meet the requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

Status of Previous Plan Actions
All actions from the 2016 Plan were reviewed and updated by the City during the planning process.

Table B-19 includes the status of action previous plan completed or removed from the previous plan.

In order to improve the mitigation action plan for this Plan update and align with the countywide Mitigation Action Plan, the City added more specificity and detail to previous plan actions in addition to the new actions added to the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-22 ANNEX B
Table B-19
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Completed Mitigation Actions from 2016 MJHMP 2016
Action # Description Status Narrative Update
1 Identify hazard-prone critical facilities and
infrastructure and carry out acquisition,
relocation, and structural and nonstructural
retrofitting measures as necessary.

Completed

Completed and ongoing on
an as needed basis.
2 Develop an unreinforced masonry grant
program that helps correct earthquake-risk
nonmasonry building problems, including
chimney bracing and anchoring water heaters.

Deleted
The City does not have
adequate staff resources
to implement this
program.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-23 ANNEX B
B City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Table B-20
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
1 Ongoing/
Continuous All
Continue to include hazard mitigation and disaster
preparedness content in community programming and
outreach materials, such as the City's Friday Letter.

Priority /
High
City
Administration
General Funds,
HMGP, and
PDM Grants
2 Ongoing/
Continuous Wildfire
Continue to conduct and support current fuel management programs and investigate, as determined feasible, and
apply new and emerging fuel management techniques.

Priority /
High
Fire, Public
Works
General Funds
and PDM
Grant
3 Ongoing/
Continuous
All, Utility
Interruption,
Severe Weather
Continue to work with the Utility Companies (especially PG&E) to build and strengthen relationships to improve
communication regarding emergency situations and
develop an emergency response plan that includes all
emergency responders and 911 communications.

Priority /
Moderate
Public
Safety/Police General Funds
4 New
Utility
Interruption,
Wildfire
Work with PG&E on identifying and implementing priority utility undergrounding projects in the very high fire hazard zone.

Priority /
Moderate
Public Safety,
Public Works
General Fund,
Grants
5 Ongoing/
Continuous
Earthquake,
Utility
Interruption,
Severe Weather
Incorporate hazard-prone critical facilities and
infrastructure into the City's Capital Improvement Plan and consider hazard mitigation when implementing structural and nonstructural retrofitting. Consider opportunities for seismic retrofitting and utility undergrounding in capital projects.

Priority/
High
Public Works,
Planning &
Building
HMGP and
PDM Grants
6 New Climate Change
Develop and implement strategies identified in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan in order to increase the
community's resiliency to climate change hazards.

Priority/
High
Planning,
Public Works
General Fund,
Grants
7 Ongoing/
Continuous Tsunami Continue to participate in the NOAA National Weather Service TsunamiReady Program.

Priority/
Moderate Public Safety General Funds
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | B-24 ANNEX B
Table B-20
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
8 New Coastal Erosion,
Coastal Flooding
Conduct a Coastal engineering study to evaluate the City's revetments and other shoreline protection structures.

Priority/
High
Public Works,
Planning &
Building
General Fund,
Grants
9 New Coastal Erosion,
Coastal Flooding
Implement the recommendations of the Shoreline
Management Plan related to coastal infrastructure
monitoring, maintenance, and protection.

Priority/
High
Public Works,
Planning &
Building
General Fund,
Grants
10 In Progress Flooding
Continue to implement the Mission Trails Nature Preserve Restoration Program, including implementation of the
recommended projects of the Mission Trail Stream Stability Study.

Priority/
High
Public Works,
Planning &
Building
General Fund,
Grants
11 In Progress Flooding
Implement identified storm drainage improvements in the Storm Drain Master Plan to reduce the risk of localized flooding.

Priority/
High
Public Works,
Planning &
Building
General Fund,
Grants
12 New Flooding
Implement projects identified in the Monterey Peninsula Region Stormwater Resource Plan to increase resilience to storms over time.

Priority/
Moderate
Public Works General Fund,
Grants
13 Ongoing/
Continuous
Drought,
Flooding
Continue to implement stormwater recapture efforts,
which provide the dual benefit of capturing rain flow for irrigation and other purposes while increasing capacity of the existing system.

Priority/
High
Public Works,
Planning &
Building
General Fund,
Grants
14 New
Utility
Interruption,
Wildfire, Severe
Weather
Update the City's Zoning Code to strengthen requirements for new development to underground utilities.

Priority/
Moderate Planning General Fund,
Grants

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

C
ANNEX C:

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS

2021 Monterey County
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-1 ANNEX C
C. CITY OF DEL REY OAKS
C.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Jeff Hoyne
Chief of Police
650 Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Del Rey Oaks, CA 93940
(831) 394-8511
[email protected]
Chris Bourquin
Police Commander
650 Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Del Rey Oaks, CA 93940
(831) 394-8511
[email protected]
C.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
C.2.1 LOCATION

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-2 ANNEX C
C.2.2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
Del Rey Oaks is a small city, approximately half a square mile in size, nestled in a narrow-wooded canyon (Canyon Del Rey) between the cities of Seaside and Monterey. State Highway 218 forms the central spine of the community, which is primarily a “bedroom community” with most private land devoted to residential use. The city has many natural habitats including the Frog Pond, a 17-acre wetland preserve managed by the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, and Del Rey Park which features Old Town Hall for community events.

C.2.3 HISTORY
Prior to incorporation, the town was called Del Rey Woods. The Del Rey Oaks post office opened in 1968.The City of Del Rey Oaks was incorporated in 1953.

C.2.4 POPULATION
The City has population of 1,592 people, a slight decrease (2%) since 2010.

C.2.5 GOVERNING BODY FORMAT
D
el Rey Oaks is a General Law city. The City Council consists of an elected Mayor holding a two-y ear
term and four Council Members elected at large for four-y ear staggered terms.

C.2.6 ECONOMY

AND TAX BASE
Del Rey Oaks is primarily a residential community. The City also received sales tax revenues from the Stone Creek Shopping Center at Highway 68 and Canyon Del Rey Road, and the Safeway at Canyon Del Rey and Fremont Boulevard.

C.3 PLANNING PROCESS
The City of Del Rey Oaks followed the planning process explained in Volume 1 of the plan. In addition to providing representation on the Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Planning Steering Committee, the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process.

The City of Del Rey Oaks held a Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder meeting to discuss vulnerabilities, mitigation activities that had occurred since the last plan update, key problem statements, and mitigation strategies on September 21, 2021. Key stakeholders present at the meeting included:
• John Guertin, City Manager
• Jeff Hoyne, Chief of Police
• Chris Bourquin, Police Commander
• Dave Nava, Division Chief, Seaside Fire
C.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
The Del Rey Oaks General Plan was adopted in 1997. The City has a total land area of 295 acres, or 0.45 square miles. The City is primarily built out, except for the Fort Ord lands annexed in 1997. The City is predominately a “bedroom community” with about 40% of their land devoted to residential uses.

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-3 ANNEX C
R
ecent commercial development includes the Stone Creek Village Shopping Center located at the intersection of highways 218 and 68. Significant non-re sidential growth is planned for the Fort Ord
lands. The City will begin an update of their General Plan in the near future.

S
afe Growth
The purpose of the Safe Growth Survey was to evaluate the extent to which each jurisdiction is positioned to grow safely relative to its natural hazards. The survey covered 9 distinct topic areas and was also completed as part of the previous plan update process. This allowed survey results to be compared to help measure progress over time and to continue identifying possible mitigation actions as it relates to future growth and community development practices.

This survey was a subjective exercise used to provide some quantitative measures of how adequately existing planning mechanisms were being used to address the notion of safe growth. Each topic area included a number of statements, which were answered on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the degree to which the respondent agreed or disagreed with the statement as it relates to the City’s current plans, policies, and programs for guiding future community growth and development. Scores for each topic area statement were averaged to provide a topic area result and the topic area totals were averaged to provide an overall survey score. More information on the survey is provided in Capability Assessment in Volume 1.

The Del Rey Oaks Safe Growth Survey was completed by all stakeholders listed above during the Mitigation Planning Meeting. The results are summarized in Table C-1.

Table C-1
City of Del Rey Oaks Safe Growth Survey Results
Topic Area 2021 2016
Land Use 4.00 3.75
Transportation 4.33 3.33
Environmental Management 4.00 3.17
Public Safety 5.00 3.33
Zoning Ordinance 3.50 3.38
Subdivision Regulations 3.00 2.83
Capital Improvement Program & Infrastructure Policies 5.00 2.67 Building Code 5.00 3.50
Economic Development 5.00 3.00
Average Survey Ratings 4.31 3.22
C.5 JURISDICTION SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT
The intent of this section is to profile the City of Del Rey Oak’s hazards and assess the City’s vulnerability distinct from that of the countywide planning area, which has already been assessed in Volume 1 of the plan. The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the County and describes the hazards, as well as their extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences, and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard vulnerability specific to City of Del Rey Oaks is included in this Annex.

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-4 ANNEX C
The City of Del Rey Oak’s Planning Team used the same risk assessment process as the Monterey County Steering Committee. The City’s Planning Team used the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey to compare the impact of various hazards that could affect the City. Each variable was scored by hazard by the Planning Team on a scale from 1 to 4, or negligible/unlikely to extensive/highly likely/ catastrophic. The score for each variable was calculated using a weighted average of all survey responses. Scores were then added together to determine an overall hazard score between 1 and 16.

Each score was associated with a qualitative degree of risk ranking from Negligible (between 1 and 4) to Very High (between 14.1 and 16). The Survey is described in more detail in Risk Assessment Methods in Volume 1. Table C-2 displays the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise that was performed by the City of Del Rey Oak’s Planning Team.

Table C-2
Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA): City of Del Rey Oaks Hazard Geographic
Extent
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Magnitude/
Severity Impact Total
Out of 16
Degree of
Risk
Agricultural Emergencies - - - - - -
Coastal Erosion - - - - - -
Coastal Flooding - - - - - -
Cyber-Attack 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0 Substantial
Dam Failure - - - - - -
Drought & Water Shortage 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0 Substantial Earthquake 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0 Substantial
Epidemic 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0 Substantial
Extreme Cold & Freeze - - - - - -
Extreme Heat - - - - - -
Flash Flood - - - - - -
Hazardous Materials Incident 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 Possible Invasive Species 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 Negligible
Levee Failure - - - - - -
Localized Stormwater Flooding 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 Slight Mass Migration - - - - - -
Pandemic 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 High
Riverine Flooding 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 Possible
Sea Level Rise - - - - - -
Severe Winter Storms 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 Possible
Slope Failure 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 Negligible
Targeted Violence 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 Negligible
Terrorism 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 Moderate
Tsunami - - - - - -
Utility Interruption/ PSPS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 Possible Water Contamination 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 8.0 Possible
Wildfire 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 Moderate
Windstorms - - - - - -
CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-5 ANNEX C
C.5.1 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
There is no agricultural land located within the City, so therefore an agricultural emergency does not pose a direct threat. Since agriculture is a major economic driver in the County, an agricultural emergency could have indirect economic impacts on the City.

C.5.2 COASTAL EROSION
The City is not located on the coast, and therefore coastal erosion is not a major threat. Coastal erosion does threaten agricultural land in the Salinas Valley, which if impacted could have indirect economic effects on the local economy. The City could also be impacted by other types of erosion not profiled in this Plan.

C.5.3 DAM AND LEVEE FAILURE
Dam Failure
There is no population or property in the City located in a mapped dam inundation zone of any of the dams (Nacimiento, San Antonio, Los Padres, and Forest Lake) analyzed in this Plan.

Levee Failure
Based on Leveed Area from the US Army Corp of Engineers, National Levee Database, there is no population or property in the City exposed to levee failure risk. Many levees in the County protect important agricultural lands and a significant levee failure could have an indirect economic effect.

C.5.4 DROUGHT AND WATER SHOR TAGE
The entire population of the City is vulnerable to drought events. Drought can affect people’s health and safety, including health problems related to low water flows, poor water quality, or dust. Other possible impacts include recreational risks; effects on air quality; diminished living conditions related to energy, air quality, and hygiene; compromised food and nutrition; and increased incidence of illness and disease. Water shortages can affect access to safe, affordable water, with substantial impacts on low-income families and communities burdened with environmental pollution.

A prolonged drought could also cause economic impacts. Increased demand for water and electricity may result in shortages and higher costs of these resources. While economic impacts will be most significant on industries that use water or depend on water for their business, cascading economic effects can hurt many sectors of the economy. Agriculture, which will likely be impacted by drought conditions, is a major economic driver in the County, and the City could be impacted economically.

C.5.5 EARTHQUAKE
The entire population of the City is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impacted, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. Similarly, all property and critical infrastructure in the City is potentially exposed to earthquake risk.

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-6 ANNEX C
According to Monterey County Assessor records, there are 728 residential and non-residential buildings in the City, with a total value of $332,512,614. Since all structures in the City are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this represents the property exposure to seismic events.

Additionally, liquefaction risk was assessed. Table C-3 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to liquefaction risk.

Table C-3
Population and Property Exposed to Liquefaction Risk in Del Rey Oaks Liquefaction Risk Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High Liquefaction Susceptibility 331 23 $8,997,524 45 $35,628,204 Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility 0 0 $0 0 $0
C.5.6 FLOODING
FEMA flood zones were used to assess flooding risk. Table C-4 summarizes population and property in the City in the 100-year and 500-year floodplain.

Table C-4
Population and Property Exposed to Flooding Risk in Del Rey Oaks FEMA Flood Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
100-Year Flood Zone 331 8 $4,376,220 51 $40,252,457
500-Year Flood Zone 1,000 584 $276,553,256 129 $35,245,077 C.5.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT
To assess hazardous materials incident risk, buffer distances were used. The chosen buffer distance was based on guidelines in the US Department of Transportation’s Emergency Response Guidebook that suggest distances useful to protect people from vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic if inhaled. The recommended buffer distance referred to in the guide as the “protective action distance” is the area surrounding the incident in which people are at risk of harmful exposure. For purposes of this plan, a buffer distance of one mile was used, but actual buffer distances will vary depending on the nature and quantity of the release, whether the release occurred during the night or daytime, and prevailing weather conditions.

To analyze the risk to a transportation-related hazardous materials release, a one-mile buffer was applied to highways in the US Dept of Transportation, National Transportation Atlas Database. The result is a two-mile buffer zone around each transportation corridor that is used for this analysis. Risk from a fixed facility hazardous materials release, was analyzed using a one-mile buffer was applied facilities identified in the Monterey County 2019 Hazardous Materials Plan. The result was a one-mile buffer zone around each facility.

Table C-5 summarizes population and property that could be exposed to both mobile and fixed hazardous materials incidents.

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-7 ANNEX C
Table C-5
Population and Property Exposed to Hazardous Materials Incident Risk in Del Rey Oaks Hazardous Materials
Incident Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Mobile Source 1,000 546 $255,848,392 139 $55,959,358
Fixed Source 0 0 $0 0 $0
C.5.8 HUMAN- CAUSED HAZARDS
It is often quite difficult to quantify the potential losses from human-caused hazards. While facilities themselves have a tangible dollar value, loss from a human-caused hazard often inflicts an even greater toll on a community, both economically and emotionally. The impact to identified values will vary from event to event and depend on the type, location, and nature of a specific incident.

C.5.9 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
All citizens in the City could be susceptible to the human health hazards. A large outbreak or epidemic, a pandemic or a use of biological agents as a weapon of mass destruction could have devastating effects on the population. While all of the population is at risk to the human health hazards, the young and the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and those with special needs are most vulnerable. The introduction of a disease such as influenza or the COVID-19 virus have impacted the whole population of the City, specifically vulnerable populations.

C.5.10 SEVERE WEATHER
All severe weather events profiled in this Plan have the potential to happen anywhere in the City.

Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Properties in poor condition or in high-risk locations may be susceptible to the most damage. All critical facilities in the City likely exposed to severe weather hazards. The most common problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities and compromised access to roadways. Prolonged periods of extreme heat could result in power outages caused by increased demand for power for cooling.

The FEMA National Risk Index calculates annualized frequency, exposure and annual expected loss of building value and population to some severe weather hazards identified in this Plan. Based on zip code and census tract Countywide data was used to identify annualized frequency, exposure, and annual expected loss in the City from severe weather hazards. Though the entire City is considered vulnerable to these hazards, the FEMA data was used in this risk assessment to provide scale for the potential risk and impacts.

FEMA National Risk Index data from frequency and exposure to severe weather hazards is summarized in Table C-6.

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-8 ANNEX C
Table C-6
Annualized Frequency and Exposure to Severe Weather Events in Del Rey Oaks Hail Strong Wind
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.19 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.03 Exposed Population 1,624 Exposed Population 1,624
Exposed Building Values $224,941,000 Exposed Building Values $224,941,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $35
Heat Wave Tornado
Frequency (Event-Days) 0.08 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.88 Exposed Population 1,624 Exposed Population 1,624
Exposed Building Values $224,941,000 Exposed Building Values $224,941,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $3,927,437
Lightning Winter Weather
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.42 Frequency (Event-Days) 0.00 Exposed Population 1,624 Exposed Population 0
Exposed Building Values $224,941,000 Exposed Building Values $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $43 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0
Source: FEMA National Risk Index
C.5.11 SLOPE FAILURE
Based on the FEMA National Risk Index, 1,406 people and $200,275,934in building value in the City is exposed to landslide risk. Exposure of population and property in the City to earthquake induced landslides is summarized in Table C-7.

Table C-7
Population and Property Susceptible to Earthquake Induced to Landslides in Del Rey Oaks Landslide
Susceptibility Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High 0 0 $0 0 $0
Moderate 292 129 $58,655,845.00 22 $8,670,542.00
C.5.12 TSUNAMI
The City is not located in a mapped tsunami inundation zone.

C.5.13 UTILITY INTERRUPTION
All residents, visitors, and property in the City is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruptions. All critical facilities and infrastructure in the City that is operated by electricity is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruption.

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-9 ANNEX C
C.5.14 WILDFIRE
For purposes of this analysis CAL FIRE Fire Threat data was used. Fire Threat combines expected fire frequency with potential fire behavior to create 4 threat classes, extreme, very high, high, and moderate.

Table C-8 summarizes population and property in the City in very high, high, and moderate fire threat areas.

Table C-8
Population and Property Exposed to Wildfire Risk in Del Rey Oaks CAL FIRE Wildfire Threat Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Very High Fire Threat 0 0 $0 0 $0
High Fire Threat 278 9 $3,198,361 26 $15,124,293
Moderate Fire Threat 870 155 $75,592,991 64 $39,098,693 C.5.15 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The effects of climate change are varied and include warmer and more varied weather patterns and temperature changes. Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems in the City and will exacerbate the risk posed by many of the hazards previously profiled in this Plan.

Climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards.

Increasing temperatures will have direct impacts on public health and infrastructure. Drought, flooding, and wildfire will likely affect people’s livelihoods and the local economy. Changing weather patterns and more extreme conditions are likely to impact tourism and the local economy. There will also be negative impacts to our ecosystems, both on land and in the ocean, leading to local extinctions, migrations, and management challenges.

C.6 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The City of Del Rey Oaks performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs, and policies that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table C-9 • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table C-10 • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table C-11 • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table C-12 • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table C-13 • A summary of participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is provided in Section C.6.1 in Table C-14
• An overall self-assessment of capability is presented in Section C.6.2 in Table C-15 CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-10 ANNEX C
Table C-9
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Planning Documents
General Plan ☒ • City Manager Update underway
Capital Improvement Plan ☒ • City Manager
• Public Works
Floodplain Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Open Space Management Plan ☒ • City Manager Conservation Element of the General Plan
Stormwater Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Coastal Management Plan ☐ N/A
Local Coastal Program ☐ N/A
Climate Action/ Adaptation Plan ☐
Emergency Operations Plan ☒ • Police Department
Continuity of Operations Plan ☒ • Police Department Identified in EOP Community Wildfire Protection
Plan ☒ • Seaside Fire
Evacuation Plan ☒ • Police Department Multi-Hazard/ Wildfire Evacuation Plan Disaster Recovery Plan ☐
Economic Development Plan ☒ • City Manager
• Planning Department
Historic Preservation Plan ☐ N/A
Transportation Plan ☒ • City Manager
• Planning Department
Circulation Element of the General
Plan
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Floodplain Ordinance ☒ • Public Works Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Municipal Code 15.44)
Zoning Ordinance ☒ • Planning Department
Subdivision Ordinance ☒ • Planning Department
Site Plan Review Requirements ☒ • Planning Department
Unified Development Ordinance ☐
Post-Disaster Redevelopment/
Reconstruction Ordinance ☐
Building Code ☒ • Building Inspector
Fire Prevention Code ☒ • Seaside Fire

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-11 ANNEX C
Table C-10
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development
and land management practices
☒ • Planning Department In addition to contract planning and engineering services
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
☒ • Building Inspector In addition to contract planning and engineering services
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of manmade or
natural hazards
☒ • Building Inspector In addition to contract planning and engineering services
Building Inspector ☒ • Building Inspector
Emergency Manager ☒ • Police Department Chief of Police Floodplain Manager ☒ • Public Works City Engineer
Land Surveyors ☒ Contract as needed
Resource development staff or
grant writers ☒ • City Manager
• City Clerk
Public Information Officer ☒ • City Manager
• Police Department
Scientist(s) familiar with the
hazards of the community ☐
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
☒
• Planning Department
• Police Department
• Seaside Fire

Personnel skilled in Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) ☒ • Monterey County Contract as needed Maintenance programs to reduce
risk ☒ • Public Works Annual creek maintenance, fire fuel reduction, tree clearing
Warning systems/services ☒ • Monterey County Everbridge/ Nixle Mutual Aid Agreements ☒ • Police Department
• Seaside Fire

Table C-11
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
General Funds ☒ • City Manager
Capital Improvements Project
Funding ☒ • Public Works
Special Purpose Taxes ☒ • City Manager
• Public Safety Gas Tax, Public Safety Tax
CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-12 ANNEX C
Table C-11
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
Stormwater Utility Fees ☐
Gas / Electric Utility Fees ☐
Water / Sewer Fees ☐
Development Impact Fees ☒ • Planning Department
General Obligation Bonds ☒ • City Manager Could issue as needed Special Tax and Revenue Bonds ☒ • City Manager
• Public Safety
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) ☒ • City Manager
Other: • Wildfire Fuel Mitigation Grants
• Parks and RTSP Grants

Table C-12
Education and Outreach Capability
Educational and Outreach Resources Department Comments Local citizen or non-profit groups
focused on environmental
protection, emergency
preparedness, access and functional
needs populations, etc.
☒ • Sustainable Del Rey
Oaks
Ongoing public education or
information program (e.g.,
responsible water use, fire safety,
household preparedness,
environmental education)
☒ • City Clerk
• Seaside Fire
Outreach on website and in bi-
annual city newsletter, in addition
to community events
Natural disaster or safety related
school programs ☐ N/A
Public-private partnership initiatives
addressing disaster-related issues ☐

Table C-13
Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Effective Date
Community Rating System (CRS) No - -
ISO Public Protection Classification Yes 2 -
StormReady Certification No - -
TsunamiReady Certification No - -
Firewise Communities Certification No - -

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-13 ANNEX C
Political Capability
Overall, political capability in the City is moderate. A good example of political capability in the City is the consolidation of the Police Department in 2018, which increased the size and capability of the Department and was supported by citizens and the Council. There is also consensus among the current City Council to move forward with a General Plan update.

C.6.1 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) COMPLIANCE Table C-14
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Designated Floodplain Administrator: Sherman Low, City Engineer NFIP Community Number: 060197
Flood Insurance Policies in Force: 19
Insurance Coverage in Force: $6,577,500
Written Premium in Force: $50,436
Total Loss Claims: 1
Total Payments for Losses: $750
Adopted Regulations that meet NFIP Requirements:
• Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Municipal Code 15.44) Date of last NFIP Community Assistance Visit (CAV):

Unknown.

Higher standards that exceed minimum NFIP requirement:

None.

Additional floodplain management provisions:

None.

Floodplain management activities performed that go beyond FEMA minimum requirements:
 Annual creek maintenance program
 Storm drain inspections and maintenance
 Major projects to address property flooding including rebuilding an intersection and installing larger drains each to address property flooding
Existing impediments to running an effective NFIP program:

Lack of staff capacity.

Specific actions that are ongoing or considered related to continued compliance with the NFIP:

The City will continue to do the required actions to maintain NFIP compliance.

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-14 ANNEX C
C.6.2 SELF- ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY
Table C-15
Self-Assessment of Capability
Capability Degree of Capability
Planning and Regulatory Capability Moderate
Administrative and Technical Capability High
Fiscal Capability Limited
Education and Outreach Capability Moderate
Political Capability Moderate
Overall Capability Moderate
C.6.3 OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND/ IMPROVE MITIGATION CAPABILITIES Planning, regulatory, fiscal, administrative, technical, education, and outreach capabilities can all be expanded or improved using a combination of the following strategies:
• Increase capacity through staffing
• Training, and enhanced coordination among all department and jurisdictions • Emergency management/hazard specific program enhancements, training, and exercising • Increased funding opportunities and capacity
• Implementation of mitigation actions and projects
• Continuous research on grant opportunities for emergency management, hazard mitigation, and infrastructure and community development.

Capabilities and abilities to expand or improve existing policies and programs will be re-evaluated during the next Hazard Mitigation Plan update and annual plan review meetings.

C.6.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital improvement planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa. Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.

Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, the City made progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and actions into other planning initiatives.

The following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Capital Improvement Plan: The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate potential hazards. The City will strive to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future capital improvement plan. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-15 ANNEX C
possible funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk assessment. • Building Code: The City’s adoption of the 2016 California Building Code incorporated local modifications addressing seismic and fire hazards.
• Regulatory Codes: A number of the City’s existing codes and ordinances include provisions to reduce hazard risk including the zoning code, storm water management code and flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Multi-Hazard/ Wildfire Evacuation Plan: Information from the hazard mitigation plan is incorporated as appropriate.

Opportunities for Future Integration
The General Plan and the hazard mitigation plan are complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure. The General Plan is considered to be an integral part of this plan. An update to the General Plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. The City, through adoption of a General Plan and zoning ordinance, has planned for the impact of natural hazards. The process of updating this hazard mitigation plan provided the opportunity to review and expand on policies in these planning mechanisms. The City will create a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and the General Plan by identifying a mitigation action as such and giving that action a high priority. Other planning processes and programs that may be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
• General Plan, including the Safety Element
• Emergency Operations Plans
• Climate Action and Adaptation Plans
• Debris management plans
• Recovery plans
• Capital improvement programs
• Municipal codes
• Community design guidelines
• Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
• Stormwater management programs
• Water system vulnerability assessments
• Community wildfire protection plans
• Comprehensive flood hazard management plans
• Resiliency plans
• Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery action plans • Public information/education plans
Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be integrated via the update process.

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-16 ANNEX C
C.7 PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Problem Statements are statements of particular interest regarding primary hazards of concern, geographic areas of concern, or vulnerable community assets. As part of the planning process, the City of Del Rey Oaks Planning Committee identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concern applicable to their jurisdiction. The Hazard Problem Statements were based on the risk assessment, the vulnerability analysis, and local knowledge.

Hazard Problem Statements helped the Planning Committee identify common issues and weaknesses, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation. Hazard Problem Statements for the City of Del Rey Oaks are identified below:
• Primary hazard concerns include any event that threatens to shut down State Highway 218, the central spine and main transportation corridor providing ingress and egress to all areas within the City.
• Other identified critical community assets that must be protected from hazard risks include City Hall, the main pump station (located across the street from City Hall), the Public Works yard, and access to/from the school bus facility.
• The City is the law enforcement response agency for the Monterey Airport and in the event of an incident at the airport, the City would need to manage their resources carefully since they would likely be stretched thin.
• The City Hall/ Police Station Building is a critical facility that does not have a backup generator. The City would like to ensure this facility is self-sufficient in the event of a power outage.

C.8 MITIGATION GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS
The mitigation strategy is the guidebook to future hazard mitigation administration, capturing the key outcomes of the MJHMP planning process. The mitigation strategy is intended to reduce vulnerabilities outlined in the previous section with a prescription of policies and physical projects. These mitigation actions should be compatible with existing planning mechanisms and should outline specific roles and resources for implementation success.

The City of Del Rey Oaks Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Mitigation Strategy in Volume 1, which included a benefit-cost analysis and consideration of mitigation alternatives. Based upon the risk assessment results and the City’s planning committee priorities, a list of mitigation actions was developed. The Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix, in Table C-17 lists each priority mitigation action, identifies time frame, the responsible party, potential funding sources, and prioritization, which meet the requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

Status of Previous Plan Actions
All actions from the 2016 Plan were reviewed and updated by the City during the planning process.

Table C-16 includes the status of actions completed or removed from the previous plan.

In order to improve the mitigation action plan for this Plan update and align with the countywide Mitigation Action Plan, the City added more specificity and detail to previous plan actions in addition to the new actions added to the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | C-17 ANNEX C
Table C-16
City of Del Rey Oaks Completed Mitigation Actions from 2016 MJHMP 2016
Action # Description Status Narrative Update
1 Identify hazard-prone critical facilities and
infrastructure and carry out acquisition,
relocation, and structural and nonstructural
retrofitting measures as necessary.

Completed/
Ongoing
This has been completed
and will be continued on
an as needed basis.
3 Develop an unreinforced masonry grant
program that helps correct earthquake-risk
nonmasonry building problems, including
chimney bracing and anchoring water heaters.

Deleted
The City does not have the
bandwidth to operate a
residential program and
there is little to no
unreinforced masonry
buildings in the City.
4 Examine and mitigate critical infrastructure
that has been identified as currently being too
narrow to ensure the safe transportation of
truck loads within Monterey County.

Completed
The City examined this
problem and determined
this was a risk that did not
need mitigation.

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | C-18 ANNEX C
C City of Del Rey Oaks Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Table C-17
City of Del Rey Oaks Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s)
Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
1 Ongoing/
Continuous All
Develop a sustained public outreach program that
encourages consistent hazard mitigation content, including providing information online, in the newspaper, and in the annual City newsletter.

Priority / High City Clerk General
Funds
2 Ongoing/
Continuous Wildfire
Continue to conduct current fuel management programs
and investigate and apply new and emerging fuel
management techniques.

Priority / High Public Works,
Seaside Fire
General
Funds
and
Grants
3 New/ Mid-
term All, Earthquake
Ensure the redundancy and resilience of municipal
infrastructure, including installing a backup generator in the City Hall/ Police Station facility and planning for power outages.

Priority / High
City Manager,
Police
Department
General
Funds
and
Grants
4 New/
Long-term
All, Flooding,
Earthquake,
Utility
Interruption
Identify risks associated with aging water and sewer lines.

Priority / Moderate Public Works,
Seaside
Sanitation

5 Ongoing/
Continuous Flooding Continue annual creek maintenance program in order to reduce flood risk.

Priority / Moderate Public Works
6 New/ Mid-
term All Begin the General Plan update and include relevant information on hazards in the Safety Element. Priority / High City Manager,
Planning
Department

7 Ongoing/
Continuous
Wildfire,
Hazardous
Materials
Incidents
Continue wildfire fuel risk abatement on the City’s Fort Ord property and continue routine inspections of encampments in order to address fire and hazardous materials risks.

Priority / Moderate
Public Works,
Police
Department

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

D
ANNEX D:

CITY OF GONZALES

2021 Monterey County
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-1 ANNEX D
D. CITY OF GONZALES
D.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact
Jason Muscio
Fire Chief/Fire Marshall
Gonzales Fire Department
147 4th Street
Gonzales, CA 93926
[email protected]

D.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
D.2.1 LOCATION

CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-2 ANNEX D
D.2.2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
Gonzales is a small city of nearly 2 square miles surrounded by surrounded by prime agricultural land in the heart of the Salinas Valley. The City is located along Highway 101, 17 miles south of Salinas and nine miles north of Soledad. The city maintains a small-town character and rural atmosphere consistent with its agricultural heritage, and in so doing, has concentrated on improving its historic downtown while also conserving farmland on the city’s perimeter.

D.2.3 HISTORY
The town of Gonzales was established in 1874 on land previously deeded from Mexico to Teodoro Gonzales, a member of the Mexican Army. He left his land to his sons, who developed the layout of the town. The earliest recorded population of Gonzales was in 1894, when an estimated 500 people resided in the town. The Southern Pacific Railroad had been in place almost two years when the town was established, tracks connected Soledad and Salinas had been laid through the area in 1872 Later, a depot was built in the City to service freight and passenger trains.

Cattle and grain raising dominated the area until the 1890s when Swiss immigrants founded dairies. At the turn of the century, the Alpine Condensary was established to produce condensed milk, a process originated by a local resident. In the 1920s, dairy farming gave way to row crops which thrived because of rich soils and advancements in irrigation, machinery, and transportation. The first schoolhouse was built in 1874. The Gonzales Baptist Church was built in 1884 and still holds worship services at the corner of Fourth and Day Streets. In January 1947, Gonzales residents voted to incorporate the City.

The most significant change after incorporation was the relocation of Highway 101 in the 1960s.

D.2.4 POPULATION
The City of Gonzales has a population of 8,647 people (2020 Census), a 5.6% increase since 2010.

D.2.5 GOVERNING BODY FORMAT
The City of Gonzalez has a Council-Manager form of government. The five-member City Council is elected at large. The Mayor is elected every two years and Council Members are elected every four years.

D.2.6 ECONOMY AND TAX BASE
Gonzales is an established regional leader in agricultural-technology and innovation, environmental awareness, and sustainable practices. As an agriculturally based city, the City of Gonzales is well served with the types of businesses that supply services to the agricultural industry. Some of the City’s most successful small-scale business operations are agricultural service related and include agricultural service and supply, agricultural equipment sales and service, farm supply and irrigation services, seedlings, warehousing, agricultural equipment servicing and repair. The farmlands surrounding the City of Gonzales contribute to its prominence as an agricultural business center. Head and leaf lettuce, broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, and wine grapes are grown in the fields around the City. The City has several notable food processing/ manufacturing and fresh vegetable processing and cooling businesses. Many local businesses are directly involved in the Ag-Tech revolution as it is developing to face current challenges and those we will face in the near future.

CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-3 ANNEX D
Known as the ‘Wine Capital of Monterey County” and located at the base of the Santa Lucia Appellation, Gonzales is a short distance from many world class wineries, with more than 46 vineyard properties and approximately 5,900 acres in production. Gonzales also has an agricultural tourism industry, which enables those interested in knowing where and how their food is grown to have a first- hand experience. To further strengthen agriculture as a key part of its economic base, the City worked successfully to develop the Gonzales Agricultural Business Park, a 50-acre state-of-the-art facility on the west side of the community to enhance the industrial area and central business district.

D.3 PLANNING PROCESS
The City of Gonzales followed the planning process explained in Volume 1 of the plan. In addition to providing representation on the Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Planning Steering Committee, the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process.

The City of Gonzales held a Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder meeting to discuss vulnerabilities, mitigation activities that had occurred since the last plan update, key problem statements, and mitigation strategies on September 14, 2021. Key stakeholders present at the meeting included:
• Mark L. Hartunian, Deputy City Manager
• Keith Wise, Police Chief
• Patrick Dobbins, Public Works Director
• Matthew Sundt, Community Development Director
• Jason Muscio, Fire Chief
D.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
The Gonzales 2010 General Plan is a long-range plan with an urban growth area containing approximately 2,150 acres of land for urbanization. The General Plan update focuses substantial future urban development to the east of Highway 101, thereby enabling preservation of the majority of the most productive agricultural soils near the City. The 2010 General Plan establishes a long-term vision to discourage incremental development that could result in an incoherent or sprawling development pattern, with major objectives that include creating a self-sustaining local economy, preserving the small town-character, discouraging suburban sprawl, protecting the best agricultural lands, building energy efficient projects, and providing residents abundant opportunities to enjoy open space and the natural environment.

Residential use in Gonzales represents approximately one-third of all land use, and of this amount about 80% is single-family residential housing. Industrial use represents almost 13% of land use.

Streets and highways represent approximately 17%, and public/ semipublic use represents approximately 8%. Commercial use represents about 2% of land use. While there is some mixing of land uses, most of the residential, industrial, commercial, and public areas are clearly separated. Given the lack of physical constraints and the precedent of new housing and shopping areas east of Highway 101, Gonzales is a likely candidate for additional growth during the coming decades. The main areas of growth in the City are industrial, on the west end of the City, and residential and retail on the east end of the City.

CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-4 ANNEX D
Safe Growth
The purpose of the Safe Growth Survey was to evaluate the extent to which each jurisdiction is positioned to grow safely relative to its natural hazards. The survey covered 9 distinct topic areas and was also completed as part of the previous plan update process. This allowed survey results to be compared to help measure progress over time and to continue identifying possible mitigation actions as it relates to future growth and community development practices.

This survey was a subjective exercise used to provide some quantitative measures of how adequately existing planning mechanisms were being used to address the notion of safe growth. Each topic area included a number of statements, which were answered on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the degree to which the respondent agreed or disagreed with the statement as it relates to the City’s current plans, policies, and programs for guiding future community growth and development. Scores for each topic area statement were averaged to provide a topic area result and the topic area totals were averaged to provide an overall survey score. More information on the survey is provided in Capability Assessment in Volume 1.

The Gonzales Safe Growth Survey was completed by Matthew Sundt, Community Development Director for the City of Gonzales. The results are summarized in Table D-1.

Table D-1
City of Gonzales Safe Growth Survey Results
Topic Area 2021 2016
Land Use 4.00 5.00
Transportation 4.33 5.00
Environmental Management 5.00 4.67
Public Safety 4.33 4.33
Zoning Ordinance 3.00 3.00
Subdivision Regulations 3.00 5.00
Capital Improvement Program & Infrastructure Policies 3.67 4.67 Building Code 5.00 5.00
Economic Development 5.00 5.00
Average Survey Ratings 4.15 4.63
D.5 JURISDICTION SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT
The intent of this section is to profile the City of Gonzales’s hazards and assess the City’s vulnerability distinct from that of the countywide planning area, which has already been assessed in Volume 1 of the plan. The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the County and describes the hazards, as well as their extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences, and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard vulnerability specific to the City of Gonzales is included in this Annex.

The City of Gonzales’s Planning Team used the same risk assessment process as the Monterey County Steering Committee. The City’s Planning Team used the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey to compare the impact of various hazards that could affect the City. Each variable was scored by hazard by the Planning Team on a scale from 1 to 4, or negligible/unlikely to extensive/highly likely/ CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-5 ANNEX D
catastrophic. The score for each variable was calculated using a weighted average of all survey responses. Scores were then added together to determine an overall hazard score between 1 and 16.

Each score was associated with a qualitative degree of risk ranking from Negligible (between 1 and 4) to Very High (between 14.1 and 16). The Survey is described in more detail in Risk Assessment Methods in Volume 1.

Table D-2 displays the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise that was performed by the City of Gonzales’s Planning Team.

Table D-2
Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA): City of Gonzales Hazard Geographic
Extent
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Magnitude/
Severity Impact Total
Out of 16
Degree of
Risk
Agricultural Emergencies 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.6 10.2 Substantial Coastal Erosion - - - - - -
Coastal Flooding - - - - - -
Cyber-Attack 2.3 2.0 2.6 3.0 9.9 Moderate
Dam Failure 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.0 6.8 Possible
Drought & Water Shortage 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0 Substantial Earthquake 2.6 2.6 3.0 3.0 11.2 Substantial
Epidemic 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.2 12.6 High
Extreme Cold & Freeze 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 6.8 Possible
Extreme Heat 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.4 9.2 Moderate
Flash Flood 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.8 7.0 Possible
Hazardous Materials Incident 2.2 2.0 2.6 2.4 9.2 Moderate Invasive Species 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 5.8 Slight
Levee Failure 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 6.8 Possible
Localized Stormwater Flooding 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.4 9.4 Moderate Mass Migration 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 5.5 Slight
Pandemic 2.8 2.6 2.6 3.0 11.0 Substantial
Riverine Flooding 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.8 7.0 Possible
Sea Level Rise - - - - - -
Severe Winter Storms 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 7.8 Possible
Slope Failure 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 6.8 Possible
Targeted Violence 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 5.8 Slight
Terrorism 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 5.4 Slight
Tsunami - - - - - -
Utility Interruption/ PSPS 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 10.2 Substantial Water Contamination 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 7.2 Possible
Wildfire 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 6.8 Possible
Windstorms 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 5.6 Slight

CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-6 ANNEX D
D.5.1 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
The agricultural industry is a major economic driver in the City. Agricultural disasters pose a serious threat to the local economy and populations directly employed by the agriculture industry.

D.5.2 COASTAL EROSION
The City is not located on the coast, and therefore coastal erosion is not a major threat. Coastal erosion does threaten agricultural land in the Salinas Valley, which if impacted could have indirect economic effects on the local economy. The City could also be impacted by other types of erosion not profiled in this Plan.

D.5.3 DAM AND LEVEE FAILURE
Dam Failure
There is no population or property in the City located in the dam inundation zones of the Los Padres and Forest Lake dams. Table D-3 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to spillway and dam failure of the Nacimiento and San Antonio dams.

Table D-3
Population and Property Exposed to Dam Failure Risk by Dam and Failure Type in Gonzalez Dam Failure Scenario Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Nacimiento Spillway Failure 0 0 $0 8 $818
Nacimiento Dam Failure 0 0 $0 14 $6,519,342
San Antonio Spillway Failure 0 0 $0 0 $0
San Antonio Dam Failure 0 0 $0 18 $7,384,413
Levee Failure
Based on Leveed Area from the US Army Corps of Engineers, National Levee Database, there is no population or property in the City exposed to levee failure risk. Many levees in the County protect important agricultural lands and a significant levee failure could have an indirect economic impact on the City.

D.5.4 DROUGHT AND WATER SHORTAGE
The entire population of the City is vulnerable to drought events. Drought can affect people’s health and safety, including health problems related to low water flows, poor water quality, or dust. Drought also is often accompanied by extreme heat, exposing people to the risk of sunstroke, heat cramps and heat exhaustion. Other possible impacts include recreational risks; effects on air quality; diminished living conditions related to energy, air quality, and hygiene; compromised food and nutrition; and increased incidence of illness and disease. Water shortages can affect access to safe, affordable water, with substantial impacts on low-income families and communities burdened with environmental pollution.

A prolonged drought could also cause economic impacts. Increased demand for water and electricity may result in shortages and higher costs of these resources. While economic impacts will be most CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-7 ANNEX D
significant on industries that use water or depend on water for their business, cascading economic effects can hurt many sectors of the economy. Agriculture, which will likely be impacted by drought conditions, is a major economic driver in the County, and the City could be impacted economically.

D.5.5 EARTHQUAKE
The entire population of the City is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impacted, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. Similarly, all property and critical infrastructure in the City is potentially exposed to earthquake risk.

According to Monterey County Assessor records, there are 1,782 residential and non-residential buildings in the City, with a total value of $630,088,033. Since all structures in the City are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this represents the property exposure to seismic events.

Additionally, liquefaction risk was assessed. Table D-4 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to liquefaction risk.

Table D-4
Population and Property Liquefaction Risk in Gonzalez
Liquefaction Risk Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High Liquefaction Susceptibility 0 0 $0 8 $818
Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility 4,296 388 $102,456,287 349 $178,050,637 D.5.6 FLOODING
FEMA flood zones were used to assess flooding risk. Table D-5 summarizes population and property in the City in the 100-year and 500-year floodplain.

Table D-5
Population and Property Exposed to Flooding Risk in Gonzalez FEMA Flood Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
100-Year Flood Zone 3,432 54 $24,099,061 55 $48,318,809 500-Year Flood Zone 0 0 $0 0 $0
D.5.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT
To assess hazardous materials incident risk, buffer distances were used. The chosen buffer distance was based on guidelines in the US Department of Transportation’s Emergency Response Guidebook that suggest distances useful to protect people from vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic if inhaled. The recommended buffer distance referred to in the guide as the “protective action distance” is the area surrounding the incident in which people are at risk of harmful exposure. For purposes of this plan, a buffer distance of one mile was used, but actual buffer distances CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-8 ANNEX D
will vary depending on the nature and quantity of the release, whether the release occurred during the night or daytime, and prevailing weather conditions.

To analyze the risk to a transportation-related hazardous materials release, a one-mile buffer was applied to highways in the US Dept of Transportation, National Transportation Atlas Database. The result is a two-mile buffer zone around each transportation corridor that is used for this analysis. Risk from a fixed facility hazardous materials release, was analyzed using a one-mile buffer was applied facilities identified in the Monterey County 2019 Hazardous Materials Plan. The result was a one-mile buffer zone around each facility.

Table D-6 summarizes population and property that could be exposed to both mobile and fixed hazardous materials incidents.

Table D-6
Population and Property Exposed to Hazardous Materials Incident Risk in Gonzalez Hazardous Materials
Incident Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Mobile Source 6,758 1,303 $437,053,854 471 $193,033,361 Fixed Source 5,896 1,002 $307,965,433 443 $193,033,361
D.5.8 HUMAN- CAUSED HAZARDS
It is often quite difficult to quantify the potential losses from human-caused hazards. While facilities themselves have a tangible dollar value, loss from a human-caused hazard often inflicts an even greater toll on a community, both economically and emotionally. The impact to identified values will vary from event to event and depend on the type, location, and nature of a specific incident.

D.5.9 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
All citizens in the City could be susceptible to the human health hazards. A large outbreak or epidemic, a pandemic or a use of biological agents as a weapon of mass destruction could have devastating effects on the population. While all of the population is at risk to the human health hazards, the young and the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and those with special needs are most vulnerable. The introduction of a disease such as influenza or the COVID-19 virus have impacted the whole population of the City, specifically vulnerable populations.

D.5.10 SEVERE WEATHER
All severe weather events profiled in this Plan have the potential to happen anywhere in the City.

Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Properties in poor condition or in high-risk locations may be susceptible to the most damage. All critical facilities in the City likely exposed to severe weather hazards. The most common problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities and compromised access to roadways. Prolonged periods of extreme heat could result in power outages caused by increased demand for power for cooling.

The FEMA National Risk Index calculates annualized frequency, exposure and annual expected loss of building value and population to some severe weather hazards identified in this Plan. Based on zip CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-9 ANNEX D
code and census tract Countywide data was used to identify annualized frequency, exposure, and annual expected loss in the City from severe weather hazards. Though the entire City is considered vulnerable to these hazards, the FEMA data was used in this risk assessment to provide scale for the potential risk and impacts. FEMA National Risk Index data from frequency and exposure to severe weather hazards is summarized in Table D-7.

Table D-7
Annualized Frequency and Exposure to Severe Weather Events in Gonzales Hail Strong Wind
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.34 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.09 Exposed Population 5,029 Exposed Population 5,029
Exposed Building Values $324,436,000 Exposed Building Values $324,436,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $446
Heat Wave Tornado
Frequency (Event-Days) 0.82 Frequency (Distinct Events) 1.28 Exposed Population 5,029 Exposed Population 79
Exposed Building Values $324,436,000 Exposed Building Values $5,109,534 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $1 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $130,631
Lightning Winter Weather
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.40 Frequency (Event-Days) 0.06 Exposed Population 5,029 Exposed Population 82
Exposed Building Values $324,436,000 Exposed Building Values $7,862,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $54 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $15
Source: FEMA National Risk Index
D.5.11 SLOPE FAILURE
Based on the FEMA National Risk Index, 180 people and $16,644,258 in building value in the City is exposed to landslide risk. Additionally, the City is not susceptible earthquake induced to landslides.

D.5.12 TSUNAMI
The City is not located in a mapped tsunami inundation zone.

D.5.13 UTILITY INTERRUPTION
All residents, visitors, and property in the City is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruptions. All critical facilities and infrastructure in the City that is operated by electricity is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruption.

CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-10 ANNEX D
D.5.14 WILDFIRE
For purposes of this analysis CAL FIRE Fire Threat data was used. Fire Threat combines expected fire frequency with potential fire behavior to create 4 threat classes, extreme, very high, high, and moderate.

Table D-8 summarizes population and property in the City in very high, high, and moderate fire threat areas.

Table D-8
Population and Property Exposed to Wildfire Risk in Gonzalez CAL FIRE Wildfire Threat Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Very High Fire Threat 0 0 $0 0 $0
High Fire Threat 1,033 0 $0 4 $1,318,537
Moderate Fire Threat 3,554 107 $50,153,625 75 $135,295,821.00 D.5.15 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The effects of climate change are varied and include warmer and more varied weather patterns and temperature changes. Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems in the City and will exacerbate the risk posed by many of the hazards previously profiled in this Plan.

Climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards.

Increasing temperatures will have direct impacts on public health and infrastructure. Drought, flooding, and wildfire will likely affect people’s livelihoods and the local economy. Changing weather patterns and more extreme conditions are likely to impact tourism and the local economy, along with changes to agriculture and crops, which are a critical backbone of the City’s economy.

D.6 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The City of Gonzales performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs, and policies that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table D-9 • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table D-10 • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table D-111 • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table D-12 • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table D-13 • A summary of participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is provided in Section D.6.1 in Table D-14
• An overall self-assessment of capability is presented in Section D.6.2 in Table D-15

CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-11 ANNEX D
Table D-9
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Planning Documents
General Plan ☒ • Community Development
Capital Improvement Plan ☒ • Public Works
Floodplain Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Open Space Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Stormwater Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Coastal Management Plan ☐
Local Coastal Program ☐
Climate Action/ Adaptation Plan ☒ • Community Development Emergency Operations Plan ☒ • Fire Department Under review for re-adoption by City Council
Continuity of Operations Plan ☒ • City Manager
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan ☐
Evacuation Plan ☒ • Fire Department
• Police Department Under review
Disaster Recovery Plan ☒ • All Departments
Economic Development Plan ☒ • Community Development
Historic Preservation Plan ☒ • Community Development
Transportation Plan ☒ • Community Development
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Floodplain Ordinance ☒ • Public Works
Zoning Ordinance ☒ • Community Development
Subdivision Ordinance ☒ • Community Development
Site Plan Review Requirements ☒ • Community Development Unified Development Ordinance ☐
Post-Disaster Redevelopment/
Reconstruction Ordinance ☐
Building Code ☒ • Community Development
Fire Prevention Code ☒ • Fire Department

CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-12 ANNEX D
Table D-10
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development
and land management practices
☒ • Community Development
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
☒ • Community Development
• Public Works
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of manmade or
natural hazards
☒ • Community Development
• Public Works
Building Inspector ☒ • Community Development
Emergency Manager ☒ • City Manager
Floodplain Manager ☒ • Public Works
Land Surveyors ☒ • Public Works
Resource development staff or
grant writers ☒ • Contractual Services
• All Departments
Public Information Officer ☒ • City Manager
Scientist(s) familiar with the
hazards of the community ☐
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
☒ • Fire Department
Personnel skilled in Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) ☒ • Public Works
Maintenance programs to reduce
risk ☒ • Public Works
Warning systems/services ☒ • Fire Department
Mutual Aid Agreements ☒
• Police Department
• Fire Department
• Public Works

Table D-11
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
General Funds ☒ • Finance
Capital Improvements Project
Funding ☒ • Finance
Special Purpose Taxes ☒ • Finance
Stormwater Utility Fees ☐
CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-13 ANNEX D
Table D-11
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
Gas / Electric Utility Fees ☐
Water / Sewer Fees ☒ • Finance
Development Impact Fees ☒ • Finance
General Obligation Bonds ☒ • Finance
Special Tax and Revenue Bonds ☒ • Finance

Table D-12
Education and Outreach Capability
Educational and Outreach Resources Department Comments Local citizen or non-profit groups
focused on environmental
protection, emergency
preparedness, access and functional
needs populations, etc.
☐

Ongoing public education or
information program (e.g.,
responsible water use, fire safety,
household preparedness,
environmental education)
☒ • Fire Department
• Public Works
Natural disaster or safety related
school programs ☒ • Fire Department
Public-private partnership initiatives
addressing disaster-related issues ☒ • City Manager

Table D-13
Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Effective Date
Community Rating System (CRS) No - -
ISO Public Protection Classification Yes 3/3X
StormReady Certification No - -
TsunamiReady Certification No - -
Firewise Communities Certification No - -
D.6.1 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) COMPLIANCE Table D-14
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Designated Floodplain Administrator: Patrick Dobbins, City Engineer NFIP Community Number: 060198
Flood Insurance Policies in Force: 14
CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-14 ANNEX D
Table D-14
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Insurance Coverage in Force: $5,474,500
Written Premium in Force: $18,502
Total Loss Claims: 10
Total Payments for Losses: $187,853
Adopted Regulations that meet NFIP Requirements:
• Gonzales City Code CHAPTER 14.04 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Date of last NFIP Community Assistance Visit (CAV):

Unknown
Higher standards that exceed minimum NFIP requirement:

None identified.

Additional floodplain management provisions:

None identified.

Floodplain management activities performed that go beyond FEMA minimum requirements:

None identified.

Existing impediments to running an effective NFIP program:

None identified.

Specific actions that are ongoing or considered related to continued compliance with the NFIP:

The City will continue to comply with NFIP requirements.

D.6.2 SELF- ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY
Table D-15
Self-Assessment of Capability
Capability Degree of Capability
Planning and Regulatory Capability Moderate
Administrative and Technical Capability Moderate
Fiscal Capability Moderate
Education and Outreach Capability Moderate
Political Capability Moderate
Overall Capability Moderate
D.6.3 OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND/ IMPROVE MITIGATION CAPABILITIES Planning, regulatory, fiscal, administrative, technical, education, and outreach capabilities can all be expanded or improved using a combination of the following strategies:
• Increase capacity through staffing
• Training, and enhanced coordination among all department and jurisdictions • Emergency management/hazard specific program enhancements, training, and exercising • Increased funding opportunities and capacity
• Implementation of mitigation actions and projects
• Continuous research on grant opportunities for emergency management, hazard mitigation, and infrastructure and community development.

CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-15 ANNEX D
Capabilities and abilities to expand or improve existing policies and programs will be re-evaluated during the next Hazard Mitigation Plan update and annual plan review meetings.

D.6.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital improvement planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa. Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.

Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, the City made progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and actions into other planning initiatives.

The following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Capital Improvement Plan: The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate potential hazards. The City will strive to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future capital improvement plan. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk assessment. • Building Code: The City’s adoption of the 2016 California Building Code incorporated local modifications addressing seismic and fire hazards.
• Regulatory Codes: A number of the City’s existing codes and ordinances include provisions to reduce hazard risk including the zoning code, storm water management code and flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Climate Action Plan: Highlights potential programs that could be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and discusses possible impacts of climate change.

Opportunities for Future Integration
The General Plan and the hazard mitigation plan are complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure. The General Plan is considered to be an integral part of this plan. An update to the General Plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. The City, through adoption of a General Plan and zoning ordinance, has planned for the impact of natural hazards. The process of updating this hazard mitigation plan provided the opportunity to review and expand on policies in these planning mechanisms. The City will create a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and the General Plan by identifying a mitigation action as such and giving that action a high priority. Other planning processes and programs that may be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
• General Plan, including the Safety Element
• Emergency Operations Plans
• Climate Action and Adaptation Plans
CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-16 ANNEX D
• Debris management plans
• Recovery plans
• Capital improvement programs
• Municipal codes
• Community design guidelines
• Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
• Stormwater management programs
• Water system vulnerability assessments
• Community wildfire protection plans
• Comprehensive flood hazard management plans
• Resiliency plans
• Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery action plans D.7 PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Problem Statements are statements of particular interest regarding primary hazards of concern, geographic areas of concern, or vulnerable community assets. As part of the planning process, the City of Gonzales Planning Committee identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concern applicable to their jurisdiction. The Hazard Problem Statements were based on the risk assessment, the vulnerability analysis, and local knowledge.

Hazard Problem Statements helped the Planning Committee identify common issues and weaknesses, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation. Hazard Problem Statements for the City of Gonzales are identified below:
• The Fifth Street Overpass is a vital infrastructure asset for the city to protect from any damage or disruption caused by hazards, as it not only serves as critical transportation artery but is also used for all sewer and water lines that provide service for the city. • The City’s wastewater treatment facility is vulnerable to flooding along the Salinas River. It is currently located in a special flood hazard area and protected by two uncertified earthen levees, with privately-owned farmland in between. These levees, which have been overtopped in past flood events, should be bolstered to increase protection against future flood damages and service disruptions.
• Three schools are designated as community shelters (La Gloria Elementary, Fairview Middle, and Gonzales High) but currently the portable classrooms are deemed more structurally safe to seismic events.
• Past flood losses/claims have all occurred along the slough (and within the mapped special flood hazard area) on west side of city between First and Fifth Streets. • Agricultural facilities are known to store extremely hazardous substances for production, such as ammonia, so hazardous materials events remain a primary concern for the City. Additionally, hazardous materials travel along Highway 101 and pose a hazardous materials threat. • Highway 101 is the only lifeline/ingress egress route in the event of a major evacuation. A closure of the freeway would severely limit movement in the event of an evacuation.

CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-17 ANNEX D
• Utility interruption and Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) can significantly impact industrial uses in the City. Past PSPS events have resulted in millions of dollars of losses to the agricultural industry. Additionally, utility interruption and PSPS events can significantly impact telecommunications and cellular operations in the City, as the main cellular provider has no back- up generator.
• Drought is a major concern for the City. Long-term drought conditions could devastate the local economy.

D.8 MITIGATION GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS
The mitigation strategy is the guidebook to future hazard mitigation administration, capturing the key outcomes of the MJHMP planning process. The mitigation strategy is intended to reduce vulnerabilities outlined in the previous section with a prescription of policies and physical projects. These mitigation actions should be compatible with existing planning mechanisms and should outline specific roles and resources for implementation success.

The City of Gonzales Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Mitigation Strategy in Volume 1, which included a benefit-cost analysis and consideration of mitigation alternatives. Based upon the risk assessment results and the City’s planning committee priorities, a list of mitigation actions was developed. The Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix, in Table D-17 lists each priority mitigation action, identifies time frame, the responsible party, potential funding sources, and prioritization, which meet the requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

Status of Previous Plan Actions
All actions from the 2016 Plan were reviewed and updated by the City during the planning process.

Table D-16 includes the status of action previous plan completed or removed from the previous plan.

In order to improve the mitigation action plan for this Plan update and align with the countywide Mitigation Action Plan, the City added more specificity and detail to previous plan actions in addition to the new actions added to the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.

Table D-16
City of Gonzales Completed Mitigation Actions from 2016 MJHMP 2016
Action # Description Status Narrative Update
1 Identify hazard-prone critical
facilities and infrastructure and
carry out acquisition, relocation,
and structural and nonstructural
retrofitting measures as necessary.

Completed Completed and ongoing as the City’s
grows.
2 Develop an unreinforced masonry
grant program that helps correct
earthquake-risk nonmasonry
building problems, including
Completed
The City received grants to seismically
retrofit the fire house. Additionally, the
Fire Department inspects water heaters to
ensure they are anchored.

CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-18 ANNEX D
Table D-16
City of Gonzales Completed Mitigation Actions from 2016 MJHMP 2016
Action # Description Status Narrative Update
chimney bracing and anchoring
water heaters.
4 Identify and carry-out minor flood
and stormwater management
projects that would reduce damage
to infrastructure and damage due to
local flooding/inadequate drainage.

Continuous
This action is included in the 2021 Action
Plan, but it is of note that the City
completed a variety of storm drain
upgrades over the previous planning cycle,
including a new lift station and installation
of additional bioswales.
7 Implement adopted climate action
plan. Completed The City completed and implemented,
Climate Action Plans in 2013 and 2018.
11 Improve disaster response training
between all responders.

Completed/
Ongoing
The City completed two emergency drills
across all departments. City Council and
Management staff have all completed
NIMS/ICS training. The City also conducts a
drill annually on the anniversary of the
Loma Prieta Earthquake and will continue
to ensure that at least one major
emergency drill is completed every year.
13 Develop public-private partnerships
with local businesses to increase
business and government resilience.

Completed/
Ongoing
This is included in the 2021 Action Plan
because of its strategic importance, but it
should be noted that the City created a
new position, Director of Strategic
Partnerships. During Covid-19 the City
worked in conjunction with local business
on a variety of initiatives and has built very
strong partnerships with the business
community.

CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-19 ANNEX D
D City of Gonzales Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Table D-17
City of Gonzales Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
1 Continuous
/ Ongoing Flooding
Explore mitigation opportunities for repetitively flooded properties, and if necessary, carry-out acquisition,
relocation, elevation, and flood-proofing measures to
protect these properties.

Priority / High Public Works
Department

Federal and State
Grants (e.g., FMA
grants)

2 Continuous
/ Ongoing Flooding
Identify and carry-out minor flood and stormwater
management projects that would reduce damage to
infrastructure and damage due to local flooding/
inadequate drainage.

Priority / High Public Works
Department
Federal and State
Grants (e.g.,
PDM grants)
3 Continuous
/ Ongoing
All
Examine and mitigate critical infrastructure that has been identified as currently being too narrow to ensure the safe transportation of truckloads within Monterey County.

Priority / High Planning
Department

Federal and State
Grants (e.g.,
PDM grants)
4 Continuous
/ Ongoing All
Promote Disaster Resilient Community, including the
creation of a Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT) and continued public education for disaster
resilience.

Priority / High
Office of
Emergency
Services
Local General
Fund, PG&E
Grants
5 Continuous
/ Ongoing All Monitor all existing critical facilities for susceptibility to impacts from natural and manmade disasters. Priority / Low Building Department
Local General
Fund
6 Continuous
/ Ongoing Flooding Improve floodway management. Priority / High Public Works Department Various Grants
7 In Progress All Improve Emergency Operations Center capability. Priority / Moderate

Office of
Emergency
Services
Unknown, Grants
Needed
8 Continuous
/ Ongoing All
Develop and continue to build on existing public-private partnerships with local businesses to increase business and government resilience.

Priority / High
Community
Engagement
and Strategic
Partnerships
Local General
Fund
CITY OF GONZALES Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | D-20 ANNEX D
Table D-17
City of Gonzales Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
9 In Progress Increase flood resilience of wastewater treatment facility. Priority / Moderate
Public Works
Department

Mitigation
Grants Matched
by Local Funds
10 In Progress Develop redundant systems for water system resilience, including development of new wells.

Priority /
Moderate
Public Works
Department
Mitigation
Grants Matched
by Local Funds
11 In Progress
Continue work on Community Microgrid Project in order
to increase energy independence and community
resiliency.

Priority / High Public Works
Department
General Fund,
Grants
12 New Expand the wastewater treatment system. Priority / Moderate
Public Works
Department
General Fund,
Grants
13 In Progress Implement Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District (EIFD) for the new Agricultural Business Park.

Priority /
Moderate City Manager General Fund
14 New
Build new Police Substation and Fire Station on the other side of Highway 101 in order to provide public safety
services and support new residential development.

Priority /
Moderate
Community
Development
Department
General Fund,
Grants
Flooding
Drought
Climate
Change
All
All
All

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

E
ANNEX E:

CITY OF GREENFIELD

2021 Monterey County
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-1 ANNEX E
E. CITY OF GREENFIELD
E.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Chief Jim Langborg
Fire Chief
Greenfield Fire
380 Oak Avenue
Greenfield, CA 93927
(831) 674-5484
[email protected]
Paul Wood
City Manger
City of Greenfield
599 El Camino Real
PO Box 127
Greenfield, CA 93927
831-674-5591
E.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
E.2.1 LOCATION

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-2 ANNEX E
E.2.2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
The City of Greenfield is located in the heart of the Salinas Valley, formed by the Gabilan Mountains range to the east and the Santa Lucia Mountains range to the west. The City of Greenfield covers slightly more than 2 square miles along US Highway 101. Salinas, the county seat, is located 35 miles to the north. Soledad and Gonzales are located 8 and 17 miles north, respectively. King City is located 11 miles to the south. The climate for Greenfield is moderate with average temperatures around 40 degrees in winter and about 80 degrees in summer.

E.2.3 HISTORY
The City of Greenfield, began as Clark Colony in April of 1905, created by a subdivision of 4,000 acres of valley bottomland by the California Home Extension Association, a branch of Rancho Arroyo Seco. A public drawing was held at their branch office in Los Angeles on April 5, 1905. The average price per acre was $37.50, including water rights.

The organization of the water distribution system, the Clark Colony Water Company, was formed on April 7, 1905. The organization would be in charge of distributing water to the stockholders who paid the debt at the rate of $25 for each of the subdivision's acres. With a water canal system and good growing conditions, people of Danish, Swiss and other nationalities from surrounding areas settled in Greenfield. The Clark Colony settlers then constructed the largest irrigation and domestic water supply system in the Salinas Valley. Today, the Clark Colony Water Company still holds 1916 Prior Rights guaranteeing delivery to its members a certain amount of water from the Arroyo Seco River before any other agencies' use of the river water.

On April 6, 1906, the district purchased a lot from Edward Greenfield for $33.75 along with two adjacent to the Arroyo Seco Development Company for $145.80. By 1906, local carpenters including R.D. Hall, Alfred Hansen and Al Leoni had completed a new school building on the property, located at El Camino Real and Walnut Avenue consisting of two classrooms with a library between them. Romie School District officially became Greenfield School District on July 1, 1909.

Clark Colony evolved into Clark City and was eventually renamed Greenfield, after the United States Postal Service informed the City that there were too many "Clark Cities" in the state. The name was picked to honor a long-time settler of the area, Mr. Greenfield, who was instrumental in the formation of the City and was active in public affairs of the City. Greenfield was recognized as a municipality by the State of California legislature and incorporated on January 7, 1947.

E.2.4 POPULATION
The City of Greenfield has a population of 18,937 people, an increase of 16% since 2010. Greenfield is among Monterey County’s fastest growing cities, also experiencing an increase in population of nearly 30% between 2000 and 2010. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments projects that the population will grow to 24,912 by 2025 and 30,337 by 2035.

E.2.5 GOVERNING BODY FORMAT
T
he City of Greenfield is run by a City Manager form of government, with a five-member City Council.

The City Council is composed of a Mayor and four Council Members who are elected at large for four- y
ear terms.

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-3 ANNEX E
E.2.6 ECONOMY AND TAX BASE
The City of Greenfield is a densely populated city that has a small-town charm that mixes rural and suburban lifestyles with ongoing agricultural activities, and comparatively affordable housing prices that has fueled a growing population of professional and skilled workers.

The City of Greenfield is located in one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world, the Salinas Valley. The area around Greenfield is also the heart of Monterey County's premier wine grape growing region due to favorable soils and climate with over twenty vineyards and wineries within a thirty-mile radius. Local tourism is increasing as more people are attracted to the area.

E.3 PLANNING PROCESS
The City of Greenfield followed the planning process explained in Volume 1 of the plan. In addition to providing representation on the Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Planning Steering Committee, the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process.

The City of Greenfield held a Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder meeting to discuss vulnerabilities, mitigation activities that had occurred since the last plan update, key problem statements, and mitigation strategies on September 23, 2021. Key stakeholders present at the meeting included:
• Jim Langborg, Fire Chief
• Captain Carlos Vega, Administrative Fire Captain
• Paul Mugan, Planning Director
• Manuel Ayala, Public Works Division Manager
E.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
Greenfield adopted its General Plan in 2005. Between 1985 and 1990 Greenfield’s growth kept pace with neighboring Salinas Valley cities, and this trend has generally continued in the period between 2000 and 2005. The growth of agriculture and related business and industries in the Greenfield area has contributed to the city’s significant growth since 1970. The City of Greenfield currently contains over 1,000 acres of land within the City limits. Most of this area is currently built out or committed to urban land uses. Approximately 270 acres are undeveloped in the City limits. The largest land use is residential, which represents about 47% of the acreage in the City. Commercial and light industrial uses each constituted approximately 3%. Other uses were Public and Quasi -P
ublic uses (19%), Agriculture
(15%), mixed-us
e (3%) and Recreation & Open Space (less than 1%). 10% of the City’s land was categorized as vacant.

S
afe Growth
The purpose of the Safe Growth Survey was to evaluate the extent to which each jurisdiction is positioned to grow safely relative to its natural hazards. The survey covered 9 distinct topic areas and was also completed as part of the previous plan update process. This allowed survey results to be compared to help measure progress over time and to continue identifying possible mitigation actions as it relates to future growth and community development practices.

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-4 ANNEX E
This survey was a subjective exercise used to provide some quantitative measures of how adequately existing planning mechanisms were being used to address the notion of safe growth. Each topic area included a number of statements, which were answered on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the degree to which the respondent agreed or disagreed with the statement as it relates to the City’s current plans, policies, and programs for guiding future community growth and development. Scores for each topic area statement were averaged to provide a topic area result and the topic area totals were averaged to provide an overall survey score. More information on the survey is provided in Capability Assessment in Volume 1.

The Greenfield Safe Growth Survey was completed by Chief Jim Langborg, Fire Chief for the City of Greenfield Fire Department in collaboration with other key members of City Staff. The results are summarized in Table E-1.

Table E-1
City of Greenfield Safe Growth Survey Results
Topic Area 2021 2016
Land Use 3.75 3.50
Transportation 2.67 3.33
Environmental Management 4.00 3.33
Public Safety 3.00 3.33
Zoning Ordinance 3.00 3.00
Subdivision Regulations 3.00 3.00
Capital Improvement Program & Infrastructure Policies 3.00 3.00 Building Code 4.00 4.00
Economic Development 3.00 4.00
Average Survey Ratings 3.27 3.39
E.5 JURISDICTION SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT
The intent of this section is to profile the City of Greenfield’s hazards and assess the City’s vulnerability distinct from that of the countywide planning area, which has already been assessed in Volume 1 of the plan. The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the County and describes the hazards, as well as their extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences, and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard vulnerability specific to the City of Greenfield is included in this Annex.

The City of Greenfield’s Planning Team used the same risk assessment process as the Monterey County Steering Committee. The City’s Planning Team used the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey to compare the impact of various hazards that could affect the City. Each variable was scored by hazard by the Planning Team on a scale from 1 to 4, or negligible/unlikely to extensive/highly likely/ catastrophic. The score for each variable was calculated using a weighted average of all survey responses. Scores were then added together to determine an overall hazard score between 1 and 16.

Each score was associated with a qualitative degree of risk ranking from Negligible (between 1 and 4) to Very High (between 14.1 and 16). The Survey is described in more detail in Risk Assessment Methods in Volume 1. Table E-2 displays the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise that was performed by the City of Greenfield’s Planning Team.

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-5 ANNEX E
Table E-2
Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA): City of Greenfield Hazard Geographic
Extent
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Magnitude/
Severity Impact Total
Out of 16
Degree of
Risk
Agricultural Emergencies 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 High
Coastal Erosion - - - - - -
Coastal Flooding - - - - - -
Cyber-Attack 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 Moderate
Dam Failure 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 Possible
Drought & Water Shortage 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 Possible
Earthquake 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 11.0 Substantial
Epidemic 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0 Substantial
Extreme Cold & Freeze 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 11.0 Substantial
Extreme Heat 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 Moderate
Flash Flood 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 9.0 Moderate
Hazardous Materials Incident 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 Moderate Invasive Species 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 Possible
Levee Failure - - - - - -
Localized Stormwater Flooding 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 9.0 Moderate Mass Migration 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 11.0 Substantial
Pandemic 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0 Substantial
Riverine Flooding 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 10.0 Moderate
Sea Level Rise - - - - - -
Severe Winter Storms 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 11.0 Substantial
Slope Failure 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 Negligible
Targeted Violence 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 Moderate
Terrorism 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 9.0 Moderate
Tsunami - - - - - -
Utility Interruption/ PSPS 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 11.0 Substantial Water Contamination 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 11.0 Substantial
Wildfire 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0 Substantial
Windstorms 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 11.0 Substantial
E.5.1 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
The agricultural industry is a major economic driver in the City. Agricultural disasters pose a serious threat to the local economy and populations directly employed by the agriculture industry.

E.5.2 COASTAL EROSION
The City is not located on the coast, and therefore coastal erosion is not a major threat. Coastal erosion does threaten agricultural land in the Salinas Valley, which if impacted could have indirect economic CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-6 ANNEX E
effects on the local economy. The City could also be impacted by other types of erosion not profiled in this Plan.

E.5.3 DAM AND LEVEE FAILURE
Dam Failure
There is no population or property in the City located in the dam inundation zones of the Los Padres and Forest Lake dams. Table E-3 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to spillway and dam failure of the Nacimiento and San Antonio dams.

Table E-3
Population and Property Exposed to Dam Failure Risk by Dam and Failure Type in Greenfield Dam Failure Scenario Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Nacimiento Spillway Failure 0 0 $0 3 $3,950
Nacimiento Dam Failure 0 0 $0 3 $4,423,463
San Antonio Spillway Failure 0 0 $0 2 $3,935
San Antonio Dam Failure 0 0 $0 4 $235,401
Levee Failure
Based on Leveed Area from the US Army Corps of Engineers, National Levee Database, there is no population or property in the City exposed to levee failure risk. Many levees in the County protect important agricultural lands and a significant levee failure could have an indirect economic impact.

E.5.4 DROUGHT AND WATER SHORTAGE
The entire population of the City is vulnerable to drought events. Drought can affect people’s health and safety, including health problems related to low water flows, poor water quality, or dust. Other possible impacts include recreational risks; effects on air quality; diminished living conditions related to energy, air quality, and hygiene; compromised food and nutrition; and increased incidence of illness and disease. Water shortages can affect access to safe, affordable water, with substantial impacts on low-income families and communities burdened with environmental pollution.

A prolonged drought could also cause economic impacts. Increased demand for water and electricity may result in shortages and higher costs of these resources. While economic impacts will be most significant on industries that use water or depend on water for their business, cascading economic effects can hurt many sectors of the economy. Agriculture, which will likely be impacted by drought conditions, is a major economic driver in the County, and the City could be impacted economically.

E.5.5 EARTHQUAKE
The entire population of the City is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impacted, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of utilities could impact populations that CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-7 ANNEX E
suffered no direct damage from an event itself. Similarly, all property and critical infrastructure in the City is potentially exposed to earthquake risk.

According to Monterey County Assessor records, there are 3,159 residential and non-residential buildings in the City, with a total value of $925,392,759. Since all structures in the City are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this represents the property exposure to seismic events.

Additionally, liquefaction risk was assessed. Table E-4 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to liquefaction risk.

Table E-4
Population and Property Exposed to Liquefaction Risk in Greenfield Liquefaction Risk Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High Liquefaction Susceptibility 0 0 $0 3 $3,950
Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility 0 0 $0 2 $4,887,460 E.5.6 FLOODING
FEMA flood zones were used to assess flooding risk. Table E-5 summarizes population and property in the City in the 100-year and 500-year floodplain.

Table E-5
Population and Property Exposed to Flooding Risk in Greenfield FEMA Flood Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
100-Year Flood Zone 0 0 $0 3 $3,950
500-Year Flood Zone 0 0 $0 0 $0
E.5.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT
To assess hazardous materials incident risk, buffer distances were used. The chosen buffer distance was based on guidelines in the US Department of Transportation’s Emergency Response Guidebook that suggest distances useful to protect people from vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic if inhaled. The recommended buffer distance referred to in the guide as the “protective action distance” is the area surrounding the incident in which people are at risk of harmful exposure.

For purposes of this plan, a buffer distance of one mile was used, but actual buffer distances will vary depending on the nature and quantity of the release, whether the release occurred during the night or daytime, and prevailing weather conditions.

To analyze the risk to a transportation-related hazardous materials release, a one-mile buffer was applied to highways in the US Dept of Transportation, National Transportation Atlas Database. The result is a two-mile buffer zone around each transportation corridor that is used for this analysis. Risk from a fixed facility hazardous materials release, was analyzed using a one-mile buffer was applied facilities identified in the Monterey County 2019 Hazardous Materials Plan. The result was a one-mile buffer zone around each facility.

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-8 ANNEX E
Table E-6 summarizes population and property that could be exposed to both mobile and fixed hazardous materials incidents.

Table E-6
Population and Property Exposed to Hazardous Materials Incident Risk in Greenfield Hazardous Materials
Incident Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Mobile Source 13,026 2,244 $655,971,950 561 $176,072,277 Fixed Source 8,969 1,314 $346,157,777 349 $66,305,431
E.5.8 HUMAN CAUSED HAZARDS
It is often quite difficult to quantify the potential losses from human-caused hazards. While facilities themselves have a tangible dollar value, loss from a human-caused hazard often inflicts an even greater toll on a community, both economically and emotionally. The impact to identified values will vary from event to event and depend on the type, location, and nature of a specific incident.

E.5.9 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
All citizens in the City could be susceptible to the human health hazards. A large outbreak or epidemic, a pandemic or a use of biological agents as a weapon of mass destruction could have devastating effects on the population. While all of the population is at risk to the human health hazards, the young and the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and those with special needs are most vulnerable. The introduction of a disease such as influenza or the COVID-19 virus have impacted the whole population of the City, specifically vulnerable populations.

E.5.10 SEVERE WEATHER
All severe weather events profiled in this Plan have the potential to happen anywhere in the City.

Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Properties in poor condition or in high-risk locations may be susceptible to the most damage.

All critical facilities in the City likely exposed to severe weather hazards. The most common problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities and compromised access to roadways. Prolonged periods of extreme heat could result in power outages caused by increased demand for power for cooling.

The FEMA National Risk Index calculates annualized frequency, exposure and annual expected loss of building value and population to some severe weather hazards identified in this Plan. Based on zip code and census tract Countywide data was used to identify annualized frequency, exposure, and annual expected loss in the City from severe weather hazards. Though the entire City is considered vulnerable to these hazards, the FEMA data was used in this risk assessment to provide scale for the potential risk and impacts.

FEMA National Risk Index data from frequency and exposure to severe weather hazards is summarized in Table E-7.

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-9 ANNEX E
Table E-7
Annualized Frequency and Exposure to Severe Weather Events in Greenfield Hail Strong Wind
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.38 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.13 Exposed Population 14,041 Exposed Population 14,041
Exposed Building Values $821,527,000 Exposed Building Values $821,527,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $152
Heat Wave Tornado
Frequency (Event-Days) 1.24 Frequency (Distinct Events) 1.28 Exposed Population 14,041 Exposed Population 10,792
Exposed Building Values $821,527,000 Exposed Building Values $646,495,439 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $5 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $16,528,440
Lightning Winter Weather
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.30 Frequency (Event-Days) 0.00 Exposed Population 14,041 Exposed Population 0
Exposed Building Values $821,527,000 Exposed Building Values $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $96 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0
Source: FEMA National Risk Index
E.5.11 SLOPE FAILURE
Based on the FEMA National Risk Index, 0 people and $0 in building value in the City is exposed to landslide risk. Additionally, the City is not susceptible earthquake induced to landslides.

E.5.12 TSUNAMI
The City is not located in a mapped tsunami inundation zone.

E.5.13 UTILITY INTERRUPTION
All residents, visitors, and property in the City is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruptions. All critical facilities and infrastructure in the City that is operated by electricity is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruption.

E.5.14 WILDFIRE
For purposes of this analysis CAL FIRE Fire Threat data was used. Fire Threat combines expected fire frequency with potential fire behavior to create 4 threat classes, extreme, very high, high, and moderate.

Table E-8 summarizes population and property in the City in very high, high, and moderate fire threat areas.

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-10 ANNEX E
Table E-8
Population and Property Exposed to Wildfire Risk in Greenfield CAL FIRE Wildfire Threat Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Very High Fire Threat 0 0 $0 0 $0
High Fire Threat 0 0 $0 0 $0
Moderate Fire Threat 5,024 149 $53,031,867 113 $39,928,531 E.5.15 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The effects of climate change are varied and include warmer and more varied weather patterns and temperature changes. Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems in the City and will exacerbate the risk posed by many of the hazards previously profiled in this Plan.

Climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards.

Increasing temperatures will have direct impacts on public health and infrastructure. Drought, flooding, and wildfire will likely affect people’s livelihoods and the local economy. Changing weather patterns and more extreme conditions are likely to impact tourism and the local economy, along with changes to agriculture and crops, which are a critical backbone of the City’s economy.

E.6 CAPABI LITY ASSESSMENT
The City of Greenfield performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs, and policies that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table E-9 • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table E-10 • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table E-11 • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table E-12 • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table E-13 • A summary of participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is provided in Section E.6.1 in Table E-14
• An overall self-assessment of capability is presented in Section E.6.2 in Table E-15

Table E-9
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Planning Documents
General Plan ☒ • Community Services
Capital Improvement Plan ☒ • Fire Department
The FD has one but it’s the
only department that has one
at this time.

Floodplain Management Plan ☐
Open Space Management Plan ☐
CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-11 ANNEX E
Table E-9
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Stormwater Management Plan ☐
Coastal Management Plan ☐ N/A
Local Coastal Program ☐ N/A
Climate Action/ Adaptation Plan ☐
Emergency Operations Plan ☒ • Fire Department
• Police Department
A major update has been
started but not worked on for
a while.

Continuity of Operations Plan ☐
Community Wildfire Protection Plan ☐
Evacuation Plan ☒
• Fire Department
• Police Department
• Monterey County
Working with the County on
this now.

Disaster Recovery Plan ☐
Economic Development Plan ☐
Historic Preservation Plan ☐
Transportation Plan ☐
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Floodplain Ordinance ☒ Chapter 8.48 FLOODPLAIN

MANAGEMENT
Zoning Ordinance ☒ • Community Services
Subdivision Ordinance ☒ • Community Services
Site Plan Review Requirements ☒ • Community Services
Unified Development Ordinance ☐
Post-Disaster Redevelopment/
Reconstruction Ordinance ☐
Building Code ☒ • Community Services
Fire Prevention Code ☒ • Fire Department
Other Hazard-Specific Ordinances

Table E-10
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development
and land management practices
☒ • Community Services
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices ☒ • Public Works
CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-12 ANNEX E
Table E-10
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of manmade or
natural hazards
☐
Building Inspector ☒ • Community Services
Emergency Manager ☐
Floodplain Manager ☐
Land Surveyors ☐
Resource development staff or
grant writers ☐
Public Information Officer ☐
Scientist(s) familiar with the
hazards of the community ☐
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
☐
Personnel skilled in Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) ☐
Maintenance programs to
reduce risk ☒ • Public Works
Warning systems/services ☐
Mutual Aid Agreements ☐

Table E-11
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
General Funds ☒ • Finance
Capital Improvements Project
Funding ☒ • Finance
Special Purpose Taxes ☒ • Finance
Stormwater Utility Fees ☐
Gas / Electric Utility Fees ☐
Water / Sewer Fees ☐
Development Impact Fees ☒ • Finance
General Obligation Bonds ☒ • Finance
Special Tax and Revenue Bonds ☒ • Finance

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-13 ANNEX E
Table E-12
Education and Outreach Capability
Educational and Outreach Resources Department Comments Local citizen or non-profit groups
focused on environmental
protection, emergency
preparedness, access and
functional needs populations, etc.
☐

The Greenfield Community Science
Workshop is a community-based
organization committed to enriching
the educational experience of
historically underserved youth by
providing them with a safe, fun, and
stimulating environment where
they can explore their world
through science.

Ongoing public education or
information program (e.g.,
responsible water use, fire safety,
household preparedness,
environmental education)
☒
Natural disaster or safety related
school programs ☒
Public-private partnership
initiatives addressing disaster-
related issues
☐

Table E-13
Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Effective Date
Community Rating System (CRS) No - -
ISO Public Protection Classification Yes 5 -
StormReady Certification No
TsunamiReady Certification N/A - -
Firewise Communities Certification No - -
E.6.1 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) COMPLIANCE Table E-14
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Designated Floodplain Administrator: None identified.

NFIP Community Number: 060446
Flood Insurance Policies in Force: 3
Insurance Coverage in Force: $1,050,000
Written Premium in Force: $1,260
Total Loss Claims: 1
Total Payments for Losses: $0
CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-14 ANNEX E
Table E-14
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Adopted Regulations that meet NFIP Requirements:
• Chapter 8.48 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
Date of last NFIP Community Assistance Visit (CAV):

Unknown.

Higher standards that exceed minimum NFIP requirement:

None.

Additional floodplain management provisions:

None.

Floodplain management activities performed that go beyond FEMA minimum requirements:

None.

Existing impediments to running an effective NFIP program:

None identified.

Specific actions that are ongoing or considered related to continued compliance with the NFIP:

The City will continue to do the required actions to maintain NFIP compliance.

E.6.2 SELF- ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY
Table E-15
Self-Assessment of Capability
Capability Degree of Capability
Planning and Regulatory Capability Moderate
Administrative and Technical Capability Limited
Fiscal Capability Limited
Education and Outreach Capability Moderate
Political Capability Moderate
Overall Capability Moderate
E.6.3 OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND/ IMPROVE MITIGATION CAPABILITIES Planning, regulatory, fiscal, administrative, technical, education, and outreach capabilities can all be expanded or improved using a combination of the following strategies:
• Increase capacity through staffing
• Training, and enhanced coordination among all department and jurisdictions • Emergency management/hazard specific program enhancements, training, and exercising • Increased funding opportunities and capacity
• Implementation of mitigation actions and projects
• Continuous research on grant opportunities for emergency management, hazard mitigation, and infrastructure and community development.

Capabilities and abilities to expand or improve existing policies and programs will be re-evaluated during the next Hazard Mitigation Plan update and annual plan review meetings.

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-15 ANNEX E
E.6.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital improvement planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa. Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.

Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, the City made progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and actions into other planning initiatives.

The following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Capital Improvement Plan: The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate potential hazards. The City will strive to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future capital improvement plan. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk assessment. • Building Code: The City’s adoption of the 2016 California Building Code incorporated local modifications addressing seismic and fire hazards.
• Regulatory Codes: A number of the City’s existing codes and ordinances include provisions to reduce hazard risk including the zoning code, storm water management code and flood damage prevention ordinance.

Opportunities for Future Integration
The General Plan and the hazard mitigation plan are complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure. The General Plan is considered to be an integral part of this plan. An update to the General Plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. The City, through adoption of a General Plan and zoning ordinance, has planned for the impact of natural hazards. The process of updating this hazard mitigation plan provided the opportunity to review and expand on policies in these planning mechanisms. The City will create a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and the General Plan by identifying a mitigation action as such and giving that action a high priority. Other planning processes and programs that may be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
• General Plan, including the Safety Element
• Emergency Operations Plans
• Climate Action and Adaptation Plans
• Debris management plans
• Recovery plans
• Capital improvement programs
• Municipal codes
CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-16 ANNEX E
• Community design guidelines
• Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
• Stormwater management programs
• Water system vulnerability assessments
• Community wildfire protection plans
• Comprehensive flood hazard management plans
• Resiliency plans
• Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery action plans • Public information/education plans
Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be integrated via the update process.

E.7 PROBLEM STAT EMENTS
Problem Statements are statements of particular interest regarding primary hazards of concern, geographic areas of concern, or vulnerable community assets. As part of the planning process, the City of Greenfield Planning Committee identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concern applicable to their jurisdiction. The Hazard Problem Statements were based on the risk assessment, the vulnerability analysis, and local knowledge.

Hazard Problem Statements helped the Planning Committee identify common issues and weaknesses, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation. Hazard Problem Statements for the City of Greenfield are identified below:
• The City’s wastewater treatment operation is vulnerable to flooding along the Salinas River. While protected by an earthen levee, the effluent ponds are located in the special flood hazard area and should be better protected to withstand future flood and earthquake events to prevent damages, service disruption, and environmental contamination. There is also currently no on-site generator for backup power at the treatment facility.
• Isolation caused by Highway 101 bridge closures/failures is a major concern for the City (losing bridge access at Soledad to the north and King City to the south). This nearly occurred as a result of the major flood event in 1995.
• The City experiences frequent nuisance flooding at the intersection of Apple Avenue and El Camino Real due to inadequately sized stormwater drainage systems. • Five URM structures remain in the City, all of which are privately-owned and have been posted with warning placards.
• The generator at City Hall is currently capable of only providing backup power to the Police Department, preventing the use of approximately half the building during power outage. This is identified as a threat to sustaining post-disaster recovery operations following major events. • The City’s Council Chambers has been designated by default as the Emergency Operations Center, but a dedicated and fortified structure is needed for the City to be better prepared in dealing with future hazard events.

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-17 ANNEX E
• The City is concerned with hazardous associated with agricultural facilities and the chemicals used in their processes.
• The fire station has no emergency backup generator. This has caused delays in response, problems with communication and dispatch systems, day to day operations, and station security.

E.8 MITIGATION GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS
The mitigation strategy is the guidebook to future hazard mitigation administration, capturing the key outcomes of the MJHMP planning process. The mitigation strategy is intended to reduce vulnerabilities outlined in the previous section with a prescription of policies and physical projects. These mitigation actions should be compatible with existing planning mechanisms and should outline specific roles and resources for implementation success.

The City of Greenfield Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Mitigation Strategy in Volume 1, which included a benefit-cost analysis and consideration of mitigation alternatives. Based upon the risk assessment results and the City’s planning committee priorities, a list of mitigation actions was developed. The Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix, in Table E-17 lists each priority mitigation action, identifies time frame, the responsible party, potential funding sources, and prioritization, which meet the requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

Status of Previous Plan Actions
All actions from the 2016 Plan were reviewed and updated by the City during the planning process.

Table E-16 includes the status of action previous plan completed or removed from the previous plan.

In order to improve the mitigation action plan for this Plan update and align with the countywide Mitigation Action Plan, the City added more specificity and detail to previous plan actions in addition to the new actions added to the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.

Table E-16
City of Greenfield Completed Mitigation Actions from 2016 MJHMP 2016
Action # Description Status Narrative Update
3 Develop an unreinforced masonry
grant program that helps correct
earthquake-risk nonmasonry
building problems, including
chimney bracing and anchoring
water heaters.

Deleted
There are limited unreinforced
masonry buildings left in the City and
there is not currently capacity to run a
grant program. An action to inform the
public about the risk of unreinforced
masonry was added to the updated
action plan.
4 Examine and mitigate critical
infrastructure that has been
identified as currently being too
narrow to ensure the safe
transportation of truck loads within
Monterey County.

Deleted This is not in the City’s jurisdiction, but
they would support this effort.

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | E-18 ANNEX E
Table E-16
City of Greenfield Completed Mitigation Actions from 2016 MJHMP 2016
Action # Description Status Narrative Update
7 Develop windstorm building
requirements (e.g., fasteners for
roof sheathing and singles) in high
wind hazard areas.

Completed The City has adopted all California
Standard building codes.

CITY OF GREENFIELD Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | E-19 ANNEX E
E City of Greenfield Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Table E-17
City of Greenfield Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
1 Ongoing/
Continuous All
Identify hazard-prone critical facilities and infrastructure and carry out acquisition, relocation, and structural and
nonstructural retrofitting measures as necessary.

Priority /
High Planning HMGP and PDM
Grants
2 Ongoing All, Severe
Weather
Develop a sustained public outreach program that
encourages consistent hazard mitigation content. Include content on the risks associated with winter storms, extreme heat, and extreme cold events.

Priority /
High Various
General Funds,
HMGP, and PDM
Grants
3 Ongoing Wildfire
Continue to conduct current fuel management programs and investigate and apply new and emerging fuel management
techniques.

Priority /
High
Fire
Department
General Funds
and PDM Grant
4 Ongoing Wildfire
Develop and provide funding and/or incentives for
defensible space measures (e.g., free chipping day, free collection day for tree limbs).

Priority /
High
Fire
Department
General Funds,
HMGP, and PDM
Grants, State Fire
Marshal
5 Ongoing
Windstorm,
Severe
Weather
Include provisions for dust erosion control methods in
building, grading, and land clearing permits.

Priority /
High Planning General Funds
6 Ongoing Earthquake Inform the public about the risks associated with unreinforced masonry and earthquake preparedness.

Priority /
Moderate Various
General Funds,
HMGP, and PDM
Grants
7 Ongoing All Find ways to provide critical infrastructure and emergency facilities with backup generators.

Priority /
High Various General Funds,
Grants

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

F
ANNEX F:

CITY OF KING

2021 Monterey County
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-1 ANNEX F
F. CITY OF KING
F.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Steve Adams
City Manager
212 South Vanderhurst Avenue
King City, CA 93930
(831) 386-5917
[email protected]
Geoff English
Public Works Special Projects Coordinator
212 South Vanderhurst Avenue
King City, CA 93930
805-610-0191
[email protected]
F.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
F.2.1 LOCATION

CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-2 ANNEX F
F.2.2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
King City is the southernmost city in Monterey County, located along the Salinas River and US Highway 101, and just south of Greenfield in the heart of the Salinas Valley. King City is 3.8 square miles and located in the center of one of the most productive agricultural valleys in the world. The City is also the primary access portal to the Pinnacles National Park, located a short drive to the east of the City. The Climate is semi-arid, although bordering on a Mediterranean climate, with very warm, mostly dry summers and cool, wet winters.

F.2.3 HISTORY
The location of King City on the banks of the Salinas River was a part of the vast San Lorenzo Rancho, a huge Spanish land grant that at one time extended from the Salinas River to the San Benito River, from the San Lorenzo on the south to San Juan on the north. Original grantees were Feliciana Soberanes, who received five leagues in 1841, and Francisco Rico, who was granted five leagues in 1842. When Charles King, King City founder, first saw the Salinas Valley it was a dry, windswept expanse of sand.

The Salinas River ran bank to bank in wet years, a raging torrent in the winter. But in the summer the river went underground, leaving only a skeletal course of rock and sand the length of the Valley.

In 1884, King purchased 13,000 acres of the San Lorenzo grant in order to grow wheat. He set up ranch headquarters at what is now the Spreckels ranch north of the city. His first project was to plant 6,000 acres of wheat. King’s neighbors told him that wheat would never grow and the only transportation in was by mule to Monterey to transfer to sailing ships. But King has a plan. His wheat crops were bountiful and there were farmers who wanted to lease land from King to grow wheat. Railroad interests took note. Southern Pacific had extended its line to Soledad and Collis P. Runtington, the renowned railroad magnet, became interested in pushing the tracks further south in quest of King’s wheat. In 1886 the tracks of the Southern Pacific Railroad reached King’s ranch buildings and the Southern Pacific Milling Company put up a warehouse. Shortly after a flour mill was erected adjacent to the warehouse and “King’s Station” began to function as a commercial entity.

In 1887, the first subdivision was built. This laid out a town bounded by San Lorenzo Avenue on the west, by the railroad on the east, by Ellis Street by the north and Pearl Street on the south. In 1895 the area north, west, and south of King’s Station was subdivided and new streets added. In 1897, King sold his large holdings to Spreckels Sugar Co. Irrigation brought life to the Salinas Valley and transformed the area into lush green acres of row crops and King City was incorporated in 1911.

F.2.4 POPULATION
The population of King City is 13,332 people (2020 Census), a 3.6% increase in population since 2010.

The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments projects that the City’s population will grow to 19,295 by 2025 and 24,726 by 2035. If this projection is accurate, the City of King will experience a faster growth rate in coming decades than any other Salinas Valley city except for Gonzales.

F.2.5 GOVERNING BODY FORMAT
K
ing City has a Council-Manager form of government. The City Council is composed of five Council Members who are elected at large for four- y
ear terms. One Council Member is appointed Mayor for a two-y
ear term by the Council.

CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-3 ANNEX F
F.2.6 ECONOMY AND TAX BASE
The City's economic base is largely dependent upon agriculture with food processing and packing the primary sources of employment. Mee Memorial Hospital and Casey Printing typify other sectors of the business community, and nearby Fort Hunter Liggett also plays a role in the local economy (located 26 miles southeast of the city). The City is development friendly, and through an ambitious economic development strategy that includes expedited permit approvals, continues to attract new businesses and residential housing projects that improve the quality of life in the community.

F.3 PLANNING PROCESS
The City of King followed the planning process explained in Volume 1 of the plan. In addition to providing representation on the Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Planning Steering Committee, the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process.

The City of King held a Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder meeting to discuss vulnerabilities, mitigation activities that had occurred since the last plan update, key problem statements, and mitigation strategies on June 22, 2021. Key stakeholders present at the meeting included:
• Steve Adams, City Manager
• Geoff English, Public Works Special Project Coordinator • Mark McClain, Building Official
• Rory Lakind, Acting Police Captain
• Doreen Liberto, Community Development Director
• Maricruz Aguilar, Assistant Planner
• Keith Boyd, Chief of Police
• Octavio Hurtado, City Engineer
• Ed Lenger, Interim Supervisor, Public Works
F.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
The King City General Plan was adopted in 1998. Around 20% of the land is dedicated to residential uses, another 20% is dedicated to agricultural uses, and approximately 25% of the land is dedicated to open space and public-quasi public uses. About 10% of the land is dedicated to industrial use and 6% of the land is dedicated to commercial use.

D
ue to the City’s strategic location along Highway 101, King City has historically served as a retailing and service center for all of Southern Monterey County. Similar to other communities in the Salinas Valley, the City of King is surrounded by some of the best farmland in the nation. In an attempt to protect this land, 6 agricultural conservation easements have been secured to the north and south of the City. It is estimated that over 1,500 acres of farmland that are contiguous to the City limits are restricted by such easements. These easements remove the development potential of these parcels and therefore limit future development to the east and west. The 1998 General Plan generally follows an east- we
st development pattern.

T
he City is currently updating their General Plan and has recently adopted master plans and specific plans for key areas of the City, including the Downtown Addition Specific Plan, the West Broadway CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-4 ANNEX F
Master Plan, the First Street Corridor Master Plan, Historic Corridor Revitalization Plan, Airport Master Plan, San Lorenzo Creek Plan and the East Ranch Business Park Specific Plan. These plans will guide the future of the City and seek to pursue a diverse employment base, expand the tourism industry, and retain the unique identity and historic elements of the City.

Safe Growth
The purpose of the Safe Growth Survey was to evaluate the extent to which each jurisdiction is positioned to grow safely relative to its natural hazards. The survey covered 9 distinct topic areas and was also completed as part of the previous plan update process. This allowed survey results to be compared to help measure progress over time and to continue identifying possible mitigation actions as it relates to future growth and community development practices.

This survey was a subjective exercise used to provide some quantitative measures of how adequately existing planning mechanisms were being used to address the notion of safe growth. Each topic area included a number of statements, which were answered on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the degree to which the respondent agreed or disagreed with the statement as it relates to the City’s current plans, policies, and programs for guiding future community growth and development. Scores for each topic area statement were averaged to provide a topic area result and the topic area totals were averaged to provide an overall survey score. More information on the survey is provided in Capability Assessment in Volume 1.

The King City Safe Growth Survey was completed by Doreen Liberto, Community Development Director for the City of King Community Development Department. The results are summarized in Table F-1.

Table F-1
City of King Safe Growth Survey Results
Topic Area 2021 2016
Land Use 4.75 4.00
Transportation 4.00 3.00
Environmental Management 4.67 3.33
Public Safety 4.67 3.33
Zoning Ordinance 4.25 2.50
Subdivision Regulations 4.33 3.67
Capital Improvement Program & Infrastructure Policies 4.33 3.00 Building Code 5.00 5.00
Economic Development 4.00 3.00
Average Survey Ratings 4.44 3.43
F.5 JURISDICTION SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT
The intent of this section is to profile the City of King’s hazards and assess the City’s vulnerability distinct from that of the countywide planning area, which has already been assessed in Volume 1 of the plan. The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the County and describes the hazards, as well as their extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences, and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard vulnerability specific to the City of King is included in this Annex.

CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-5 ANNEX F
The City of King’s Planning Team used the same risk assessment process as the Monterey County Steering Committee. The City’s Planning Team used the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey to compare the impact of various hazards that could affect the City. Each variable was scored by hazard by the Planning Team on a scale from 1 to 4, or negligible/unlikely to extensive/highly likely/ catastrophic. The score for each variable was calculated using a weighted average of all survey responses. Scores were then added together to determine an overall hazard score between 1 and 16.

Each score was associated with a qualitative degree of risk ranking from Negligible (between 1 and 4) to Very High (between 14.1 and 16). The Survey is described in more detail in Risk Assessment Methods in Volume 1. Table F-2 displays the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise that was performed by the King City Planning Team.

Table F-2
Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA): City of King Hazard Geographic
Extent
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Magnitude/
Severity Impact Total
Out of 16
Degree of
Risk
Agricultural Emergencies 3.1 2.7 3.0 3.1 11.9 Substantial Coastal Erosion - - - - - -
Coastal Flooding - - - - - -
Cyber-Attack 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 10.5 Substantial
Dam Failure 1.9 1.3 2.1 2.1 7.4 Possible
Drought & Water Shortage 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 13.6 High
Earthquake 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12 Substantial
Epidemic 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 10.9 Substantial
Extreme Cold & Freeze 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 9.3 Moderate
Extreme Heat 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.7 11.2 Substantial
Flash Flood 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.7 10.1 Substantial
Hazardous Materials Incident 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.6 9.2 Moderate Invasive Species 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 8.2 Moderate
Levee Failure 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 6.0 Slight
Localized Stormwater Flooding 2.6 2.4 2.9 2.9 10.8 Substantial Mass Migration 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 6.1 Possible
Pandemic 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 12.2 High
Riverine Flooding 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.3 8.8 Moderate
Sea Level Rise - - - - - -
Severe Winter Storms 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 8.4 Moderate
Slope Failure 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.8 7.1 Possible
Targeted Violence 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.3 8.9 Moderate
Terrorism 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.7 5.7 Slight
Tsunami - - - - - -
Utility Interruption/ PSPS 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.7 10.2 Substantial Water Contamination 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.4 8.4 Moderate
Wildfire 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.4 9.3 Moderate
Windstorms 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 8.0 Possible
CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-6 ANNEX F
F.5.1 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
The agricultural industry is a major economic driver in the City. Agricultural disasters pose a serious threat to the local economy and populations directly employed by the agriculture industry.

F.5.2 COASTAL EROSION
The City is not located on the coast, and therefore coastal erosion is not a major threat. Coastal erosion does threaten agricultural land in the Salinas Valley, which if impacted could have indirect economic effects on the local economy. The City could also be impacted by other types of erosion not profiled in this Plan.

F.5.3 DAM AND LEVEE FAILURE
Dam Failure
There is no population or property in the City located in the dam inundation zones of the Los Padres and Forest Lake dams. Table F-3 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to spillway and dam failure of the Nacimiento and San Antonio dams.

Table F-3
Population and Property Exposed to Dam Failure Risk by Dam and Failure Type in King City Dam Failure Scenario Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Nacimiento Spillway Failure 2,846 312 $105,249,593 51 $10,297,446 Nacimiento Dam Failure 4,683 537 $164,841,810 198 $68,499,071 San Antonio Spillway Failure 154 0 $0 6 $255,399
San Antonio Dam Failure 4,683 533 $164,003,073 194 $68,100,945 Levee Failure
Based on Leveed Area from the US Army Corps of Engineers, National Levee Database, there is no population or property in the City exposed to levee failure risk. Many levees in the County protect important agricultural lands and a significant levee failure could have an indirect economic impact.

F.5.4 DROUGHT AND WATER SHORTAGE
The entire population of the City is vulnerable to drought events. Drought can affect people’s health and safety, including health problems related to low water flows, poor water quality, or dust. Drought also is often accompanied by extreme heat, exposing people to the risk of sunstroke, heat cramps and heat exhaustion. Other possible impacts include recreational risks; effects on air quality; diminished living conditions related to energy, air quality, and hygiene; compromised food and nutrition; and increased incidence of illness and disease. Water shortages can affect access to safe, affordable water, with substantial impacts on low-income families and communities burdened with environmental pollution.

A prolonged drought could also cause economic impacts. Increased demand for water and electricity may result in shortages and higher costs of these resources. While economic impacts will be most significant on industries that use water or depend on water for their business, cascading economic CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-7 ANNEX F
effects can hurt many sectors of the economy. Agriculture, which will likely be impacted by drought conditions, is a major economic driver in the County, and the City could be impacted economically.

F.5.5 EARTHQUAKE
The entire population of the City is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impacted, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. Similarly, all property and critical infrastructure in the City is potentially exposed to earthquake risk.

According to Monterey County Assessor records, there are 2,772 residential and non-residential buildings in the City, with a total value of $836,661,694. Since all structures in the City are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this represents the property exposure to seismic events.

Additionally, liquefaction risk was assessed. Table F-4 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to liquefaction risk.

Table F-4
Population and Property Exposed Liquefaction Risk in King City Liquefaction Risk Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High Liquefaction Susceptibility 2,609 219 $70,240,535 81 $7,626,927 Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility 10,970 1754 $517,181,864 846 $268,108,291 F.5.6 FLOODING
FEMA flood zones were used to assess flooding risk. The floodplain of the San Lorenzo Creek and the Salinas River are the areas subject to the most significant hazard. Table F-5 summarizes population and property in the City in the 100-year and 500-year floodplain.

Table F-5
Population and Property Exposed to Flooding Risk in King City FEMA Flood Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
100-Year Flood Zone 2,124 53 $21,558,264 55 $8,515,990
500-Year Flood Zone 9,168 1206 $344,066,446 743 $167,246,111 F.5.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT
To assess hazardous materials incident risk, buffer distances were used. The chosen buffer distance was based on guidelines in the US Department of Transportation’s Emergency Response Guidebook that suggest distances useful to protect people from vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic if inhaled. The recommended buffer distance referred to in the guide as the “protective action distance” is the area surrounding the incident in which people are at risk of harmful exposure. For purposes of this plan, a buffer distance of one mile was used, but actual buffer distances CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-8 ANNEX F
will vary depending on the nature and quantity of the release, whether the release occurred during the night or daytime, and prevailing weather conditions.

To analyze the risk to a transportation-related hazardous materials release, a one-mile buffer was applied to highways in the US Dept of Transportation, National Transportation Atlas Database. The result is a two-mile buffer zone around each transportation corridor that is used for this analysis. Risk from a fixed facility hazardous materials release, was analyzed using a one-mile buffer was applied facilities identified in the Monterey County 2019 Hazardous Materials Plan. The result was a one-mile buffer zone around each facility.

Table F-6 summarizes population and property that could be exposed to both mobile and fixed hazardous materials incidents.

Table F-6
Population and Property Exposed to Hazardous Materials Incident Risk in King City Hazardous Materials
Incident Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Mobile Source 10,439 1,545 $458,379,586 726 $157,007,523 Fixed Source 8,245 1,356 $395,797,337 806 $261,571,752
F.5.8 HUMAN- CAUSED HAZARDS
It is often quite difficult to quantify the potential losses from human-caused hazards. While facilities themselves have a tangible dollar value, loss from a human-caused hazard often inflicts an even greater toll on a community, both economically and emotionally. The impact to identified values will vary from event to event and depend on the type, location, and nature of a specific incident.

F.5.9 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
All citizens in the City could be susceptible to the human health hazards. A large outbreak or epidemic, a pandemic or a use of biological agents as a weapon of mass destruction could have devastating effects on the population. While all of the population is at risk to the human health hazards, the young and the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and those with special needs are most vulnerable. The introduction of a disease such as influenza or the COVID-19 virus have impacted the whole population of the City, specifically vulnerable populations.

F.5.10 SEVERE WEATHER
All severe weather events profiled in this Plan have the potential to happen anywhere in the City.

Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Properties in poor condition or in high-risk locations may be susceptible to the most damage. All critical facilities in the City likely exposed to severe weather hazards. The most common problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities and compromised access to roadways. Prolonged periods of extreme heat could result in power outages caused by increased demand for power for cooling.

The FEMA National Risk Index calculates annualized frequency, exposure and annual expected loss of building value and population to some severe weather hazards identified in this Plan. Based on zip CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-9 ANNEX F
code and census tract Countywide data was used to identify annualized frequency, exposure, and annual expected loss in the City from severe weather hazards. Though the entire City is considered vulnerable to these hazards, the FEMA data was used in this risk assessment to provide scale for the potential risk and impacts. FEMA National Risk Index data from frequency and exposure to severe weather hazards is summarized in Table F-7.

Table F-7
Annualized Frequency and Exposure to Severe Weather Events in King City Hail Strong Wind
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.38 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.13 Exposed Population 5,813 Exposed Population 5,813
Exposed Building Values $350,459,000 Exposed Building Values $350,459,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $513
Heat Wave Tornado
Frequency (Event-Days) 1.24 Frequency (Distinct Events) 1.28 Exposed Population 5,813 Exposed Population 5,813
Exposed Building Values $350,459,000 Exposed Building Values $350,459,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $2 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $8,959,910
Lightning Winter Weather
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.06 Frequency (Event-Days) 0.00 Exposed Population 5,813 Exposed Population 0
Exposed Building Values $350,459,000 Exposed Building Values $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $8 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0
Source: FEMA National Risk Index
Though the data above indicates that there is no population in the City that is exposed to winter weather, the City’s homeless population is exposed and at risk to winter weather hazards. This population is more vulnerable to the impacts of winter weather.

F.5.11 SLOPE FAILURE
Based on the FEMA National Risk Index, 0 people and $0 in building value in the City is exposed to landslide risk. Additionally, the City is not susceptible to earthquake induced to landslides.

F.5.12 TSUNAMI
The City is not located in a mapped tsunami inundation zone.

F.5.13 UTILITY INTERRUPTION
All residents, visitors, and property in the City are exposed and vulnerable to utility interruptions. All critical facilities and infrastructure in the City that are operated by electricity are exposed and vulnerable to utility interruption.

CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-10 ANNEX F
F.5.14 WILDFIRE
For purposes of this analysis CAL FIRE Fire Threat data was used. Fire Threat combines expected fire frequency with potential fire behavior to create 4 threat classes, extreme, very high, high, and moderate.

Table F-8 summarizes population and property in the City in very high, high, and moderate fire threat areas.

Table F-8
Population and Property Exposed to Wildfire Risk in King City CAL FIRE Wildfire Threat Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Very High Fire Threat 0 0 $0 0 $0
High Fire Threat 1,421 4 $3,352,658 11 $7,807,507
Moderate Fire Threat 4,030 83 $47,454,042 105 $30,672,215 The most significant fire risk to the City involves dry vegetation that exists in the riverbed along the Salinas River and San Lorenzo Creek areas, which are adjacent to residential neighborhoods. A number of fires have occurred in that area due to increased heat conditions and human activity in the vegetated areas, which have threatened nearby structures.

F.5.15 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The effects of climate change are varied and include warmer and more varied weather patterns and temperature changes. Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems in the City and will exacerbate the risk posed by many of the hazards previously profiled in this Plan.

Climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards.

Increasing temperatures will have direct impacts on public health and infrastructure. Drought, flooding, and wildfire will likely affect people’s livelihoods and the local economy. Changing weather patterns and more extreme conditions are likely to impact tourism and the local economy, along with changes to agriculture and crops, which are a critical backbone of the City’s economy.

F.6 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The City of King performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs, and policies that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table F-9 • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table F-10 • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table F-11 • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table F-12 • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table F-13 • A summary of participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is provided in Section F.6.1 in Table F-14
• An overall self-assessment of capability is presented in Section F.6.2 in Table F-15 CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-11 ANNEX F
Table F-9
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Planning Documents
General Plan ☒ • Community Development
Conservation, Open Space and Safety
Elements, 3.2 – COS-12 addresses
hazard prevention
Capital Improvement Plan ☒ • Public Works Annual CIP Adopted by City Council Floodplain Management Plan ☒ • Public Works General Plan 3.1 - COS- 11 addresses floodplain management
Open Space Management Plan ☒ • Community Development
• Recreation Department
Conservation, Open Space and Safety
Elements address Open Space Goals
and Policies
Stormwater Management Plan ☒ • Public Works Adopted January 2010, with periodic revisions and annual State reporting
Coastal Management Plan ☐ Not Applicable
Local Coastal Program ☐ Not Applicable
Climate Action/ Adaptation
Plan ☐ • Community Development Climate Change policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan
Emergency Operations Plan ☒ • City Manager’s Office Adopted 2016 Continuity of Operations Plan ☒ • City Manager’s Office Section #1- Page #47 of Emergency Operations Plan
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan ☐ • City Manager’s Office
Fire Hazard risk assessment is very
limited. Assessment described on
page #44 of the Emergency
Operations Plan
Evacuation Plan ☐ • City Manager’s Office
Disaster Recovery Plan ☐ • City Manager’s Office
Economic Development Plan ☒ • City Manager’s Office
• Community Development
The Economic Development Element
of the General Plan provides goals
and policies. The City also has an
Economic Development Strategy
which is being updated.

Historic Preservation Plan ☐
Transportation Plan ☒ • Community Development Circulation Element of General Plan Code, Ordinance, & Requirements
Floodplain Ordinance ☒ • Public Works MC Chapter 12.16 – Flood Damage Prevention
Zoning Ordinance ☒ • Community Development
MC Chapter 17.36 – Primary Flood
Plain District
MC Chapter 17.38 – Secondary Flood
Plain District
CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-12 ANNEX F
Table F-9
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Subdivision Ordinance ☒ • Community Development
MC Section 16.12.340 – Findings for
approval of subdivision maps located
in fire hazard areas
Site Plan Review Requirements ☒ • Community Development Unified Development
Ordinance ☐
Post-Disaster Redevelopment/
Reconstruction Ordinance ☐ • City Manager’s Office MC Chapter 2.28 – Emergency Services
Building Code ☒ • Building and Safety Adopted 2019 California State Uniform Building Code
Fire Prevention Code ☒ • Building and Safety Adopted 2019 California State Fire Code
Other Hazard-Specific
Ordinances
• MC Chapter 17.56 – Env. Protection – Pollution Standards • MC Chapter 8.34 – Hazardous Materials Storage & Registration • MC Chapter 7.51 – Nuisances

Table F-10
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land
development and land
management practices
☒ • Community Development
• Public Works
Doreen Liberto, Com. Dev. Dir.

Octavio Hurtado, City Engineer
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction
practices related to buildings
and/or infrastructure
☒ • Public Works
• Building and Safety
Octavio Hurtado, City Engineer Mark
McClain, Building Official
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
an understanding of manmade
or natural hazards
☒ • Community Development
• Public Works
Doreen Liberto, Com. Dev. Dir.

Octavio Hurtado, City Engineer
Building Inspector ☒ • Building and Safety
Mark McClain, Building Official (S.A.P.

Post-Earthquake Assessment
Certification)
Emergency Manager ☒ • City Manager’s Office Steve Adams, City Manager Floodplain Manager ☒ • Public Works Octavio Hurtado, City Engineer Land Surveyors ☐ • Public Works The City utilizes outside Land Surveyors for all survey work.

Resource development staff or
grant writers ☒ • Community Development Maricruz Aguilar, Assistant Planner CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-13 ANNEX F
Table F-10
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Public Information Officer ☒ • Recreation Department Andrea Wasson, Recreation Coordinator
Scientist(s) familiar with the
hazards of the community ☐
The City utilizes outside Consultants
and Firms when scientific expertise is
required.

Staff with education or
expertise to assess the
community’s vulnerability to
hazards
☒
• Community Development
• Public Works
• Building and Safety
Doreen Liberto, Com. Dev. Dir.

Octavio Hurtado, City Engineer
Mark McClain, Building Official
Personnel skilled in Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) ☐
The City of King has budgeted funds in
Fiscal Year 2021/22 for the purchase
of GIS Software
Maintenance programs to
reduce risk
☒ • Public Works
Annual Street Tree Trimming awarded
to local tree trimming services. ¼ of
City street trees trimmed annually. All
storm drain catch basins cleaned
annually in advance of winter storms.

Warning systems/services ☒ • Monterey County
• Police Department
The City utilizes NIXLE, the Monterey
County Sheriff Dispatch Reverse 911
services. Residents can also receive
alerts for severe weather, traffic, and
criminal activity
Mutual Aid Agreements ☒
• Police Department
• Fire Department
• Public Works
Cal WARN. Monterey County Public
Safety Allied Agencies Mutual Aid
Agreement.

Table F-11
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
General Funds ☒ • Finance Department Mike Howard, Finance Director Capital Improvements Project
Funding ☒ • Public Works
• Finance Department
Mike Howard, Finance Director
Octavio Hurtado, City Engineer
Special Purpose Taxes ☒ • Finance Department Mike Howard, Finance Director Stormwater Utility Fees ☐
Gas / Electric Utility Fees ☒ • City Manager’s Office
• Finance Department
Steve Adams, City Manager Mike
Howard, Finance Director
Water / Sewer Fees ☒ • City Manager’s Office
• Finance Department
Steve Adams, City Manager Mike
Howard, Finance Director
Development Impact Fees ☒ • City Manager’s Office
• Finance Department
Steve Adams, City Manager Mike
Howard, Finance Director
CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-14 ANNEX F
Table F-11
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
General Obligation Bonds ☐ •
Special Tax and Revenue Bonds ☐ •
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) ☒ • City Manager’s Office
• Finance Department
Steve Adams, City Manager Mike
Howard, Finance Director

Table F-12
Education and Outreach Capability
Educational and Outreach Resources Department Comments Local citizen or non-profit
groups focused on
environmental protection,
emergency preparedness,
access and functional needs
populations, etc.
☐ Coordinate and utilize the services of
the American Red Cross.

Ongoing public education or
information program (e.g.,
responsible water use, fire
safety, household
preparedness, environmental
education)
☒ • City Manager’s Office
Periodic Flyers to residents regarding
potential hazards, primarily flood
related. The City inserts public
education articles into the quarterly
City newsletter. Additionally, the City
uses social media to inform and
educate the public.

Natural disaster or safety
related school programs ☐
Public-private partnership
initiatives addressing disaster-
related issues
☐

Table F-13
Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Effective Date
Community Rating System (CRS) No - -
ISO Public Protection Classification 4 - -
StormReady Certification No - -
TsunamiReady Certification N/A - -
Firewise Communities Certification No - -
Political Capability
The City Council for the City of King has a high degree of general willingness to provide political leadership by enacting programs and policies to reduce hazards in the community. As a Council, they have all participated in a training session in their role in the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. They CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-15 ANNEX F
have supported all staff’s recommendations involving investment in infrastructure designed to address hazards. They have supported annual funding for the development of an annual long-term sediment removal program in the San Lorenzo Creek, which has been instrumental in reducing flooding hazards.

Probably the most significant commitment is approval of the master plan and wastewater rate increases to fund a new $45 million wastewater treatment plant project. This will be the largest capital project in the City’s history and will substantially improve safety of the plant.

A few other related examples include the adoption and funding of the Comprehensive Plan to End
Youth Violence. A second example is the purchase and installation of a citywide camera system to assist with crime prevention. Although not necessarily focused on Hazard Mitigation planning, the above examples provide evidence of the City Council’s willingness to enact programs and policies to reduce risks in the community.

F.6.1 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) COMPLIANCE Table F-14
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Designated Floodplain Administrator: Octavio Hurtado, City Engineer, Public Works Department NFIP Community Number: 060199
Flood Insurance Policies in Force: 17
Insurance Coverage in Force: $4,318,600
Written Premium in Force: $28,721
Total Loss Claims: 12
Total Payments for Losses: $715,517
Adopted Regulations that meet NFIP Requirements:
• Ordinance No. 2010-688- Municipal Code Chapter 12.16 Flood Damage Prevention • Ordinance No. 1973- 354 § 4.34.- Municipal Code Chapter 17.36 P-F-Primary Flood Plain District • Ordinance No. 1973- 354 § 4.35.- Municipal Code Chapter 17.36 P-F-Secondary Flood Plain District • Ordinance No. 1973-780 § 1.- Municipal Code Chapter 12.04 Construction Codes Adopted- California Building Standards Title 24
• Ordinance No. 1973-355 § 14.00.- Municipal Code Chapter Title 16 Subdivisions Date of last NFIP Community Assistance Visit (CAV):

Prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 2010-688 on August 10, 2010.

Higher standards that exceed minimum NFIP requirement:

No higher standards have been adopted.

Additional floodplain management provisions:

No additional floodplain management provisions have been adopted by the City of King.

Floodplain management activities performed that go beyond FEMA minimum requirements:

The City of King annually conducts a comprehensive cleaning of the City’s storm drain system prior to storm season.

Existing impediments to running an effective NFIP program:

None identified.

CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-16 ANNEX F
Table F-14
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Specific actions that are ongoing or considered related to continued compliance with the NFIP:
• The City of King requires Storm Drainage calculations on all new development with the requirement to keep the 100-year storm event within the designed storm drain system. • All building pad elevations are required to be installed a minimum of 1 ft. above the elevation of the top of curb. Top of curb elevations are designed to retain the 100-year storm event. • The City of King requires "pad certifications” for all new construction. • Large development projects adjacent to rivers/ creeks require a Hydrological and Environmental review process component.

F.6.2 SELF- ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY
Table F-15
Self-Assessment of Capability
Capability Degree of Capability
Planning and Regulatory Capability Moderate
Administrative and Technical Capability Moderate
Fiscal Capability Limited
Education and Outreach Capability Limited
Political Capability Moderate
Overall Capability Moderate
F.6.3 OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND/ IMPROVE MITIGATION CAPABILITIES The major hurdles for the City of King in the hazard mitigation planning are severely limited staff and financial resources. Efforts beyond the confines of current staffing and financial resources would require grant funding and/or external agency cooperation. Planning, regulatory, fiscal, administrative, technical, education, and outreach capabilities can all be expanded or improved using a combination of the following strategies:
• Increase capacity through staffing
• Training, and enhanced coordination among all department and jurisdictions • Emergency management/hazard specific program enhancements, training, and exercising • Increased funding opportunities and capacity
• Implementation of mitigation actions and projects
• Continuous research on grant opportunities for emergency management, hazard mitigation, and infrastructure and community development.

Capabilities and abilities to expand or improve existing policies and programs will be re-evaluated during the next Hazard Mitigation Plan update and annual plan review meetings.

F.6.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-17 ANNEX F
relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital improvement planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa. Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.

Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, the City made progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and actions into other planning initiatives.

The following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Capital Improvement Plan: The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate potential hazards. The City will strive to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future capital improvement plan. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk assessment. • Building Code: The City’s adoption of the 2016 California Building Code incorporated local modifications addressing seismic and fire hazards.
• Regulatory Codes: A number of the City’s existing codes and ordinances include provisions to reduce hazard risk including the zoning code, storm water management code and flood damage prevention ordinance.

Opportunities for Future Integration
The General Plan and the hazard mitigation plan are complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure. The General Plan is considered to be an integral part of this plan. An update to the General Plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. The City, through adoption of a General Plan and zoning ordinance, has planned for the impact of natural hazards. The process of updating this hazard mitigation plan provided the opportunity to review and expand on policies in these planning mechanisms. The City will create a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and the General Plan by identifying a mitigation action as such and giving that action a high priority. Other planning processes and programs that may be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
• General Plan, including the Safety Element
• Emergency Operations Plans
• Climate Action and Adaptation Plans
• Debris management plans
• Recovery plans
• Capital improvement programs
• Municipal codes
• Community design guidelines
• Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
• Stormwater management programs
• Water system vulnerability assessments
CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-18 ANNEX F
• Community wildfire protection plans
• Comprehensive flood hazard management plans
• Resiliency plans
• Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery action plans • Public information/education plans
Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be integrated via the update process.

F.7 PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Problem Statements are statements of particular interest regarding primary hazards of concern, geographic areas of concern, or vulnerable community assets. As part of the planning process, the King City Planning Committee identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concern applicable to their jurisdiction. The Hazard Problem Statements were based on the risk assessment, the vulnerability analysis, and local knowledge.

Hazard Problem Statements helped the Planning Committee identify common issues and weaknesses, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation. Hazard Problem Statements for the City of King are identified below:
• The City’s biggest concern is major flooding, based on past experience, and this includes not only the Salinas River but also San Lorenzo Creek (large watershed that rapidly changes conditions during the winter months). Overall flood risk has only increased due to all the debris and vegetation in the Salinas River.
• Past flood damages have occurred to the mobile home park on Division Street and the neighborhood on Villa Drive, despite protective dikes being in place. Recovery and clean-up costs to the city’s nearby golf course adjacent to San Lorenzo Creek have also been very high. • The Highway 101 bridge connection traversing the Salinas River is a critical ingress/egress to the city and is considered the most vulnerable critical infrastructure element. • The City’s wastewater treatment plant is considered at risk to major flood events along the Salinas River. Floodwaters during past events have reached to the top of protective berm which should be raised and strengthened to increase protection against future flood damages and service disruptions. Access to the wastewater treatment plant is also at risk during a storm, which could prevent staff from reaching the plant to implement necessary mitigation measures. An alternative access route is needed.
• San Lorenzo Park is located within the known special flood hazard area, and although maintained mostly as open space there are a number of cultural/museum structures that could be damaged during a major flood event.
• There is potential for serious wildland fire problems along the Salinas River bottom, East of the City near the airport, and west of the City near Pine Canyon. Wildfire is of particular concern if combined with high winds as often experienced through the valley, which could send embers flying into the city and cause major fire hazards, particularly for those structures with shake roofs.

CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-19 ANNEX F
• Five Unreinforced Masonry structures remain in the city along Broadway Street, all of which are privately-owned and have been posted with warning placards. • A mass casualty event on Highway 101, and the subsequent impact on the flow of traffic on surface streets across the city, is a major concern. Additionally, an incident on an at-grade railroad crossing in the city could sever access between both sides of the city and could cause a major disruption.

F.8 MITIGATION GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS
The mitigation strategy is the guidebook to future hazard mitigation administration, capturing the key outcomes of the MJHMP planning process. The mitigation strategy is intended to reduce vulnerabilities outlined in the previous section with a prescription of policies and physical projects. These mitigation actions should be compatible with existing planning mechanisms and should outline specific roles and resources for implementation success.

The King City Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Mitigation Strategy in Volume 1, which included a benefit-cost analysis and consideration of mitigation alternatives. Based upon the risk assessment results and the City’s planning committee priorities, a list of mitigation actions was developed. The Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix, in Table F-17 lists each priority mitigation action, identifies time frame, the responsible party, potential funding sources, and prioritization, which meet the requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

Status of Previous Plan Actions
All actions from the 2016 Plan were reviewed and updated by the City during the planning process.

Table F-16 includes the status of actions completed or removed from the previous plan.

In order to improve the mitigation action plan for this Plan update and align with the countywide Mitigation Action Plan, the City added more specificity and detail to previous plan actions in addition to the new actions added to the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.

Table F-16
City of King Completed Mitigation Actions from 2016 MJHMP 2016
Action # Description Status Narrative Update
1 Identify hazard-prone critical facilities and
infrastructure and carry out acquisition,
relocation, and structural and nonstructural
retrofitting measures as necessary.

Completed/
Ongoing

Completed and ongoing
on an as needed basis as
part of Environmental
Review of discretionary
permits
5 Examine and mitigate critical infrastructure that
has been identified as currently being too thin
to ensure the safe transportation of truck loads
within Monterey County.

Completed
The City successfully
removed the last
remaining thin bridge
CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-20 ANNEX F
7 Develop windstorm building requirements (e.g.,
fasteners for roof sheathing and singles) in high
wind hazard areas.

Completed
The City complies with
building code standards
to meet wind hazard
structural requirements
8 Include provisions for dust erosion control
methods in building, grading, and land clearing
permits.

Completed
Completed and ongoing
as part of Environmental
Review process

CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | F-21 ANNEX F
F City of King Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Table F-17
City of King Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
1 In
Progress/
Short-term
All
As part of the General Plan Update, develop a public
outreach program to inform the public about hazard risks in the City. This will include sharing hazard maps included in the Land Use Element with the public.

Priority /
High
Community
Development
General Funds,
Grants
2 Ongoing/
Continuous Wildfire
Continue to conduct current fuel management programs
and investigate and apply new and emerging fuel
management techniques.

Priority /
High Fire
General Funds
and PDM
Grant
3 Ongoing/
Continuous Flooding
Continue ongoing sediment management and invasive
removal in the Salinas River and San Lorenzo Creek to
reduce flood risk.

Priority/ High Public Works
Wastewater/
Stormwater
Funds
4 In
Progress/
2-Years
Flooding
Develop an alternative access point to the City's
wastewater treatment plant in order to ensure access
during large flood events.

Priority/ High Public Works Wastewater
Funds
5 In
Progress/
3-5 Years
Flooding, Dam
Failure
Consider flood and dam inundation hazards when
designing and constructing the new wastewater
treatment plant.

Priority/ High Public Works Wastewater
Funds
6 New/ Mid-
term Wildfire Coordinate with Monterey County in order to reduce fire fuels along the Salinas River bottom.

Priority/
Medium
Public Works,
Monterey
County
Hazard
Mitigation
Grants
7 Ongoing/
Continuous
Severe
Weather,
Windstorms
Continue and expand the City's Tree Trimming program
in order to reduce wind hazard risks. Priority/ High Public Works General Funds 8 New/ Long-
term
Hazardous
Materials
Incident,
Human-Caused
Upgrade at-grade railroad crossings. Priority/
Medium Public Works Transportation
Grants
CITY OF KING Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | F-22 ANNEX F
Table F-17
City of King Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
9 New/ Mid-
term All Install emergency generators and/or emergency battery power systems. Priority/ High Public Works
King City
Community
Power
10 Ongoing/
Continuous
All, Utility
Interruptions
When building or renovating facilities, consider
identifying opportunities for installing solar panels in order to provide a backup energy source to critical
facilities during power outages.

Priority/ Low
Community
Development,
Public Works
King City
Community
Power
11 New/ Long-
term Flooding
Develop recommendations for a permanently installed
drainage lift station on Villa Drive in order to reduce flood risk in the area.

Priority/
Medium Public Works
Hazard
Mitigation
Grants
12 New/ Mid-
term All
Purchase supplies and equipment, such as electronic
traffic signage and airport closure signage in order to inform the public of closures due to various hazards.

Priority /
Medium Public Works General Funds
13 New/ 2-
Years All Acquire a Fire Engine with a ladder. Priority/ High Fire CDBG Grant 14 New/ Mid-
term All
Upgrade the EOC video board in order to provide
increased capacity for real time monitoring and greater interface with the citywide camera system.

Priority/
Medium Police General Funds
15 Ongoing/
Continuous All
Train staff on the use of Nixle and Everbridge for
emergency alerts. Continue to provide ICS training and
disaster exercises for staff.

Priority/
Medium Police General Funds
16 Ongoing/
Continuous All
Expand disaster preparedness and emergency response
training for residents. In the long-term, look into the possibility of creating a CERT Program.

Priority/
Medium
Fire, Police,
American Red
Cross
General Funds,
Grants
17 Ongoing Drought,
Extreme Heat
Provide public information on water conservation and
extreme heat.

Priority /
Low
Community
Development
General Funds,
Grants

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

G
ANNEX G:

CITY OF MARINA

2021 Monterey County
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-1 ANNEX G
G. CITY OF MARINA
G.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact
Chief Doug McCoun
Fire Chief, Marina Fire
211 Hilcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
(831) 275-1700
[email protected]

G.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
G.2.1 LOCATION

CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-2 ANNEX G
G.2.2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
The City of Marina is a small coastal city located along the Monterey Bay. Marina occupies nearly 10 square miles in total area just north of Seaside and west of Salinas. Marina is on California State Route 1 between Monterey and Santa Cruz.

G.2.3 HISTORY
Dating back to (circa) 1868, about 9,000 acres of land stretching north along the Pacific Ocean, and east along the Salinas River, was owned by the late David Jacks and James Bardin. The land block breakup began in 1885, when the Bardin heirs sold 1,372 ½ acres to John Armstrong for farmland and grazing. About a year later, 1,450 acres was sold, then named the Sand Hill Ranch, and then 400 hundred acres near the ocean was sold to the San Francisco Sand Company, which subsequently constructed a sand plant in 1906.

In 1915, real estate salesman William Locke-Paddon from San Francisco was looking for land to sub- divide and found the breakup of the large Bardin and Jacks estate as an opportunity. On May 29, 1915, Locke-Paddon purchased 1500 acres south of Sand Hill Ranch designated as the “Pueblo Tract No. 1, City Lands of Monterey.” The Marina Post Office was established in 1919 and by 1926 the town had grown to their first 70 families. The City's history is intertwined with that of Fort Ord Military Base.

Major growth during the 1940s, made some impact on the community of Marina, as it became a “rest and relaxation” area for troops stationed at Fort Ord. Throughout the 50s,60s, and 70s, the City continued to grow with new residential, commercial, industrial, and visitor-serving development being built. Marina voters approved incorporation on November 5, 1975, making Marina the newest City along the Monterey Coast. Since incorporation, the City has continued to grow and flourish.

G.2.4 POPULATION
The City of Marina has a population of 22,359 people (2020 Census), an increase of 13.4% since 2010.

The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) estimates Marina’s current population to increase to approximately 30,130 in 2025 (a 54.9% increase), and approximately 32,940 in 2035 (a

59.4% increases). These dramatic increases are primarily associated with the planned development of housing on the former Fort Ord.

G.2.5 GOVERNING BODY FORMAT
T
he City of Marina’s form of government is a council-manager form of government with a Home-Rule City Charter. The five Council members are elected at large with one being Mayor. The Mayor is elected every two years in a general election held in November of even-n umbered years. Serving with
the Mayor are four members of the City Council who have overlapping terms; every two years, two members of the City Council are also selected by the voters through a general election. The City Manager is appointed by the City Council to manage the daily operations and is responsible for making policy recommendations to the City Council and implementing City Council policy directives.

G.2.6 ECONOMY

AND TAX BASE
The economy of this community is based on tourism and local services. The city includes several miles of shoreline along Monterey Bay, though most of the beach is preserved as public park space and CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-3 ANNEX G
nearly all development is landward of the coastal dunes and US Highway 1. The city is contiguous with the former Fort Ord military installation, an area experiencing and targeted for future infill growth and redevelopment including more than 1,000 new homes, a number of large mixed-use projects, and a new business center at the former military airport which the City now owns. Through these and other recent commercial and industrial developments, Marina is undergoing transition from a small, primarily bedroom community to a more diversified, vibrant, and self-sufficient community.

G.3 PLANNING PROCESS
The City of Marina followed the planning process explained in Volume 1 of the plan. In addition to providing representation on the Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Planning Steering Committee, the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. The City of Marina held a Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder meeting to discuss vulnerabilities, mitigation activities that had occurred since the last plan update, key problem statements, and mitigation strategies on August 31, 2021. Key stakeholders present at the meeting included:
• Layne Long, City Manager
• Doug McCoun, Fire Chief
• Brian McMinn, Public Works Director
• Fred Aegerter, Community Development Director
• Matt Mogensen, Assistant City Manager
• Marisol Gomez, Acting Finance Director
• Tino Nieto, Police Chief
G.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
The City of Marina General Plan was adopted in 2000. The City has about three miles of shoreline fronted by restored coastal dune habitat. The coastal zone inland of Highway 1 is limited to roughly 60 acres that includes commercial development, visitor-serving overnight accommodations, coastal dunes, and three significant coastal wetlands. The City received a grant from the Coastal Commission in 2017 and is currently in the process of a comprehensive update to their Local Coastal Program to address sustainable development, increased opportunities for coastal access and recreation, and vulnerability to climate change and sea level rise. The City is also including provisions that embrace the concept of managed retreat.

The City gained land as part of the Fort Ord reuse, which includes several miles of shoreline along Monterey Bay, though most of the beach is preserved as public park space and nearly all development is landward of the coastal dunes and US Highway 1. The former Fort Ord land is an area experiencing and targeted for future infill growth and redevelopment including more than 1,000 new homes, a number of large mixed-use projects, and a new business center at the former military airport which the City now owns. Through these and other recent commercial and industrial developments, Marina is undergoing transition from a small, primarily bedroom community to a more diversified, vibrant, and self-sufficient community.

Marina’s Urban Growth Boundary protects the City of Marina from development in current open space areas north of the City limits and along its coast, and to encourage efficient development in central CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-4 ANNEX G
Marina and within Marina's portion of former Fort Ord, On June 16, 2020, the City Council of the City of Marina adopted Resolution 2020-75, submitting to the voters at the November 3, 2020 General Municipal Election a Measure approving a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment extending the expiration date of the operative provisions of the 2000 Marina Urban Growth Boundary Initiative to December 31, 2040.

Safe Growth
The purpose of the Safe Growth Survey was to evaluate the extent to which each jurisdiction is positioned to grow safely relative to its natural hazards. The survey covered 9 distinct topic areas and was also completed as part of the previous plan update process. This allowed survey results to be compared to help measure progress over time and to continue identifying possible mitigation actions as it relates to future growth and community development practices.

This survey was a subjective exercise used to provide some quantitative measures of how adequately existing planning mechanisms were being used to address the notion of safe growth. Each topic area included a number of statements, which were answered on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the degree to which the respondent agreed or disagreed with the statement as it relates to the City’s current plans, policies, and programs for guiding future community growth and development. Scores for each topic area statement were averaged to provide a topic area result and the topic area totals were averaged to provide an overall survey score. More information on the survey is provided in Capability Assessment in Volume 1. The City of Marina Safe Growth Survey was completed by Christy Hopper, Planning Services Manager for the City of Marina Community Development Department. The results are summarized in Table G-1.

Table G-1
City of Marina Safe Growth Survey Results
Topic Area 2021 2016
Land Use 3.50 3.50
Transportation 4.33 3.00
Environmental Management 4.67 3.33
Public Safety 4.00 4.00
Zoning Ordinance 4.75 2.50
Subdivision Regulations 2.33 2.67
Capital Improvement Program & Infrastructure Policies 3.33 3.00 Building Code 5.00 4.00
Economic Development 5.00 3.00
Average Survey Ratings 4.10 3.22
G.5 JURISDICTION SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT
The intent of this section is to profile the City of Marina’s hazards and assess the City’s vulnerability distinct from that of the countywide planning area, which has already been assessed in Volume 1 of the plan. The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the County and describes the hazards, as well as their extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences, and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard vulnerability specific to the City of Marina is included in this Annex.

CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-5 ANNEX G
The City of Marina’s Planning Team used the same risk assessment process as the Monterey County Steering Committee. The City’s Planning Team used the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey to compare the impact of various hazards that could affect the City. Each variable was scored by hazard by the Planning Team on a scale from 1 to 4, or negligible/unlikely to extensive/highly likely/ catastrophic. The score for each variable was calculated using a weighted average of all survey responses. Scores were then added together to determine an overall hazard score between 1 and 16.

Each score was associated with a qualitative degree of risk ranking from Negligible (between 1 and 4) to Very High (between 14.1 and 16). The Survey is described in more detail in Risk Assessment Methods in Volume 1. Table G-2 displays the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise that was performed by the City of Marina’s Planning Team.

Table G-2
Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA): City of Marina Hazard Geographic
Extent
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Magnitude/
Severity Impact Total
Out of 16
Degree of
Risk
Agricultural Emergencies 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 5.8 Slight
Coastal Erosion 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.5 10.5 Substantial
Coastal Flooding 2.0 1.8 1.8 2.2 7.8 Possible
Cyber-Attack 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.4 9.2 Moderate
Dam Failure - - - - - -
Drought & Water Shortage 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.7 10.5 Substantial Earthquake 3.0 2.8 2.8 3.0 11.7 Substantial
Epidemic 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 9.3 Moderate
Extreme Cold & Freeze 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 5.0 Slight
Extreme Heat 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.5 6.8 Possible
Flash Flood 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.3 5.3 Slight
Hazardous Materials Incident 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.2 Moderate Invasive Species 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 7.7 Possible
Levee Failure - - - - - -
Localized Stormwater Flooding 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7 7.5 Possible Mass Migration 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 7.7 Possible
Pandemic 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 10.3 Substantial
Riverine Flooding 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 6.0 Slight
Sea Level Rise 2.7 3.2 2.5 2.7 11.0 Substantial
Severe Winter Storms 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.2 7.8 Slight
Slope Failure 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 6.3 Possible
Targeted Violence 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 Possible
Terrorism 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 6.0 Possible
Tsunami 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.3 8.8 Moderate
Utility Interruption/ PSPS 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.2 9.5 Moderate Water Contamination 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.0 8.7 Moderate
Wildfire 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.7 10.5 Substantial
Windstorms 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.5 9.0 Moderate
CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-6 ANNEX G
G.5.1 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
There is no agricultural land located within the City, so therefore an agricultural emergency does not pose a direct threat. Since agriculture is a major economic driver in the County, an agricultural emergency could have indirect economic impacts on the City.

G.5.2 COASTAL EROSION
Natural dune erosion from large storm waves is the primary hazard challenging the Marina shoreline.

To determine coastal erosion risk, USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMos) shoreline change, and cliff retreat projection data was used. For cliff retreat modeling an end of century (2100) forced sea level rise amount of 200 cm was used based on Ocean Protection Council (OPC) High Risk Aversion Guidance. For shoreline change, winter erosion uncertainty modeling was used to capture the degree of uncertainty associated with future shoreline erosion. Hold the Line scenario modeling was chosen for both types of erosion.

Three sea level rise levels (25 cm, 75 cm, and 200 cm) to represent planning horizons based on OPC Sea Level Rise Projections for the Monterey Tide Gauge. 25 cm of sea level rise represents near term (2030) risk, 75 cm represent mid-term (2060) risk, and 200 cm represent long-term (2100) risk.

Table G-3 summarizes population and property exposure to coastal erosion risk.

Table G-3
Population and Property Exposed to Coastal Erosion Risk in Marina Sea Level Rise Scenario/
Erosion Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Cliff Erosion
Sea Level Rise (25 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Sea Level Rise (75 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Sea Level Rise (200 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Shoreline Erosion
Sea Level Rise (25 cm) 34 0 $0 20 $45,275,418
Sea Level Rise (75 cm) 34 0 $0 20 $45,275,418
Sea Level Rise (200 cm) 34 0 $0 20 $45,275,418
Coastal dune erosion hazards are the biggest threat to the City of Marina, with potentially up to five feet of sea level rise. The primary impact from this erosion will be to open space, recreation, and dune habitats along Marina State Beach. Infrastructure and facilities projected to be eroded and damaged include Marina Coast Water District facilities, some portions of the wastewater conveyance system including a sewer pump station and an (aging/ phasing out) water treatment facility, the Sanctuary Beach Resort, one groundwater supply well, and the coastal access and associated parking lot at Marina State Park.

Reduction of erosion rates from the recent cessation of sand mining is expected to reduce the risk of sea level rise and erosion impacts to the City.

CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-7 ANNEX G
G.5.3 DAM AND LEVEE FAILURE
Dam Failure
There is no population or property in the City located in the dam inundation zones of the Los Padres and Forest Lake dams.

Table G-4 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to spillway and dam failure of the Nacimiento and San Antonio dams.

Table G-4
Population and Property Exposed to Dam Failure Risk by Dam and Failure Type in Marina Dam Failure Scenario Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Nacimiento Spillway Failure 5 1 $199,341 2 $87,938
Nacimiento Dam Failure 39 1 $199,341 16 $45,275,418
San Antonio Spillway Failure 5 1 $199,341 1 $0
San Antonio Dam Failure 5 1 $199,341 2 $87,938
Levee Failure
Based on Leveed Area from the US Army Corps of Engineers, National Levee Database, there is no population or property in the City exposed to levee failure risk. Many levees in the County protect important agricultural lands and a significant levee failure could have an indirect economic impact.

G.5.4 DROUGHT AND WATER SHORTAGE
The entire population of the City is vulnerable to drought events. Drought can affect people’s health and safety, including health problems related to low water flows, poor water quality, or dust. Other possible impacts include recreational risks; effects on air quality; diminished living conditions related to energy, air quality, and hygiene; compromised food and nutrition; and increased incidence of illness and disease. Water shortages can affect access to safe, affordable water, with substantial impacts on low-income families and communities burdened with environmental pollution.

A prolonged drought could also cause economic impacts. Increased demand for water and electricity may result in shortages and higher costs of these resources. While economic impacts will be most significant on industries that use water or depend on water for their business, cascading economic effects can hurt many sectors of the economy. Agriculture, which will likely be impacted by drought conditions, is a major economic driver in the County, and the City could be impacted economically.

G.5.5 EARTHQUAKE
The entire population of the City is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impacted, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. Similarly, all property and critical infrastructure in the City is potentially exposed to earthquake risk.

CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-8 ANNEX G
According to Monterey County Assessor records, there are 4,991 residential and non-residential buildings in the City, with a total value of $2,745,331,711. Since all structures in the City are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this represents the property exposure to seismic events.

Additionally, liquefaction risk was assessed. Table G-5 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to liquefaction risk.

Table G-5
Population and Property Exposed to Liquefaction Risk in Marina Liquefaction Risk Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High Liquefaction Susceptibility 39 1 $199,341 21 $45,275,418 Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility 516 16 $9,411,509 29 $57,441,079 G.5.6 FLOODING
FEMA flood zones were used to assess flooding risk. Table G-6 summarizes population and property in the City in the 100-year and 500-year floodplain.

Table G-6
Population and Property Exposed to Flooding Risk in Marina FEMA Flood Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
100-Year Flood Zone 9,496 96 $55,762,807 98 $89,907,734 500-Year Flood Zone 436 0 $0 5 $0
G.5.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT
To assess hazardous materials incident risk, buffer distances were used. The chosen buffer distance was based on guidelines in the US Department of Transportation’s Emergency Response Guidebook that suggest distances useful to protect people from vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic if inhaled. The recommended buffer distance referred to in the guide as the “protective action distance” is the area surrounding the incident in which people are at risk of harmful exposure. For purposes of this plan, a buffer distance of one mile was used, but actual buffer distances will vary depending on the nature and quantity of the release, whether the release occurred during the night or daytime, and prevailing weather conditions.

To analyze the risk to a transportation-related hazardous materials release, a one-mile buffer was applied to highways in the US Dept of Transportation, National Transportation Atlas Database. The result is a two-mile buffer zone around each transportation corridor that is used for this analysis. Risk from a fixed facility hazardous materials release, was analyzed using a one-mile buffer was applied facilities identified in the Monterey County 2019 Hazardous Materials Plan. The result was a one-mile buffer zone around each facility.

Table G-7 summarizes population and property that could be exposed to both mobile and fixed hazardous materials incidents.

CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-9 ANNEX G
Table G-7
Population and Property Exposed to Hazardous Materials Incident Risk in Marina Hazardous Materials
Incident Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Mobile Source 16,292 2,413 $1,483,891,351 1,018 $515,933,364 Fixed Source 443 0 $0 4 $28,649,394
G.5.8 HUMAN- CAUSED HAZARDS
It is often quite difficult to quantify the potential losses from human-caused hazards. While facilities themselves have a tangible dollar value, loss from a human-caused hazard often inflicts an even greater toll on a community, both economically and emotionally. The impact to identified values will vary from event to event and depend on the type, location, and nature of a specific incident.

G.5.9 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
All citizens in the City could be susceptible to the human health hazards. A large outbreak or epidemic, a pandemic or a use of biological agents as a weapon of mass destruction could have devastating effects on the population. While all of the population is at risk to the human health hazards, the young and the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and those with special needs are most vulnerable. The introduction of a disease such as influenza or the COVID-19 virus have impacted the whole population of the City, specifically vulnerable populations.

G.5.10 SEVERE WEATHER
All severe weather events profiled in this Plan have the potential to happen anywhere in the City.

Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Properties in poor condition or in high-risk locations may be susceptible to the most damage.

All critical facilities in the City likely exposed to severe weather hazards. The most common problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities and compromised access to roadways. Prolonged periods of extreme heat could result in power outages caused by increased demand for power for cooling.

The FEMA National Risk Index calculates annualized frequency, exposure and annual expected loss of building value and population to some severe weather hazards identified in this Plan. Based on zip code and census tract Countywide data was used to identify annualized frequency, exposure, and annual expected loss in the City from severe weather hazards. Though the entire City is considered vulnerable to these hazards, the FEMA data was used in this risk assessment to provide scale for the potential risk and impacts.

FEMA National Risk Index data from frequency and exposure to severe weather hazards is summarized in Table G-8.

CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-10 ANNEX G
Table G-8
Annualized Frequency and Exposure to Severe Weather Events in Marina Hail Strong Wind
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.34 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.09 Exposed Population 15,069 Exposed Population 15,069
Exposed Building Values $1,244,655,000 Exposed Building Values $1,244,655,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $219
Heat Wave Tornado
Frequency (Event-Days) 0.08 Frequency (Distinct Events) 1.31 Exposed Population 15,069 Exposed Population 10,187
Exposed Building Values $1,244,655,000 Exposed Building Values $749,974,394 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $1 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $19,235,838
Lightning Winter Weather
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.42 Frequency (Event-Days) 0.00 Exposed Population 15,069 Exposed Population 0
Exposed Building Values $1,244,655,000 Exposed Building Values $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $179 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0
Source: FEMA National Risk Index
G.5.11 SLOPE FAILURE
Based on the FEMA National Risk Index, 1,634 people and $192,621,122in building value in the City is exposed to landslide risk. Additionally, the City is not susceptible earthquake induced to landslides.

G.5.12 TSUNAMI
Population and property in the City located in a mapped tsunami inundation zone is summarized in Table G-9.

Table G-9
Population and Property in Tsunami Inundation Zone in Marina Inundation Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Tsunami Inundation Zone 34 0 $0 20 $45,275,418
G.5.13 UTILITY INTERRUPTION
All residents, visitors, and property in the City is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruptions. All critical facilities and infrastructure in the City that is operated by electricity is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruption.

CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-11 ANNEX G
G.5.14 WILDFIRE
For purposes of this analysis CAL FIRE Fire Threat data was used. Fire Threat combines expected fire frequency with potential fire behavior to create 4 threat classes, extreme, very high, high, and moderate.

Table G-10 summarizes population and property in the City in very high, high, and moderate fire threat areas.

Table G-10
Population and Property Exposed to Wildfire Risk in Marina CAL FIRE Wildfire Threat Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Very High Fire Threat 0 0 $0 0 $0
High Fire Threat 3,256 6 $3,505,063 13 $37,060,120
Moderate Fire Threat 13,699 574 $458,626,555 492 $379,314,058 G.5.15 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The effects of climate change are varied and include warmer and more varied weather patterns and temperature changes. Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems in the City and will exacerbate the risk posed by many of the hazards previously profiled in this Plan.

Climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards.

Increasing temperatures and rising sea-levels will have direct impacts on public health and infrastructure. Drought, coastal and inland flooding, and wildfire will likely affect people’s livelihoods and the local economy. Changing weather patterns and more extreme conditions are likely to impact tourism and the rural economies, along with changes to agriculture and crops, which are a critical backbone of Monterey County’s economic success. There will also be negative impacts to ecosystems, both on land and in the ocean, leading to local extinctions, migrations, and management challenges.

Sea level rise risk exposure in the City was calculated based on the NOAA Office for Coastal Management sea level rise viewer
projections. Three sea level rise levels (25 cm, 75 cm, and 200 cm) were chosen to represent planning horizons based on OPC Sea Level Rise Projections for the Monterey Tide Gauge. 25 cm of sea level rise represents near term (2030) risk, 75 cm represent mid-term (2060) risk, and 200 cm represent long-term (2100) risk.

Population and property exposed to sea level rise risk is summarized in Table G-11.

Table G-11
Population and Property Exposed to Sea Level Rise in Marina Sea Level Rise Amount Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
1 ft Sea Level Rise (2030) 34 0 0 20 $45,275,418
3 ft Sea Level Rise (2060) 34 0 0 20 $45,275,418
7 ft Sea Level Rise (2100) 34 1 $199,341 21 $45,275,418 CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-12 ANNEX G
G.6 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The City of Marina performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs, and policies that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table G-12 • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table G-13 • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table G-14 • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table G-15 • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table G-16 • A summary of participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is provided in Section G.6.1 in Table G-17
• An overall self-assessment of capability is presented in Section G.6.2 in Table G-18 Table G-12
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Planning Documents
General Plan ☒ • Community Development
Capital Improvement Plan ☒ • Public Works
Floodplain Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Open Space Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Under Development and will
be addressed with the General
Plan update.

Stormwater Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Coastal or Shoreline Management
Plan ☒ • Community Development
Being updated to address Sea
Level rise and Coastal Hazards,
2019 Existing Conditions and
Sea Level Rise Adaptation
Report
Local Coastal Program ☒ • Community Development
Certified in 1982, Currently
being updated to address Sea
Level rise and Coastal Hazards
Climate Action/ Adaptation Plan ☒ • Community Development Under development, working
with AMBAG for final adoption
with the General Plan update
Emergency Operations Plan ☒ • Fire Department Regional EOC Continuity of Operations Plan ☒ • Fire Department
Community Wildfire Protection Plan ☒ • Fire Department County Wide Plan Evacuation Plan ☒ • Fire Department County Wide, Local Tsunami Disaster Recovery Plan ☐ •
Economic Development Plan ☒ • City Administration In General Plan CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-13 ANNEX G
Table G-12
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Historic Preservation Plan ☒ • Community Development In General Plan Transportation Plan ☒ • Public Works Part of the General Plan and part of TAMC
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Floodplain Ordinance ☒ • Public Works Ordinance 15.48 – Flood Damage Prevention
Zoning Ordinance ☒ • Community Development
Subdivision Ordinance ☒ • Community Development
Site Plan Review Requirements ☒ • Community Development Unified Development Ordinance ☐ N/A
Post-Disaster Redevelopment/
Reconstruction Ordinance ☐ N/A
Building Code ☒ • Community Development
Fire Prevention Code ☒ • Fire Department
Other Hazard-Specific Ordinances • Ordinance 8.46 – Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control

Table G-13
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development
and land management practices
☒ • Community Development
• Public Works
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
☒ • Community Development
• Public Works
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of manmade or
natural hazards
☒ • Community Development
• Public Works
Building Inspector ☒ • Community Development
Emergency Manager ☒ • City Manager
Floodplain Manager ☒ • Public Works Public Works Director Land Surveyors ☒ • Public Works Public Works Director
Resource development staff or
grant writers ☐
Public Information Officer ☒ • Police Department Police Chief Scientist(s) familiar with the hazards
of the community ☐
CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-14 ANNEX G
Table G-13
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
☒ • All Departments
Personnel skilled in Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) ☐
Maintenance programs to reduce
risk ☒ • Public Works
Warning systems/services ☒ • Monterey County
Mutual Aid Agreements ☒ • Fire Department
• Public Works

Table G-14
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
General Funds ☒ • Finance
Capital Improvements Project
Funding ☒ • Public Works
Special Purpose Taxes ☒ • Finance
Stormwater Utility Fees ☐
Gas / Electric Utility Fees ☐
Water / Sewer Fees ☐
Development Impact Fees ☒ • Community Development
General Obligation Bonds ☒ • City Manager
• Finance
Special Tax and Revenue Bonds ☒ • City Manager
• Finance
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) ☐

Table G-15
Education and Outreach Capability
Educational and Outreach Resources Department Comments Local citizen or non-profit groups
focused on environmental
protection, emergency
preparedness, access and functional
needs populations, etc.
☒ • Mayor’s Office
Ongoing public education or
information program (e.g., ☒ • Police Department
• Fire Department All Departments
CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-15 ANNEX G
Table G-15
Education and Outreach Capability
Educational and Outreach Resources Department Comments responsible water use, fire safety,
household preparedness,
environmental education)
• Public Works
• Community Development
Natural disaster or safety related
school programs ☒ • Parks and Recreation
Public-private partnership initiatives
addressing disaster-related issues ☐

Table G-16
Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Effective Date
Community Rating System (CRS) No - -
ISO Public Protection Classification Yes 3/3Y October 1, 2014 StormReady Certification Yes -
TsunamiReady Certification Yes -
Firewise Communities Certification No - -
G.6.1 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) COMPLIANCE Table G-17
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Designated Floodplain Administrator: Brian McMinn, Public Works Director NFIP Community Number: 060727
Flood Insurance Policies in Force: 45
Insurance Coverage in Force: $13,664,400
Written Premium in Force: $61,833
Total Loss Claims: 0
Total Payments for Losses: 0
Adopted Regulations that meet NFIP Requirements:
• Ordinance 15.48 – Flood Damage Prevention
• Ordinance 8.46 – Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control Date of last NFIP Community Assistance Visit (CAV):

Research indicates the last contact with the CAC was in 2010. There is no evidence of compliance issues from that time.

Higher standards that exceed minimum NFIP requirement:

N/A
Additional floodplain management provisions:

The soils in the City of Marina are mostly sand which lends itself towards flood prevention. On top of the naturally good infiltration rates, the City’s storm water standards exceed those of the State with a CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-16 ANNEX G
design retention for all new development and redevelopment with 100% retention of the 100-year storm event.

Floodplain management activities performed that go beyond FEMA minimum requirements:

The City follows the State requirements for on-site mitigation of storm events. City requirements exceed those of the State with a retention requirement of 100% of all on-site runoff for the 100-year storm event. The Design Engineer of every major project in the City must sign off on a self- certification that they meet the City’s requirements for on-site retention. The City’s website is updated on an annual basis for training opportunities in post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater collection and retention. The City also conducts an annual audit of its Municipal Code to confirm the information provided is up to the latest State mandates.

Existing impediments to running an effective NFIP program:

None
Specific actions that are ongoing or considered related to continued compliance with the NFIP:
• Maintain digital FEMA elevation certificates for all construction in the floodplain. • Encourage or require certain local staff positions to obtain and maintain Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) certification.
• Hold informative work sessions for newly elected officials and new appointees to planning commissions and appeals/variance boards, to provide an overview of floodplain management, the importance of participating in the NFIP, and the implications of failing to enforce the requirements of the program or failing to properly handle variance requests. • Obtain FEMA’s Substantial Damage Estimator and attend training to be prepared to use it when damage occurs; develop mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions to augment local inspection personnel after major disasters.
• Maintain supplies of FEMA/NFIP materials to help property owners evaluate measures to reduce potential hazard damage. Make available in public buildings, local library, website, etc. and inform people who they can call to learn more information.

G.6.2 SELF- ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY
Table G-18
Self-Assessment of Capability
Capability Degree of Capability
Planning and Regulatory Capability Moderate
Administrative and Technical Capability Moderate
Fiscal Capability High
Education and Outreach Capability Moderate
Political Capability Moderate
Overall Capability Moderate
G.6.3 OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND/ IMPROVE MITIGATION CAPABILITIES Staffing is the largest limitation to capability. Planning, regulatory, fiscal, administrative, technical, education, and outreach capabilities can all be expanded or improved using a combination of the following strategies:

CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-17 ANNEX G
• Increase capacity through staffing
• Training, and enhanced coordination among all department and jurisdictions • Emergency management/hazard specific program enhancements, training, and exercising • Increased funding opportunities and capacity
• Implementation of mitigation actions and projects
• Continuous research on grant opportunities for emergency management, hazard mitigation, and infrastructure and community development.

Capabilities and abilities to expand or improve existing policies and programs will be re-evaluated during the next Hazard Mitigation Plan update and annual plan review meetings.

G.6.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital improvement planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa. Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.

Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, the City made progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and actions into other planning initiatives.

The following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Capital Improvement Plan: The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate potential hazards. The City will strive to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future capital improvement plan. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk assessment. • Building Code: The City’s adoption of the 2016 California Building Code incorporated local modifications addressing seismic and fire hazards.
• Regulatory Codes: A number of the City’s existing codes and ordinances include provisions to reduce hazard risk including the zoning code, storm water management code and flood damage prevention ordinance.
• 2019 Existing Conditions and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Report: Includes the principles of hazard mitigation to address sea level rise risk.

Opportunities for Future Integration
The General Plan and the hazard mitigation plan are complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure. The General Plan is considered to be an integral part of this plan. An update to the General Plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. The City, through adoption of a General Plan and zoning ordinance, has planned for the impact of natural hazards. The process of updating this hazard mitigation plan provided the opportunity to review and CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-18 ANNEX G
expand on policies in these planning mechanisms. The City will create a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and the General Plan by identifying a mitigation action as such and giving that action a high priority. Other planning processes and programs that may be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
• General Plan, including the Safety Element
• Emergency Operations Plans
• Climate Action and Adaptation Plans
• Debris management plans
• Recovery plans
• Capital improvement programs
• Municipal codes
• Community design guidelines
• Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
• Stormwater management programs
• Water system vulnerability assessments
• Community wildfire protection plans
• Comprehensive flood hazard management plans
• Resiliency plans
• Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery action plans • Public information/education plans
Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be integrated via the update process.

G.7 PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Problem Statements are statements of particular interest regarding primary hazards of concern, geographic areas of concern, or vulnerable community assets. As part of the planning process, the City of Marina Planning Committee identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concern applicable to their jurisdiction. The Hazard Problem Statements were based on the risk assessment, the vulnerability analysis, and local knowledge.

Hazard Problem Statements helped the Planning Committee identify common issues and weaknesses, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation. Hazard Problem Statements for the City of Marina are identified below:
• The City continues to grow, with many new development projects underway or scheduled for the former site of Fort Ord but continues to be very concerned with maintaining a sustainable water supply – concerns that have only been exacerbated by the anticipated effects of climate change, including saltwater intrusion. It continues to coordinate and share these concerns the Monterey County Water Resources Agency and the Marina Coast Water District.

CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-19 ANNEX G
• The City experiences coastal storm events in March/April, with extreme winds that have caused significant tree damages and heavy rains that have caused isolated/localized nuisance flooding due to inadequate drainage systems.
• The Sanctuary Beach Resort is one of the only developed parcels in the city located seaward of Highway 1. There is local concern that coastal erosion and sea level rise could have a detrimental impact on the continued use of the property.
• Coastal erosion (potentially up to 5 to 7 feet a year) is a concern for areas such as Marina Coast Water District at 100 Reservation Road and potentially the former Cemex Sandplant site on Lapis Road toward the north of central Marina.
• The City is concerned about the high threat of wildland fire due to existing fuels in combination with large areas of urban/wildland interface and intermix. Areas of concern include former Fort Ord lands, areas on the east end of the City around the airport and near Imjin Road, undeveloped land within the City, and areas near Reservation Road. The City is working to address some of these areas through fuel management practices.
• The City is concerned with limited ingress/egress to the community following major disaster events. Current traffic levels, highway capacity, gridlock, and lack of mass transit options would make a large evacuation difficult and also limit emergency response capabilities.

G.8 MITIGATION GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS
The mitigation strategy is the guidebook to future hazard mitigation administration, capturing the key outcomes of the MJHMP planning process. The mitigation strategy is intended to reduce vulnerabilities outlined in the previous section with a prescription of policies and physical projects. These mitigation actions should be compatible with existing planning mechanisms and should outline specific roles and resources for implementation success.

The City of Marina Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Mitigation Strategy in Volume 1, which included a benefit-cost analysis and consideration of mitigation alternatives. Based upon the risk assessment results and the City’s planning committee priorities, a list of mitigation actions was developed. The Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix, in Table G-20 lists each priority mitigation action, identifies time frame, the responsible party, potential funding sources, and prioritization, which meet the requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

Status of Previous Plan Actions
All actions from the 2016 Plan were reviewed and updated by the City during the planning process.

Table G-19 includes the status of actions completed or removed from the previous plan. In order to improve the mitigation action plan for this Plan update and align with the countywide Mitigation Action Plan, the City added more specificity and detail to previous plan actions in addition to the new actions added to the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.

CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-20 ANNEX G
Table G-19
City of Marina Completed Mitigation Actions from 2016 MJHMP 2016
Action # Description Status Narrative Update
1 Identify hazard-prone critical
facilities and infrastructure
and carry out acquisition,
relocation, and structural
and nonstructural
retrofitting measures as
necessary.

Completed

Completed and ongoing as needed. Annual
hazardous materials inspections are conducted
by Monterey County Environmental Health in
conjunction with the Public Works Supervisor at
the City Corporation Yard (5th Avenue), the Lake
Drive Corporation Yard (3040 Lake Court) and
the fuel farm at the Marina Municipal Airport.

CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-21 ANNEX G
G City of Marina Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Table G-20
City of Marina Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
1 Ongoing/
Continuous All
Continue emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation
public outreach, including the Annual Safety Night Out, school outreach programs, meeting with community groups, and providing information related to disaster preparedness, Alert Monterey County, and tsunamis, earthquake, fire, and flood safety on the City’s website.

Priority /
High Public Safety
General Funds,
HMGP and PDM
Grants
2 Ongoing/
Continuous Flooding
Explore mitigation opportunities for repetitively flooded properties, and if necessary, carry-out acquisition, relocation, elevation, and flood-proofing measures to protect these properties.

Priority /
High Public Works HMGP and PDM
Grants
3 Ongoing/
Continuous Flooding
Identify and carry-out minor flood and stormwater
management projects that would reduce damage to
infrastructure and damage due to local flooding/ inadequate drainage. These include the modification of existing culverts and bridges, upgrading capacity of storm drains, upgrading aging storm drain infrastructure, upgrading corrugated metal pipes, and creation of stormwater retention basins in small watersheds.

Priority /
High Public Works HMGP and PDM
Grants
4 Ongoing
Wildfire,
Utility
Interruption
Adopt more prescriptive rules relative to the construction and maintenance of overhead lines.

Priority /
High
Community
Development,
Planning
Services
General Funds
5 In Progress All
During the next General Plan Update, within the Safety
Element, collect background data specific to Marina and consider appropriate goals, policies, and objectives to address hazards identified within the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Priority /
Medium
Community
Development,
Planning
Services
General Plan
CITY OF MARINA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | G-22 ANNEX G
Table G-20
City of Marina Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
6 In Progress All
Continue to collaborate with CSUMB and the City of Seaside to provide resources for the organization, staffing, training, activation, and operation of the joint Regional Emergency Operations Center (EOC).

Priority /
High
Fire
Department,
Administratio
n
Cost share as
identified in the
MOA & grant
opportunities
7 In Progress
Flooding,
Coastal
Erosion, Sea
Level Rise
Complete Local Coastal Program Update, which address sea level rise and coastal hazards.

Priority /
Medium
Community
Development,
Planning
Services
General Plan
8 In Progress Wildfire
Continue defensible space projects on high hazard areas on the east side of the City and on University of Santa Cruz owned property.

Priority /
High
Fire
Department,
Public Works
General Fund
9 Ongoing/
Continuous
Wildfire
Continue coordination with Monterey County Regional Fire and CAL FIRE BEU on both wildfire mitigation and
suppression efforts.

Priority /
Medium
Fire
Department General Fund
10 In Progress
Hazardous
Materials
Incidents
Complete study on the Monterey Peninsula Landfill to
identify and address odor and the impacts of the industrial facilities on the North end of the City of Marina.

Priority /
High Public Works General Fund

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

H
ANNEX H:

CITY OF MONTEREY

2021 Monterey County
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-1 ANNEX H
H. CITY OF MONTEREY
H.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Gaudenz Panholzer
Fire Chief
Monterey Fire Department
610 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 646-3900
[email protected]
Nat Rojanasathira
Assistant City Manager
Monterey City Manager’s Office
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 646-3760
[email protected]
H.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
H.2.1 LOCATION

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-2 ANNEX H
H.2.2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
Monterey is a popular waterfront city located on the southern edge of Monterey Bay, occupying nearly nine square miles between the cities of Seaside and Pacific Grove. It has a rich history, serving as California’s first capital city and later the center of a thriving fishing industry. Its renowned scenic environment stems from its Peninsula coastline and central ridge of wooded hills, coupled with a broad range of historic buildings, antique adobes, and other culturally significant sites.

H.2.3 HISTORY
The area that is today the City of Monterey, was originally inhabited by Costanoan Indians, and in 1542 it was first seen by the Spanish explorer Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo. In 1602 Sebastián Vizcaíno named the area in honor of the count de Monte Rey, viceroy of New Spain (Mexico). The Royal Presidio de San Carlos de Monterey was established on June 3, 1770, and Monterey functioned as the capital of Alta California under both Spain (1774 to 1822) and Mexico (1822 to 1846). Under Mexico, Monterey remained the capital of a vast area that included all of present-day California and the American Southwest. In 1846, Commodore John Drake Sloat claimed the area for the United States and raised the American flag over the town’s presidio during the Mexican War. The first constitutional convention in California met at Colton Hall in 1849. The City of Monterey was first incorporated in 1850. Monterey served as county seat of Monterey County until 1873, when the seat was moved to nearby Salinas.

H.2.4 POPULATION
The City of Monterey has a population of 30,218 people (2020 Census), an increase of 8.7% since 2010.

H.2.5 GOVERNING BODY FORMAT
T
he City of Monterey is a Charter City that operates with a Council/City Manager form of Government.

The Council consists of five members: The Mayor, elected to a two-y ear term, and four council
members, elected to four-year terms. The Mayor and Council Members are elected at-l arge. The City
Council appoints the City Manager and City Attorney. The City Manager serves as the professional administrator of the City and is responsible for coordinating all day-t o-d
ay operations and
administration. The City Manager appoints a professional staff to manage the organization.

H.2.6 ECONOMY

AND TAX BASE
The City Monterey was once a leading fishing and whaling port, but its economic mainstay is now tourism. The City of Monterey is widely known for its numerous tourist attractions including the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Cannery Row, and Fisherman’s Wharf. It is also home to major military installations including the Naval Postgraduate School and the Defense Language Institute, located on the Presidio of Monterey.

H.3 PLANNING PROCESS
The City of Monterey followed the planning process explained in Volume 1 of the plan. In addition to providing representation on the Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Planning Steering Committee, the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process.

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-3 ANNEX H
The City of Monterey held a Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder meeting to discuss vulnerabilities, mitigation activities that had occurred since the last plan update, key problem statements, and mitigation strategies on July 19, 2021. Key stakeholders present at the meeting included:
• Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
• Gaudenz Panholzer, Fire Chief
• Christy Sabdo, Associate Planner
• Lori Lynn Williamson, Chief Building Official
• Karen Larson, Parks & Recreation Director
• Sara South, Capital Programs Coordinator
• Ursula Glick-Kelley, GIS Coordinator
• Tricia Wotan, Environmental Regulations Manager
• Andrea Renny, City Traffic Engineer
• Justin Prouty, Urban Forester
• Louis Marcuzzo, Parks Operations Manager
• Angie Blake, Assistant Director of Information Resources H.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
The City of Monterey covers 8.4 square miles of land area. Approximately 3.5 square miles of water area in Monterey Bay is also within the incorporated City. Monterey’s growth and development stems from these physical features, including a downtown commercial district on the flatter old marsh area, lighter commercial, and medium-density residential on the sloping mesas, a mixed-use waterfront with numerous retail and recreational activities, neighborhoods separated by wooded canyons, and low density residential in the steep wooded foothills.

T
he General Plan was adopted in 2005. The largest land use category is residential and single-family homes occupy the vast majority of residential land. The main commercial areas are the downtown area, focused around three-b
lock-long
Alvarado Street; Del Monte regional shopping center;
commercial development along Lighthouse Avenue, Del Monte Avenue, and North Fremont Street; visitor
-s
erving commercial in downtown, Cannery Row, Fisherman’s Wharf, and along Munras Avenue; and medical offices 10 concentrated around the Pacific-E l Dorado-C
ass Street Area. Since 1994, the
City’s zoning standards have encouraged mixed-u
se commercial and residential in commercial
zones. Industrial land in the City is concentrated in the area adjacent to and east of the Monterey Peninsula Airport. Military and other public facilities, including streets, highways, and schools, cover 46% of the City’s land area. The City has been consistent in its efforts to protect and maintain a wide range of aesthetic physical features, including forested hillsides, greenbelts, creek corridors, parks, beaches, and shoreline.

S
afe Growth
The purpose of the Safe Growth Survey was to evaluate the extent to which each jurisdiction is positioned to grow safely relative to its natural hazards. The survey covered 9 distinct topic areas and was also completed as part of the previous plan update process. This allowed survey results to be compared to help measure progress over time and to continue identifying possible mitigation actions as it relates to future growth and community development practices.

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-4 ANNEX H
This survey was a subjective exercise used to provide some quantitative measures of how adequately existing planning mechanisms were being used to address the notion of safe growth. Each topic area included a number of statements, which were answered on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the degree to which the respondent agreed or disagreed with the statement as it relates to the City’s current plans, policies, and programs for guiding future community growth and development. Scores for each topic area statement were averaged to provide a topic area result and the topic area totals were averaged to provide an overall survey score. More information on the survey is provided in Capability Assessment in Volume 1.

The Monterey Safe Growth Survey was completed by Christy Sabado, Associate Planner in the City of Monterey Community Development Department. The results are summarized in Table H-1.

Table H-1
City of Monterey Safe Growth Survey Results
Topic Area 2021 2016
Land Use 3.25 3.75
Transportation 2.67 4.67
Environmental Management 3.33 3.67
Public Safety 1.67 4.00
Zoning Ordinance 2.25 4.75
Subdivision Regulations 1.67 3.00
Capital Improvement Program & Infrastructure Policies 2.00 3.33 Building Code 5.00 5.00
Economic Development 2.00 5.00
Average Survey Ratings 2.65 4.13
H.5 JURISDICTION SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT
The intent of this section is to profile the City of Monterey’s hazards and assess the City’s vulnerability distinct from that of the countywide planning area, which has already been assessed in Volume 1 of the plan. The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the County and describes the hazards, as well as their extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences, and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard vulnerability specific to the City of Monterey is included in this Annex.

The City of Monterey’s Planning Team used the same risk assessment process as the Monterey County Steering Committee. The City’s Planning Team used the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey to compare the impact of various hazards that could affect the City. Each variable was scored by hazard by the Planning Team on a scale from 1 to 4, or negligible/unlikely to extensive/highly likely/ catastrophic. The score for each variable was calculated using a weighted average of all survey responses. Scores were then added together to determine an overall hazard score between 1 and 16.

Each score was associated with a qualitative degree of risk ranking from Negligible (between 1 and 4) to Very High (between 14.1 and 16). The Survey is described in more detail in Risk Assessment Methods in Volume 1.

Table H-2 displays the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise that was performed by the City of Monterey’s Planning Team.

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-5 ANNEX H
Table H-2
Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA): City of Monterey Hazard Geographic
Extent
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Magnitude/
Severity Impact Total
Out of 16
Degree of
Risk
Agricultural Emergencies - - - - - -
Coastal Erosion 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 11.4 Substantial
Coastal Flooding 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 12.1 High
Cyber-Attack 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.2 11.7 Substantial
Dam Failure - - - - - -
Drought & Water Shortage 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.2 12.6 High
Earthquake 2.9 2.6 3.0 3.4 11.9 Substantial
Epidemic 3.1 2.8 3.0 2.9 11.8 Substantial
Extreme Cold & Freeze 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.5 5.5 Slight
Extreme Heat 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 7.9 Possible
Flash Flood 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 8.3 Moderate
Hazardous Materials Incident 2.2 2.1 2.0 3.0 9.3 Moderate Invasive Species 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.3 9.6 Moderate
Levee Failure - - - - - -
Localized Stormwater Flooding 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.4 9.9 Moderate Mass Migration 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 4.8 Slight
Pandemic 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.1 12.1 High
Riverine Flooding 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.5 6.9 Possible
Sea Level Rise 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.4 12.1 High
Severe Winter Storms 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.6 10.7 Substantial
Slope Failure 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 10.4 Substantial
Targeted Violence 2.0 2.0 2.9 3.2 10.1 Substantial
Terrorism 2.2 1.9 3.0 3.3 10.4 Substantial
Tsunami 2.3 2.3 3.1 3.1 10.8 Substantial
Utility Interruption/ PSPS 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 11.2 Substantial Water Contamination 3.0 2.3 3.3 3.3 11.9 Substantial
Wildfire 3.1 2.0 3.7 3.8 12.6 High
Windstorms 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 10.8 Substantial
H.5.1 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
There is no agricultural land located within the City, so therefore an agricultural emergency does not pose a direct threat. Since agriculture is a major economic driver in the County, an agricultural emergency could have indirect economic impacts on the City.

H.5.2 COASTAL EROSION
To determine coastal erosion risk, USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMos) shoreline change, and cliff retreat projection data was used. For cliff CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-6 ANNEX H
retreat modeling an end of century (2100) forced sea level rise amount of 200 cm was used based on Ocean Protection Council (OPC) High Risk Aversion Guidance. For shoreline change, winter erosion uncertainty modeling was used to capture the degree of uncertainty associated with future shoreline erosion. Hold the Line scenario modeling was chosen for both types of erosion. Three sea level rise levels (25 cm, 75 cm, and 200 cm) to represent planning horizons based on OPC Sea Level Rise Projections for the Monterey Tide Gauge. 25 cm of sea level rise represents near term (2030) risk, 75 cm represent mid-term (2060) risk, and 200 cm represent long-term (2100) risk.

Table H-3 summarizes population and property exposure to coastal erosion risk.

Table H-3
Population and Property Exposed to Coastal Erosion Risk in Monterey Sea Level Rise Scenario/
Erosion Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Cliff Erosion
Sea Level Rise (25 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Sea Level Rise (75 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Sea Level Rise (200 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Shoreline Erosion
Sea Level Rise (25 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Sea Level Rise (75 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Sea Level Rise (200 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Sea level rise and erosion modeling is inherently uncertain, and therefore future modeling could identify people and property at risk to coastal erosion. The City could also be impacted by other types of erosion not profiled in this Plan.

H.5.3 DAM AND LEVEE FAILURE
Dam Failure
There is no population or property in the City located in a mapped dam inundation zone of any of the dams (Nacimiento, San Antonio, Los Padres, and Forest Lake) analyzed in this Plan.

Levee Failure
Based on the Leveed Area from the US Army Corps of Engineers, National Levee Database, there is no population or property in the City exposed to levee failure risk. Many levees in the County protect important agricultural lands and a significant levee failure could have an indirect economic impact.

H.5.4 DROUGHT AND WATER SHORTAGE
The entire population of the City is vulnerable to drought events. Drought can affect people’s health and safety, including health problems related to low water flows, poor water quality, or dust. Other possible impacts include recreational risks; effects on air quality; diminished living conditions related to energy, air quality, and hygiene; compromised food and nutrition; and increased incidence of illness and disease. Water shortages can affect access to safe, affordable water, with substantial impacts on low-income families and communities burdened with environmental pollution. A prolonged drought CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-7 ANNEX H
could also cause economic impacts. Increased demand for water and electricity may result in shortages and higher costs of these resources. While economic impacts will be most significant on industries that use water or depend on water for their business, cascading economic effects can hurt many sectors of the economy. Tourism, a major economic driver in the City, will likely be impacted by drought conditions and thereby impact the local economy. Agriculture, which will likely be impacted by drought conditions, is a major economic driver in the County, and the City could be impacted economically.

H.5.5 EARTHQUAKE
The entire population of the City is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impacted, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. Similarly, all property and critical infrastructure in the City is potentially exposed to earthquake risk.

According to Monterey County Assessor records, there are 12,204 residential and non-residential buildings in the City, with a total value of $6,677,984,992. Since all structures in the City are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this represents the property exposure to seismic events.

Earthquake-induced liquefaction risk was also assessed. Table H-4 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to liquefaction risk. Additionally, approximately 38 miles of roadway in the City is located in an area of high liquefaction risk.

Table H-4
Population and Property Exposed to Liquefaction Risk in Monterey Liquefaction Risk Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High Liquefaction Susceptibility 8,647 435 $317,615,274 925 $461,245,115 Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility 588 288 $233,293,803 88 $50,222,070 H.5.6 FLOODING
FEMA flood zones were used to assess flooding risk. Table H-5 summarizes population and property in the City in the 100-year and 500-year floodplain.

Table H-5
Population and Property Exposed to Flooding Risk in Monterey FEMA Flood Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
100-Year Flood Zone 1,357 7 $7,036,275 296 $261,933,091 500-Year Flood Zone 1,551 64 $45,801,646 340 $186,215,085 H.5.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT
To assess hazardous materials incident risk, buffer distances were used. The chosen buffer distance was based on guidelines in the US Department of Transportation’s Emergency Response Guidebook CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-8 ANNEX H
that suggest distances useful to protect people from vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic if inhaled. The recommended buffer distance referred to in the guide as the “protective action distance” is the area surrounding the incident in which people are at risk of harmful exposure. For purposes of this plan, a buffer distance of one mile was used, but actual buffer distances will vary depending on the nature and quantity of the release, whether the release occurred during the night or daytime, and prevailing weather conditions.

To analyze the risk to a transportation-related hazardous materials release, a one-mile buffer was applied to highways in the US Department of Transportation, National Transportation Atlas Database.

The result is a two-mile buffer zone around each transportation corridor that is used for this analysis.

Risk from a fixed facility hazardous materials release, was analyzed using a one-mile buffer was applied facilities identified in the Monterey County 2019 Hazardous Materials Plan. The result was a one-mile buffer zone around each facility.

Table H-6 summarizes population and property that could be exposed to both mobile and fixed hazardous materials incidents.

Table H-6
Population and Property Exposed to Hazardous Materials Incident Risk in Monterey Hazardous Materials
Incident Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Mobile Source 16,773 3,950 $2,515,586,019 3,924 $1,892,199,199 Fixed Source 0 0 $0 0 $0
H.5.8 HUMAN CAUSED HAZARDS
It is often quite difficult to quantify the potential losses from human-caused hazards. While facilities themselves have a tangible dollar value, loss from a human-caused hazard often inflicts an even greater toll on a community, both economically and emotionally. The impact to identified values will vary from event to event and depend on the type, location, and nature of a specific incident.

H.5.9 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
All citizens in the City could be susceptible to the human health hazards. A large outbreak or epidemic, a pandemic or a use of biological agents as a weapon of mass destruction could have devastating effects on the population. While all of the population is at risk to the human health hazards, the young and the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and those with special needs are most vulnerable. The introduction of a disease such as influenza or the COVID-19 virus have impacted the whole population of the City, specifically vulnerable populations.

H.5.10 SEVERE WEATHER
All severe weather events profiled in this Plan have the potential to happen anywhere in the City.

Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Properties in poor condition or in high-risk locations may be susceptible to the most damage. All critical facilities in the City likely exposed to severe weather hazards. The most common problems associated with severe CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-9 ANNEX H
weather are loss of utilities and compromised access to roadways. Prolonged periods of extreme heat could result in power outages caused by increased demand for power for cooling.

The FEMA National Risk Index calculates annualized frequency, exposure and annual expected loss of building value and population to some severe weather hazards identified in this Plan. Based on zip code and census tract Countywide data was used to identify annualized frequency, exposure, and annual expected loss in the City from severe weather hazards. Though the entire City is considered vulnerable to these hazards, the FEMA data was used in this risk assessment to provide scale for the potential risk and impacts. FEMA National Risk Index data from frequency and exposure to severe weather hazards is summarized in Table H-7.

Table H-7
Annualized Frequency and Exposure to Severe Weather Events in Monterey Hail Strong Wind
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.19 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.03 Exposed Population 26,380 Exposed Population 26,380
Exposed Building Values $4,533,377,000 Exposed Building Values $4,533,377,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $583
Heat Wave Tornado
Frequency (Event-Days) 0.08 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.88 Exposed Population 26,380 Exposed Population 17,941
Exposed Building Values $4,533,106,201 Exposed Building Values $3,080,433,353 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $2 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $52,899,104
Lightning Winter Weather
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.45 Frequency (Event-Days) 0.00 Exposed Population 26,380 Exposed Population 0
Exposed Building Values $4,533,377,000 Exposed Building Values $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $715 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0
Source: FEMA National Risk Index
H.5.11 SLOPE FAILURE
Based on the FEMA National Risk Index, 4,150 people and $579,224,935 in building value in the City is exposed to landslide risk. Exposure of population and property in the City to earthquake induced landslides is summarized in Table H-8.

Table H-8
Population and Property Susceptible to Earthquake Induced to Landslides in Monterey Landslide Susceptibility Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High 417 21 $20,221,418 7 $0
Moderate 5,532 679 $498,743,525 576 $431,060,199
CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-10 ANNEX H
Additionally, approximately 24 miles of road are located in an area of moderate susceptibility to earthquake-induced landslides and about 2 miles of roadway is located in an area of high susceptibility.

H.5.12 TSUNAMI
Population and property in the City located in a mapped tsunami inundation zone is summarized in Table H-9. Additionally, 1 communication facility is located in the tsunami inundation zone.

Table H-9
Population and Property in Tsunami Inundation Zone in Monterey Inundation Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Tsunami Inundation Zone 1,716 268 $179,727,264 1,372 $656,228,802 H.5.13 UTILITY INTERRUPTION
All residents, visitors, and property in the City is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruptions. All critical facilities and infrastructure in the City that is operated by electricity is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruption.

H.5.14 WILDFIRE
For purposes of this analysis CAL FIRE Fire Threat data was used. Fire Threat combines expected fire frequency with potential fire behavior to create 4 threat classes, extreme, very high, high, and moderate. Table H-10 summarizes population and property in the City in very high, high, and moderate fire threat areas. No portion of the City was determined to be in an area of extreme fire threat.

Additionally, areas of moderate wildfire threat include 4 medical facilities, 19 communication facilities, and 68 miles of roadway. Areas of high fire threat include 1 medical facility, 2 communication facilities and about 7 miles of roadway.

Table H-10
Population and Property Exposed to Wildfire Risk in Monterey CAL FIRE Wildfire Threat Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Very High Fire Threat 0 0 $0 0 $0
High Fire Threat 3,354 97 $166,594,741 608 $243,020,149 Moderate Fire Threat 14,427 1,593 $1,230,019,857 1438 $955,872,431 Areas in the City have also been mapped as located in Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) by CAL FIRE.

These zones are designated Very High or High Fire Hazard Severity based on factors such as fuel, slope, and fire weather. Areas designated as Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the City are mapped in Figure H-1.

Any future revisions or updates to the FHSZ maps will supersede current mapping. In Monterey, high fire hazard areas can be correlated with areas considered to be wildlands or areas with wildland type vegetation that are generally not intensely developed. High fire hazard areas generally contain forest and chaparral vegetation that is highly flammable, are of moderate to steep slope, and become extremely dry during the summer months. Forested areas are predominant, comprising nearly the entire high fire hazard area. Areas of special concern for wildfire risk include: the area behind the Del CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-11 ANNEX H
Monte Shopping Center, and the City’s greenbelts (Skyline Forest, Veterans Park, Monte Vista, Carmelo Street, Don Dahvee/Iris Canyon, Josselyn Canyon, Fisherman Flats, and the Old Capitol Site).

Figure H-1
Wildfire Severity Zones in Monterey

Source: City of Monterey General Plan
H.5.15 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The effects of climate change are varied and include warmer and more varied weather patterns and temperature changes. Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems in the City and will exacerbate the risk posed by many of the hazards previously profiled in this Plan.

Climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards.

Increasing temperatures and rising sea-levels will have direct impacts on public health and infrastructure. Drought, coastal and inland flooding, and wildfire will likely affect people’s livelihoods and the local economy. Changing weather patterns and more extreme conditions are likely to impact tourism and the rural economies, along with changes to agriculture and crops, which are a critical backbone of Monterey County’s economic success. There will also be negative impacts to ecosystems, both on land and in the ocean, leading to local extinctions, migrations, and management challenges.

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-12 ANNEX H
Sea level rise risk exposure in the City was calculated based on the NOAA Office for Coastal Management sea level rise viewer projections. Three sea level rise levels (25 cm, 75 cm, and 200 cm) were chosen to represent planning horizons based on OPC Sea Level Rise Projections for the Monterey Tide Gauge. 25 cm of sea level rise represents near term (2030) risk, 75 cm represent mid-term (2060) risk, and 200 cm represent long-term (2100) risk. Population and property exposed to sea level rise risk is summarized in Table H-11.

Table H-11
Population and Property Exposed to Sea Level Rise in Monterey Sea Level Rise Amount Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
1 ft Sea Level Rise (2030) 360 1 231 180 $171,982,465
3 ft Sea Level Rise (2060) 360 1 231 190 $239,444,154
7 ft Sea Level Rise (2100) 935 15 $13,417,594 447 $370,731,019 The City recently conducted a study of sea level rise impacts: City of Monterey: Adapting A Threatened Transportation Network to Sea Level Rise. Figure H-2 shows the regions determined to be at risk to sea level rise. The report also found that several critical transportation arterials are at risk to sea level rise.

Within a decade portions of Del Monte Avenue may be inundated by floodwaters during a 50-year event. By mid-century, regular tides will flood the Lighthouse Tunnel and reach Pearl Street where it crosses Lake El Estero; and large storm waves could reach as high as Cannery Row at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. By end of century, Fremont Street at Lake El Estero will be underwater.

Figure H-2
Coastal Flood-Prone Regions in Monterey

Source: City of Monterey: Adapting A Threatened Transportation Network to Sea Level Rise

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-13 ANNEX H
H.6 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The City of Monterey performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs, and policies that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table H-12 • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table H-13 • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table H-14 • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table H-15 • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table H-16 • A summary of participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is provided in Section H.6.1 in Table H-17
• An overall self-assessment of capability is presented in Section H.6.2 in Table H-18 Table H-12
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Planning Documents
General Plan ☒ • Community Development
Capital Improvement Plan ☒ • Public Works
Floodplain Management Plan ☐ • Community Development
Open Space Management Plan ☒ • Parks and Recreation
Fuel reduction and forest
management greatly reduce the
likelihood of fire and would lessen
intensity in the event of a fire.

Stormwater Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Storm Water ‘Guidance Document’
(Phase II Small MS4 SW Permit
Coverage Document)
Coastal or Shoreline
Management Plan ☒ • Community Development
The City has developed an analysis
of sea level rise vulnerability and is
currently working on drafting of
the LCP update.

Local Coastal Program ☐ • Community Development
In the near future, the City is
looking to update the City’s Local
Coastal Program and receive
certification from CCC.

Climate Action/ Adaptation
Plan ☒ • Community Development
• Sustainability
The City has a Climate Action Plan
(CAP) that identifies existing
activities that contribute to local
climate adaptation and priority
steps for adaptation planning. We
are looking to update the CAP in
the near future.

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-14 ANNEX H
Table H-12
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Emergency Operations Plan ☒ • Fire Department
Continuity of Operations Plan ☒ • Various Departments
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan ☐ • Fire Department CWPP is planned dependent on
funding.

Evacuation Plan ☒
• Fire Department
• Police Department
• City Manager’s Office
Monterey is participating in
development of countywide
Evacuation Plan.

Disaster Recovery Plan ☒ • Various Departments
Economic Development Plan ☐ • City Manager’s Office Economic Development efforts continue to be refined.

Historic Preservation Plan ☒
The City has a Historic Master Plan.

The City also has multiple
neighborhood-focused historic
context statements and
reconnaissance surveys.

Transportation Plan ☒ • Public Works
• Community Development
Update in progress. Move
Monterey Plan, Multimodal plan,
provides policies for enhanced
mobility options
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Floodplain Ordinance ☒ • Public Works
• Community Development
City Code, Chapter 9 Building
Regulations, Article 7 Flood
Damage Prevention
Zoning Ordinance ☒ • Community Development City of Monterey Code, Chapter 38 Subdivision Ordinance ☒ • Community Development City of Monterey Code, Chapter 33 Site Plan Review Requirements ☒ • Community Development The City has checklists for
applications that require site plan
completeness.

Unified Development
Ordinance ☐
Post-Disaster Redevelopment/
Reconstruction Ordinance ☐
California Building Code ☒ • Community Development
Monterey adopts and enforces the
most recent version of California
Building Codes and maintains a
fully staffed Building Division.

Fire Prevention Code ☒ • Fire Department
Monterey adopts and enforces
most recent version of California
Fire Code and maintains a fully
staffed Fire Department
CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-15 ANNEX H

Table H-13
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development
and land management practices
☒ • Community Development
• Public Works- Engineering
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
☒ • Community Development
• Public Works- Engineering

Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of manmade or
natural hazards
☒ • Community Development
• Public Works- Engineering
Building Inspector ☒ • Community Development
Emergency Manager ☒ • Fire Department
• City Manager’s Office
Role is shared collateral duty for
Fire Chief and Assistant City
Manager.

Floodplain Manager ☒ • Public Works
• Community Development
Per City Code, Chapter 9 Article 7,
Public Works Director is the
designated Floodplain
Administrator
Land Surveyors ☒ • Public Works-Engineering
Resource development staff or
grant writers ☒ • Community Development
• Public Works- Engineering
Planning and transportation
related grants
Public Information Officer ☒ • City Manager’s Office
Scientist(s) familiar with the
hazards of the community ☒ • Public Works-Engineering
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
☒ • Community Development
Personnel skilled in Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) ☒ • Information Resources Monterey uses ESRI software and works with all City departments
Maintenance programs to
reduce risk ☒ • Public Works
• Parks and Recreation
Monterey has programs in place
to maintain all city-owned
infrastructure.

Warning systems/services ☒
• Fire Department
• Police Department
• City Manager’s Office
Monterey uses the County
Everbridge notification system as
well as Nixle.

Mutual Aid Agreements ☒ • Fire Department
Monterey participates in the
Monterey County Fire Mutual Aid
Plan as well as the California Fire
Assistance Agreement.

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-16 ANNEX H

Table H-14
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
General Funds ☒ • Finance
Capital Improvements Project
Funding ☒ • Public Works-Engineering
Special Purpose Taxes ☒ • Public Works-Engineering
• Finance
Measure X Transportation Tax
Measure (TAMC), Measure S for
Roads, Storm Drains, Sewer
(Public Works)
Stormwater Utility Fees ☒ • Public Works-Engineering Monterey Code, Chapter 31.5 Article 1
Gas / Electric Utility Fees ☐
Water / Sewer Fees ☐
Development Impact Fees ☐
General Obligation Bonds ☐
Special Tax and Revenue Bonds ☒ • Finance
Measure G Sales Tax (2020),
Measure Y 2% Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase
(2020) increase to 12%
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) ☒ • Community Development The City of Monterey is a direct recipient of CDBG funding

Table H-15
Education and Outreach Capability
Educational and Outreach Resources Department Comments Local citizen or non-profit
groups focused on
environmental protection,
emergency preparedness,
access and functional needs
populations, etc.
☒ • Public Works-Engineering
Monterey Regional Storm Water
Management Program (Environ.

Protection)- Regularly coordinate
with the California Marine
Sanctuary Foundation, Save The
Whales, Ecology Action, and
others.

Ongoing public education or
information program (e.g.,
responsible water use, fire
safety, household preparedness,
environmental education)
☒ • Public Works-Engineering
• City Manager’s Office
Monterey Regional Storm Water
Management Program (Environ.

Education)- Monthly public
meetings, robust regional public
education/ outreach program.

City website, Mornings with the
Manager, Local Update
Community Emails, City Focus,
News Releases, etc.

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-17 ANNEX H
Table H-15
Education and Outreach Capability
Educational and Outreach Resources Department Comments Natural disaster or safety
related school programs ☐
Public-private partnership
initiatives addressing disaster-
related issues
☐

Table H-16
Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Effective Date
Community Rating System (CRS) No - -
ISO Public Protection Classification Yes 2 6/17/2015
StormReady Certification Yes -
TsunamiReady Certification Yes -
Firewise Communities Certification No - -

Political Capability
The Monterey City Council is supportive of hazard mitigation and long-term risk reduction projects. The City Council's mission is: "In partnership with our entire community, the Monterey City Council provides visionary leadership ensuring a safe, healthy, historic, economically vibrant, and sustainable environment." Hazard mitigation efforts support a safe and healthy environment in the City of Monterey.

H.6.1 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) COMPLIANCE Table H-17
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Designated Floodplain Administrator: Lori L Williamson, Chief Building Official NFIP Community Number: 060200
Flood Insurance Policies in Force: 58
Insurance Coverage in Force: $19,847,400
Written Premium in Force: $49,129
Total Loss Claims: 37
Total Payments for Losses: $2,654,717
Adopted Regulations that meet NFIP Requirements:
• City Code, Chapter 9 Building Regulations, Article 7 Flood Damage Prevention (Ordinance 3293; 06/2001)
Date of last NFIP Community Assistance Visit (CAV):

The City has a fairly new team that has been there for approximately 2 years. There has not been a CAV or CAC during that time.

Higher standards that exceed minimum NFIP requirement:

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-18 ANNEX H
Table H-17
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
City of Monterey standards meet NFIP minimum requirements.

Additional floodplain management provisions:

City of Monterey General Plan, Safety Element, includes the goals and policies under the topics of Flood Hazards and Emergency Preparedness related to flooding. Furthermore, Figure 13 of the General Plan shows Flood Zones. Some of the newer plans include flooding: Waterfront Master Plan (Goal C and Project C.4.d are related to flooding); See other Commercial, Neighborhood Plans, and Coastal Plans here. Additionally, the City of Monterey adopted a study titled, Adapting a Threatened Transportation Network to Sea Level Rise. See report and other details here.

Floodplain management activities performed that go beyond FEMA minimum requirements:

None identified.

Existing impediments to running an effective NFIP program:

The City has not encountered any impediments to running an effective NFIP program.

Specific actions that are ongoing or considered related to continued compliance with the NFIP:
• Maintain digital FEMA elevation certificates for all construction in the floodplain. • Evaluate current floodplain management activities and coordinate with Insurance Services Office, Inc. to apply for participation in FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS). • Establish a goal to have each plan reviewer and building inspector attend a related training periodically.
• Encourage or require certain local staff positions to obtain and maintain Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) certification.
• Maintain supplies of FEMA/NFIP materials to help property owners evaluate measures to reduce potential hazard damage. Make information available in public buildings, local library, website, etc. and inform people who they can call to learn more information.

H.6.2 SELF- ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY
Table H-18
Self-Assessment of Capability
Capability Degree of Capability
Planning and Regulatory Capability High
Administrative and Technical Capability High
Fiscal Capability High
Education and Outreach Capability High
Political Capability High
Overall Capability High
H.6.3 OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND/ IMPROVE MITIGATION CAPABILITIES Planning, regulatory, fiscal, administrative, technical, education, and outreach capabilities can all be expanded or improved using a combination of the following strategies:
• Increase capacity through staffing
• Training, and enhanced coordination among all department and jurisdictions CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-19 ANNEX H
• Emergency management/hazard specific program enhancements, training, and exercising • Increased funding opportunities and capacity
• Implementation of mitigation actions and projects
• Continuous research on grant opportunities for emergency management, hazard mitigation, and infrastructure and community development.

Capabilities and abilities to expand or improve existing policies and programs will be re-evaluated during the next Hazard Mitigation Plan update and annual plan review meetings.

H.6.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital improvement planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa. Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.

Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, the City made progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and actions into other planning initiatives.

The following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Capital Improvement Plan: The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate potential hazards. The City will strive to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future capital improvement plan. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk assessment. • Building Code: The City’s adoption of the 2016 California Building Code incorporated local modifications addressing seismic and fire hazards.
• Regulatory Codes: A number of the City’s existing codes and ordinances include provisions to reduce hazard risk including the zoning code, storm water management code and flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Adapting A Threatened Transportation Network to Sea Level Rise: Includes the principles of hazard mitigation to address sea level rise risk.
• Climate Action Plan: Highlights potential programs that could be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and discusses possible impacts of climate change.

Opportunities for Future Integration
The General Plan and the hazard mitigation plan are complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure. The General Plan is considered to be an integral part of this plan. An update to the General Plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. The City, through adoption of a General Plan and zoning ordinance, has planned for the impact of natural hazards. The process of updating this hazard mitigation plan provided the opportunity to review and CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-20 ANNEX H
expand on policies in these planning mechanisms. The City will create a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and the General Plan by identifying a mitigation action as such and giving that action a high priority. Other planning processes and programs that may be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
• General Plan, including the Safety Element
• Emergency Operations Plans
• Climate Action and Adaptation Plans
• Debris management plans
• Recovery plans
• Capital improvement programs
• Municipal codes
• Community design guidelines
• Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
• Stormwater management programs
• Water system vulnerability assessments
• Community wildfire protection plans
• Comprehensive flood hazard management plans
• Resiliency plans
• Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery action plans • Public information/education plans
Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be integrated via the update process.

H.7 PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Problem Statements are statements of particular interest regarding primary hazards of concern, geographic areas of concern, or vulnerable community assets. As part of the planning process, the City of Monterey Planning Committee identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concern applicable to their jurisdiction. The Hazard Problem Statements were based on the risk assessment, the vulnerability analysis, and local knowledge.

Hazard Problem Statements helped the Planning Committee identify common issues and weaknesses, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation. Hazard Problem Statements for the City of Monterey are identified below:
• The Monterey Tides Resort, the Del Monte Beach Condos, the La Playa Townhomes, and the Monterey Harbor are located in an area threatened by wave attack, coastal erosion, and coastal flooding. In particular the existing dock structures in the Harbor are highly vulnerable to future damages. Additionally, all waterfront businesses along Cannery Row are vulnerable to high wave action.

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-21 ANNEX H
• The Lighthouse Avenue tunnel has the potential to flood during heavy rainfall events despite having an extensive pumping, diversion, and collection system for stormwater drainage. Project funding is required to make the necessary upgrades and alleviate the need for sandbagging, etc. • The Monterey Interceptor pipeline, which transports all of the untreated sewage from the City of Monterey and Pacific Grove to Monterey One Water’s Regional Treatment Plant in Marina, is a critical facility deemed at risk to the long-term effects of coastal erosion and sea level rise, particularly between the Seaside Pump Station and Monterey Tides Resort. • In Monterey, several critical arteries are at risk to coastal flooding and sea level rise. Within a decade portions of Del Monte Avenue may be inundated by floodwaters during a 50-year event, requiring more adequate storm drainage capacity through future capital improvements/upgrades to existing systems. permanently. By mid-century, regular tides will flood the Lighthouse Tunnel and reach Pearl Street where it crosses Lake El Estero; and large storm waves could reach as high as Cannery Row at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. By the end of the century, Fremont Avenue at Lake El Estero will be underwater.
• Despite ongoing hazard mitigation projects, policies, and activities, the City remains very concerned about the high threat of wildland fire due to existing terrain, fuels, etc. in combination with large areas of urban/wildland interface and intermix. Areas of special concern include: the area behind the Del Monte Shopping Center, and the City’s greenbelts (Skyline Forest, Veterans Park, Monte Vista, Carmelo Street, Don Dahvee/ Iris Canyon, Josselyn Canyon, Fisherman Flats, and the Old Capitol Site). The City continues to address these areas through fuel management practices to the extent that available funds allow.
• The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2021
has ranked cyber threats among the leading
global risks. Cyber-attacks, primarily social engineering and ransomware are the fastest-growing cybercrime. The blurring line between digital and physical domains indicates the City will only be secure if we incorporate cybersecurity features, principles, training, and frameworks that span across all systems to protect against attackers that are silent, distributed, varied, and technically savvy.
• The City is vulnerable to significant tsunami run-up and strong currents following earthquake events.
• Several military facilities, which are important national defense assets, are located in the City of Monterey, including the US Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey (home to the Defense Language Institute), US Coast Guard Station Monterey, Naval Support Activity Monterey [(home to the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), Navy Research Lab (NRL), and the Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center (FNMOC). NPS is the largest producer of advanced graduate degrees for the Department of Defense and has thousands of annual graduates from all services and over 50 countries. These key military installations are all vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

H.8 MITIGATI ON GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS
The mitigation strategy is the guidebook to future hazard mitigation administration, capturing the key outcomes of the MJHMP planning process. The mitigation strategy is intended to reduce vulnerabilities outlined in the previous section with a prescription of policies and physical projects. These mitigation actions should be compatible with existing planning mechanisms and should outline specific roles and resources for implementation success.

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-22 ANNEX H
The City of Monterey Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Mitigation Strategy in Volume 1, which included a benefit-cost analysis and consideration of mitigation alternatives. Based upon the risk assessment results and the City’s planning committee priorities, a list of mitigation actions was developed. The Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix, in Table H-20 lists each priority mitigation action, identifies time frame, the responsible party, potential funding sources, and prioritization, which meet the requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

Status of Previous Plan Actions
All actions from the 2016 Plan were reviewed and updated by the City during the planning process.

Table H-19 includes the status of actions completed or removed from the previous plan. In order to improve the mitigation action plan for this Plan update and align with the countywide Mitigation Action Plan, the City added more specificity and detail to previous plan actions in addition to the new actions added to the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.

Table H-19
City of Monterey Completed Mitigation Actions from 2016 MJHMP 2016
Action # Description Status Narrative Update
1 Develop community Citizen Corps programs
that also include a mitigation component.
(New radio system, improvement in
neighborhood CERT supplies, continued
training)
Completed
The City implemented a new
radio system, improved
neighborhood CERT supplies,
and has continued training.
5 Complete TsunamiReady program Completed The City has been certified TsunamiReady.
6 Study and research possible Tsunami
warning/alerting system (giant voice, sirens) Completed The City considered options
for alerting as part of its
TsunamiReady certification.
7 Participate in Fire Safe Council Monterey
County.

Complete/
Continuous
The City participates in the
Fire Safe Council Monterey
County and will continue to
do so.

CITY OF MONTEREY Multi-J urisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | H-23 ANNEX H
H City of Monterey Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Table H-20
City of Monterey Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix
Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
1 Ongoing/
Continuous Wildfire
Continue to conduct current fuel management programs and investigate and apply new and emerging fuel management
techniques. (Fuel reduction programs for green belt and park areas)
Priority /
High
Parks &
Recreation
General
Fund, Grant
Funding
2 Ongoing/
Continuous Wildfire
Provide information to neighborhoods about the need for defensible space and enforcement of defensible space regulations through prevention division on identified parcels.

Moderate Fire

USFA, PDM
and HGMP
grants
3 Ongoing/
Continuous Tsunami Maintain TsunamiReady program certification. Moderate Public Works, Fire
General
Fund
4 New/ 2-5
years Wildfire Develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan in coordination with neighboring Jurisdictions. Moderate Fire General
Fund
5 In
Progress/
2-5 years
Earthquake,
Tsunami,
Flooding,
Sea Level
Rise
Develop an inventory of public, commercial, and private buildings, as well as maritime facilities and infrastructure, which may be vulnerable or at risk to earthquake damage, tsunami inundation and currents, stormwater flooding, and sea level rise. Additionally, collect, create, or update maps and /or data that depict historic and potential damage from the hazards listed above.

Moderate Public Works General
Fund
6 In
Progress/ 5
years
Climate
Change Prepare a climate adaptation plan. Low Community Development
General
Fund
7 Ongoing/
Continuous
Human-
Caused
Cyber Response Strategy Update - Use a comprehensive and layered cybersecurity strategy to reduce the risk associated with the growing remote workforce and cloud-hosted solutions.

Priority /
High
Information
Resources
General
Fund
8 New/ 2-5
years
Human-
Caused
Identify potential likely targets for terrorism threats and work with allied agencies to develop a coordinated response plan. Moderate Police Department
General
Fund
9 New Drought
Provide public information on water conservation and champion regional and local efforts to secure adequate, affordable, and sustainable water sources for the city, now and into the future.

Moderate City
Management
General
Fund

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

I
ANNEX I:

PACIFIC GROVE

2021 Monterey County
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-1 ANNEX I
I. CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
I.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact
Alyson Hunter, ACIP
Community Development Dept. Director
300 Forest Ave., 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
(831) 648-3127
[email protected]
Daniel Gho
Public Works Director
2100 Sunset Drive
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
(831) 648-5722 x4203
I.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
I.2.1 LOCATION

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-2 ANNEX I
I.2.2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
Pacific Grove is a small coastal city at the tip of the Monterey Peninsula, northwest of the City of Monterey, known for its beautiful scenery and unique architecture including many Victorian-style homes. The City borders the Monterey Bay, the City of Monterey, the Pacific Ocean, the Del Monte Forest, Pebble Beach, and the Army Presidio of Monterey. Pacific Grove enjoys a Mediterranean-like climate that is characterized by a winter rainy season and cool dry summers. Annual precipitation is approximately 20 inches per year.

I.2.3 HISTORY
Pacific Grove was founded in 1875 when David Jacks donated 100 acres of land to the Methodist Episcopal Church to establish a "Christian Seaside Resort." Through dubious means, Jacks, had acquired title to over 7,000 acres of land in this area--virtually the entire Peninsula. He loaned $30,000 to the Pacific Grove Retreat Association, which had formed during that first year, to lay out streets and make other improvements. In the early 1880s Jacks sold the Pacific Grove property and some adjoining land, to The Pacific Improvement Company, manned by the "Big Four," Crocker, Hopkins, Stanford, and Huntington, (the parent company of Del Monte Properties Company, now The Pebble Beach Company). The Retreat officials were concerned that they might lose strict moral control of the new community, but Jacks had protected them in the terms of the sale. They could still ban cards, dice, billiards, dancing, liquor, and on Sundays, swimming, and the sale of anything except medicine. The Retreat surrounded itself with a fence on three sides and kept its gate padlocked, separating itself from "disdainful" Monterey. For 10 years Pacific Grove maintained its character as a camp meeting ground occupied in summer.

When the Pacific Improvement Company opened the lavish Hotel Del Monte in 1880, floods of tourists arrived. When the hotel burned in 1887, the company started to rebuild immediately, but in the meanwhile constructed the El Carmelo Hotel in Pacific Grove on Lighthouse between Grand and Fountain Avenues. Many visitors returned to the town and built homes on the tiny lots, intended for tents, many of which still stand shoulder to shoulder. Two-story Victorian mansions began to appear.

Today over 500 homes have been approved by the Pacific Grove Heritage Society to wear green plaques showing the year they were built and their original owner.

The Pacific Improvement Company contributed $10,000 toward the construction of a new $25,000 church and allowed the community to share its water supply from the Carmel River. In 1889, the Southern Pacific Railroad extended service to the town. In the 1880s, Benjamin Langford, a state senator who had property in the town, became fed up with coming in the pedestrian gate and walking a mile to the retreat office for the gate key in order for a carriage to pass and opened the gate with an axe. Soon afterward the entire town fence came down. Among the organizations to choose the Pacific Grove Retreat for meetings were the Chautauqua movement, the YWCA, a Farmer's Institute, and a School of Music among others. The Asilomar Conference Grounds, now owned by the State, was originally a YWCA retreat. In 1889, with 1300 permanent residents and an area of one square mile, Pacific Grove was incorporated as a City. By 1910, three separate additions were made to the City.

I.2.4 POPULATION
The City of Pacific Grove has a population of 15,090 people, a marginal increase (0.3%) since 2010.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-3 ANNEX I
I.2.5 GOVERNING BODY FORMAT
P
acific Grove is a Charter city. The City Council consists of an elected Mayor holding a two-y ear term
and six Council Members elected at large for four
-y
ear staggered terms. The City Council appoints the
City Manager who is the administrative head of the municipal government.

I.2.6 ECONOMY

AND TAX BASE
The economy of this primarily residential community is based on tourism and local services, many of which are available in its historic downtown. The City is home to Asilomar State Beach, a narrow 1-mile stretch of sandy beach and rocky coves which provides public access to the shoreline and includes Asilomar Conference Grounds, a National Historic Landmark.

I.3 PLANNING PROCESS
The City of Pacific Grove followed the planning process explained in Volume 1 of the plan. In addition to providing representation on the Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Planning Steering Committee, the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. The City of Pacific Grove held a Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder meeting to discuss vulnerabilities, mitigation activities that had occurred since the last plan update, key problem statements, and mitigation strategies on May 5, 2021. Key stakeholders present at the meeting included:
• Alyson Hunter, Senior Planner
• Anastazia Aziz, Director Community Development
• Commander Dave Santos, Pacific Grove Police Department • Mohammed Khasimi, IT Director
• Daniel Gho, Public Works Director
I.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
The Pacific Grove General Plan was adopted in 1994. The City of Pacific Grove’s land use pattern is well established. The City’s total area is approximately 1,830 acres, excluding that portion of the City that extends into Monterey Bay and Pacific Ocean. The predominant land use in the City of Pacific Grove is residential (46%), and most of the residences are single -f
amily dwellings. Commercial/Professional land
uses account for approximately 5% of the land in the City. A small portion of the City along its south border is planned and zoned for industrial use. The City limits include a significant amount of land devoted to parks and natural areas (19%), including Pacific Grove Golf Course, Asilomar State Beach, and George Washington Park. 99% of the City’s coastline allows for public access. No significant agricultural areas exist in, or adjacent to, the City.

P
acific Grove is almost fully built out, with very little buildable vacant land remaining in the city. The land use issues in Pacific Grove, therefore, focus primarily on managing existing uses and infill, and potential intensification. The City prohibits new housing development on the seaward side of oceanfront streets, protecting unobstructed access and views for the public at large. The City’s coastal zone is 458 acres. The coastal zone includes numerous land use types, including residential and commercial development near its downtown core, as well as restored dune habitat located within Asilomar State Beach and to the north within the City’s limits. Pacific Grove’s Local Coastal Program CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-4 ANNEX I
Land Use Plan was first certified by the Coastal Commission in 1988. At the time, the second component of the LCP, the Implementation Plan, was never certified. In 2014, with grant funding from the Coastal Commission, Pacific Grove began an update of their LCP. The updated LCP was adopted by City Council on January 15, 2020 and certified by the Commission on March 11, 2020.

Safe Growth
The purpose of the Safe Growth Survey was to evaluate the extent to which each jurisdiction is positioned to grow safely relative to its natural hazards. The survey covered 9 distinct topic areas and was also completed as part of the previous plan update process. This allowed survey results to be compared to help measure progress over time and to continue identifying possible mitigation actions as it relates to future growth and community development practices.

This survey was a subjective exercise used to provide some quantitative measures of how adequately existing planning mechanisms were being used to address the notion of safe growth. Each topic area included a number of statements, which were answered on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the degree to which the respondent agreed or disagreed with the statement as it relates to the City’s current plans, policies, and programs for guiding future community growth and development. Scores for each topic area statement were averaged to provide a topic area result and the topic area totals were averaged to provide an overall survey score. More information on the survey is provided in Capability Assessment in Volume 1. The Pacific Grove Safe Growth Survey was completed by Alyson Hunter, Senior Planner at the time of completion, and current Community Development Department Director for the City of Pacific Grove. The results are summarized in Table I-1.

Table I-1
City of Pacific Grove Safe Growth Survey Results
Topic Area 2021 2016
Land Use 2.50 2.50
Transportation 1.67 2.33
Environmental Management 3.00 4.00
Public Safety 2.33 3.33
Zoning Ordinance 4.00 2.50
Subdivision Regulations 2.67 2.33
Capital Improvement Program & Infrastructure Policies 2.00 2.67 Building Code 4.00 5.00
Economic Development 2.00 2.00
Average Survey Ratings 2.69 2.96
I.5 JURISDICTION SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT
The intent of this section is to profile the City of Pacific Grove’s hazards and assess the City’s vulnerability distinct from that of the countywide planning area, which has already been assessed in Volume 1 of the plan. The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the County and describes the hazards, as well as their extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences, and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard vulnerability specific to the City of Pacific Grove is included in this Annex.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-5 ANNEX I
The City of Pacific Grove’s Planning Team used the same risk assessment process as the Monterey County Steering Committee. The City’s Planning Team used the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey to compare the impact of various hazards that could affect the City. Each variable was scored by hazard by the Planning Team on a scale from 1 to 4, or negligible/unlikely to extensive/highly likely/ catastrophic. The score for each variable was calculated using a weighted average of all survey responses. Scores were then added together to determine an overall hazard score between 1 and 16.

Each score was associated with a qualitative degree of risk ranking from Negligible (between 1 and 4) to Very High (between 14.1 and 16). The Survey is described in more detail in Risk Assessment Methods in Volume 1. Table I-2 displays the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise that was performed by the City of Pacific Grove’s Planning Team.

Table I-2
Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA): City of Pacific Grove Hazard Geographic
Extent
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Magnitude/
Severity Impact Total
Out of 16
Degree of
Risk
Agricultural Emergencies - - - - - -
Coastal Erosion 3.3 3.7 3.0 4.0 14.0 High
Coastal Flooding 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.7 12.7 High
Cyber-Attack 3.3 3.7 3.0 3.5 13.5 High
Dam Failure - - - - - -
Drought & Water Shortage 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 15.5 Very High Earthquake 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.0 12.0 Substantial
Epidemic 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 15.0 Very High
Extreme Cold & Freeze 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 8.5 Moderate
Extreme Heat 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 Possible
Flash Flood 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 Possible
Hazardous Materials Incident 2.5 2.0 2.5 3.3 10.3 Substantial Invasive Species 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 11.0 Substantial
Levee Failure - - - - - -
Localized Stormwater Flooding 2.3 2.7 2.3 3.0 10.3 Substantial Mass Migration 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 Possible
Pandemic 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 15.5 Very High
Riverine Flooding 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 8.5 Moderate
Sea Level Rise 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 13.5 High
Severe Winter Storms 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.7 13.3 High
Slope Failure 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 11.0 Substantial
Targeted Violence 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.7 9.7 Moderate
Terrorism 2.5 1.5 3.5 3.3 10.8 Substantial
Tsunami 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.3 12.3 High
Utility Interruption/ PSPS 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.3 13.3 High
Water Contamination 3.0 3.3 3.3 4.0 13.7 High
Wildfire 3.5 1.5 4.0 3.3 12.3 High
Windstorms 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.3 11.8 Substantial
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-6 ANNEX I
I.5.1 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
There is no agricultural land located within the City, so therefore an agricultural emergency does not pose a direct threat. Since agriculture is a major economic driver in the County, an agricultural emergency could have indirect economic impacts on the City.

I.5.2 COASTAL EROSION
To determine coastal erosion risk, USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center (Coastal Storm Modeling System) CoSMos shoreline change, and cliff retreat projection data was used. For cliff retreat modeling an end of century (2100) forced sea level rise amount of 200 cm was used based on Ocean Protection Council (OPC) High Risk Aversion Guidance. For shoreline change, winter erosion uncertainty modeling was used to capture the degree of uncertainty associated with future shoreline erosion. Hold the Line scenario modeling was chosen for both types of erosion. Three sea level rise levels (25 cm, 75 cm, and 200 cm) to represent planning horizons based on OPC Sea Level Rise Projections for the Monterey Tide Gauge. 25 cm of sea level rise represents near term (2030) risk, 75 cm represent mid-term (2060) risk, and 200 cm represent long-term (2100) risk.

Table I-3 summarizes population and property exposure to coastal erosion risk.

Table I-3
Population and Property Exposed to Coastal Erosion Risk in Pacific Grove Sea Level Rise Scenario/
Erosion Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Cliff Erosion
Sea Level Rise (25 cm) 84 3 $17,342,399 42 $9,083,758
Sea Level Rise (75 cm) 138 3 $17,342,399 44 $10,632,164 Sea Level Rise (200 cm) 252 16 $33,183,479 58 $26,607,577 Shoreline Erosion
Sea Level Rise (25 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Sea Level Rise (75 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Sea Level Rise (200 cm) 0 0 $0 0 $0
Pacific Grove’s shoreline is mostly dominated by exposed granitic rock that forms a relatively stable and durable barrier to protect shoreline development from the constant barrage of ocean waves.

Although wave activity can become intense during winter storms, the Pacific Grove shore has historically not retreated significantly. Sea level rise is expected to increase the susceptibility of Pacific Grove’s coastline to erosion, as higher sea levels will expose larger areas of the coast to more persistent erosional forces.

The City’s 2015 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, 2018 Shoreline Vulnerability Assessment ,
and 2020 Shoreline Management Plan identified a number of areas subject to erosion risk. Areas at risk to coastal erosion combined with sea level rise within Pacific Grove are shown in Figure I-1. The greatest increase in coastal erosion is expected to occur along the coastline along the Monterey Bay side of the Peninsula (Areas I through IV-B, in the map below). The main land use affected by coastal erosion in these areas will be residential. Other land uses expected to be affected include public parks CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-7 ANNEX I
an
d trails (including Lovers Point), Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove Golf Course, and commercial businesses along Ocean View Boulevard. In addition, the Monterey Interceptor pipeline, which transports all of the untreated sewage from the City to the Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant in Marina, is a critical facility deemed at risk to the long-t erm effects of coastal erosion and sea
level rise.

F
igure I-1
Coastal Erosion Hazard in Pacific Grove

Source: City of Pacific Grove Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (2015) I.5.3 DAM AND LEVEE FAILURE
Dam Failure
There is no population or property in the City located in a mapped dam inundation zone of any of the dams (Nacimiento, San Antonio, Los Padres, and Forest Lake) analyzed in this Plan.

Levee Failure
Based on the Leveed Area from the US Army Corps of Engineers, National Levee Database, there is no population or property in the City exposed to levee failure risk. Many levees in the County protect important agricultural lands and a significant levee failure could have an indirect economic impact.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-8 ANNEX I

I.5.4 DROUGHT AND WATER SHORTAGE
The entire population of the City is vulnerable to drought events. Drought can affect people’s health and safety, including health problems related to low water flows, poor water quality, or dust. Other possible impacts include recreational risks; effects on air quality; diminished living conditions related to energy, air quality, and hygiene; compromised food and nutrition; and increased incidence of illness and disease. Water shortages can affect access to safe, and relatively affordable water, with substantial impacts on low-income families and communities burdened with environmental pollution.

Water is already very expensive in the City, and therefore even small increases in prices could have a large effect on the population. Additionally, drought is likely to increase wildfire risk.

A prolonged drought could also cause economic impacts. Increased demand for water and electricity may result in shortages and higher costs of these resources. While economic impacts will be most significant on industries that use water or depend on water for their business, cascading economic effects can hurt many sectors of the economy. Agriculture, which will likely be impacted by drought conditions, is a major economic driver in the County, and the City could be impacted economically.

I.5.5 EARTHQUAKE
Although there are no mapped faults within the City, there are areas of liquefaction and erosion hazards. The entire population of the City is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impacted, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. Similarly, all property and critical infrastructure in the City is potentially exposed to earthquake risk.

According to Monterey County Assessor records, there are 6,561 residential and non-residential buildings in the City, with a total value of $3,986,813,668. Since all structures in the City are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this represents the property exposure to seismic events.

Additionally, liquefaction risk was assessed. Table I-4 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to liquefaction risk.

Table I-4
Population and Property Exposed to Liquefaction Risk in Pacific Grove Liquefaction Risk Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High Liquefaction Susceptibility 2,622 180 $195,836,698 154 $46,356,506 Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility 0 0 $0 0 $0

I.5.6 FLOODING
FEMA flood zones were used to assess flooding risk. Table I-5 summarizes population and property in the City in the 100-year and 500-year floodplain.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-9 ANNEX I
Table I-5
Population and Property Exposed to Flooding Risk in Pacific Grove FEMA Flood Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
100-Year Flood Zone 0 2 $10,524,893 36 $8,899,047
500-Year Flood Zone 0 0 $0 0 $0

The Hopkins Marine Station is located within an area that is prone to coastal flooding. Transportation routes in the City could be impacted by flooding. Much of Ocean View Boulevard/Sunset Drive between Esplanade Street and Asilomar Avenue is subject to coastal flooding. Although located outside of Pacific Grove, one especially critical transportation link that could be prone to flooding is the Del Monte Boulevard tunnel in Monterey, which provides one of two major access routes into the City.

I.5.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT
To assess hazardous materials incident risk, buffer distances were used. The chosen buffer distance was based on guidelines in the US Department of Transportation’s Emergency Response Guidebook that suggest distances useful to protect people from vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic if inhaled. The recommended buffer distance referred to in the guide as the “protective action distance” is the area surrounding the incident in which people are at risk of harmful exposure. For purposes of this plan, a buffer distance of one mile was used, but actual buffer distances will vary depending on the nature and quantity of the release, whether the release occurred during the night or daytime, and prevailing weather conditions.

To analyze the risk to a transportation-related hazardous materials release, a one-mile buffer was applied to highways in the US Dept of Transportation, National Transportation Atlas Database. The result is a two-mile buffer zone around each transportation corridor that is used for this analysis. Risk from a fixed facility hazardous materials release, was analyzed using a one-mile buffer was applied facilities identified in the Monterey County 2019 Hazardous Materials Plan. The result was a one-mile buffer zone around each facility.

There is no population or property in the City, based on the buffer distances that is exposed to a mobile or fixed hazardous materials incident.

I.5.8 HUMAN CAUSED HAZARDS
It is often quite difficult to quantify the potential losses from human-caused hazards. While facilities themselves have a tangible dollar value, loss from a human-caused hazard often inflicts an even greater toll on a community, both economically and emotionally. The impact to identified values will vary from event to event and depend on the type, location, and nature of a specific incident.

I.5.9 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
All citizens in the City could be susceptible to the human health hazards. A large outbreak or epidemic, a pandemic or a use of biological agents as a weapon of mass destruction could have devastating effects on the population. While all of the population is at risk to the human health hazards, the young and the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and those with special needs are most CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-10 ANNEX I
vulnerable. The introduction of a disease such as influenza or the COVID-19 virus have impacted the whole population of the City, specifically vulnerable populations.

I.5.10 SEVERE WEATHER
All severe weather events profiled in this Plan have the potential to occur anywhere in the City.

Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, and people with life-threatening illnesses, Properties in poor condition or in high-risk locations may be susceptible to the most damage. All critical facilities in the City will likely be exposed to severe weather hazards.

The most common problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities and compromised access to roadways. Prolonged periods of extreme heat could result in power outages caused by increased demand for power for cooling.

The FEMA National Risk Index calculates annualized frequency, exposure and annual expected loss of building value and population to some severe weather hazards identified in this Plan. Based on zip code and census tract Countywide data was used to identify annualized frequency, exposure, and annual expected loss in the City from severe weather hazards. Though the entire City is considered vulnerable to these hazards, the FEMA data was used in this risk assessment to provide scale for the potential risk and impacts.

FEMA National Risk Index data from frequency and exposure to severe weather hazards is summarized in Table I-6.

Table I-6
Annualized Frequency and Exposure to Severe Weather Events in Pacific Grove Hail Strong Wind
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.19 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.03 Exposed Population 15,050 Exposed Population 15,050
Exposed Building Values $2,193,292,000 Exposed Building Values $2,193,292,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $708
Heat Wave Tornado
Frequency (Event-Days) 0.08 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.88 Exposed Population 15,050 Exposed Population 13,648
Exposed Building Values $2,193,291,997 Exposed Building Values $1,985,240,194 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $1 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $34,301,461
Lightning Winter Weather
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.50 Frequency (Event-Days) 0.00 Exposed Population 15,050 Exposed Population 0
Exposed Building Values $2,193,292,000 Exposed Building Values $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $482 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0
Source: FEMA National Risk Index

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-11 ANNEX I
The main risk associated with severe weather in Pacific Grove is coastal storm flooding and wave run- up. Increases in the occurrence and intensity of severe storm events is a direct impact of climate change that has the potential to expose development and infrastructure to severe damage. This is of significant concern in Pacific Grove because, combined with sea level rise, intense storms pose one of the most significant climate change threats to the City.

I.5.11 SLOPE FAILURE
Based on the FEMA National Risk Index, 2,370 people and $385,194,695 in property value in the City is exposed to landslide risk. The City is not susceptible earthquake induced to landslides.

I.5.12 TSUNAMI
Population and property in the City located in a mapped tsunami inundation zone is summarized in Table I-7.

Table I-7
Population and Property in Tsunami Inundation Zone in Pacific Grove Inundation Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Tsunami Inundation Zone 421 84 $168,639,771 69 $43,593,616

In Pacific Grove, a major concern is the impact a tsunami could have on utilities. A tsunami could impact the water lines along Ocean View Boulevard and wastewater infrastructure. Seven of the City’s wastewater pump stations could be inundated by coastal flooding. If flooding causes the pumps to fail, the wastewater system would backup behind the pump station, with potentially serious health consequences, e.g., possible illicit discharges caused by overflows. In an extreme situation, a tsunami could damage a pump station and result in spillage of wastewater, which would have citywide impacts.

I.5.13 UTILITY INTERRUPTION
All residents, visitors, and property in the City are exposed and vulnerable to utility interruptions. All critical facilities and infrastructure in the City that are operated by electricity are exposed and vulnerable to utility interruption. Widespread power outages are a concern for the City following major winter storms, mostly caused by downed trees.

I.5.14 WILDFIRE
For the purpose of this analysis, CAL FIRE Fire Threat data was used. Fire Threat combines expected fire frequency with potential fire behavior to create four threat classes, extreme, very high, high, and moderate. No portion of the City was determined to be in an area of extreme fire threat.

Table I-8 summarizes population and property in the City in very high, high, and moderate fire threat areas.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-12 ANNEX I
Table I-8
Population and Property Exposed to Wildfire Risk in Pacific Grove CAL FIRE Wildfire Threat Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Very High Fire Threat 0 0 $0 0 $0
High Fire Threat 84 21 $48,540,893 12 $15,975,413
Moderate Fire Threat 7,145 1,026 $799,624,068 350 $110,840,221 Some areas in the City are also designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) by CAL FIRE, as mapped in Figure I-2. In Pacific Grove, areas with the highest risk of wildfire are located in the inland central portion of the City where neighborhoods are more forested and contain a higher density of mature trees. Risk of wildfire decreases as distance from the more forested central area of the City increases.

Figure I-2
Wildfire Severity Zones in Pacific Grove

Source: City of Pacific Grove Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (2015)

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-13 ANNEX I
I.5.15 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The effects of climate change are varied and include warmer and more varied weather patterns and temperature changes. Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems in the City and will exacerbate the risk posed by many of the hazards previously profiled in this Plan.

Climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards.

Increasing temperatures and rising sea-levels will have direct impacts on public health and infrastructure.

Drought, coastal and inland flooding, and wildfire will likely affect people’s livelihoods and the local economy. Changing weather patterns and more extreme conditions are likely to impact tourism and the rural economies, along with changes to agriculture and crops, which are a critical backbone of Monterey County’s economic success. There will also be negative impacts to ecosystems, both on land and in the ocean, leading to local extinctions, migrations, and management challenges.

Sea level rise risk exposure in the City was calculated based on the NOAA Office for Coastal Management sea level rise viewer
projections. Three sea level rise levels (25 cm, 75 cm, and 200 cm) were chosen to represent planning horizons based on OPC Sea Level Rise Projections for the Monterey Tide Gauge. 25 cm of sea level rise represents near term (2030) risk, 75 cm represent mid-term (2060) risk, and 200 cm represent long-term (2100) risk.

Population and property exposed to sea level rise risk is summarized in Table I-9.

Table I-9
Population and Property Exposed to Sea Level Rise in Pacific Grove Sea Level Rise Amount Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
1 ft Sea Level Rise (2030) 0 1 $9,505,821 32 $8,899,047 3 ft Sea Level Rise (2060) 0 1 $9,505,821 35 $38,894,623 7 ft Sea Level Rise (2100) 0 2 $10,524,893 37 $38,894,623 The City’s 2015 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, 2018 Shoreline Vulnerability Assessment, and 2020 Shoreline Management Plan identified areas vulnerable to sea level rise risk. Figure I-3 identifies the potential extent of flooding due to sea level rise combined with a 100-year flood event.

The greatest increase in coastal flooding is expected to occur near Point Pinos and Otter Point, with notable increases at Lovers Point. No structures located within the mapped hazard areas that would experience inundation from sea level rise alone. Two factors account for this: first, the base elevation of developed areas in Pacific Grove is sufficiently high, due to the bluffs along the shoreline; secondly, relatively few structures are located immediately adjacent to the shoreline. However, when the effects of sea level rise and coastal flooding from storms are combined, about 75 houses in the Otter Point area would be subject to flooding. In the Lovers Point area, land uses affected would be mostly Lovers Point Park and nearby commercial businesses. Near Asilomar State Beach, development density is low and coastal flooding would have minimal effect on development.

Infrastructure including roads and water infrastructure could be impacted by sea level rise. Of major concern is the City’s significant wastewater infrastructure potentially at risk under combined sea level CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-14 ANNEX I
rise and coastal storm flooding. Seven of the City’s wastewater pump stations could be inundated by coastal flooding. If flooding causes the pumps to fail, the wastewater system would backup behind the pump station, with potentially serious health consequences. In an extreme situation, storm surges could damage a pump station and result in spillage of wastewater.

Figure I-3
Potential Sea Level Rise and Flooding in Pacific Grove

Source: City of Pacific Grove Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (2015) I.6 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The City of Pacific Grove performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs, and policies that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table I-10 • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table I-11 • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table I-12

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-15 ANNEX I
• An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table 1-13 • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 1-14 • A summary of participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is provided in Section I.6.1 in Table I-15
• An overall self-assessment of capability is presented in Section I.6.2 in Table I-16 Table I-10
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Planning Documents
General Plan ☒ • Community Development Includes Safety Element Capital Improvement Plan ☒ • Public Works Approved Annually through the budget process
Floodplain Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
• Community Development
Open Space Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Parks & Rec and Natural
Resources Elements in the General
Plan
Stormwater Management Plan ☒ • Public Works Storm Water Permit and Regional Effort
Shoreline Management Plan ☒ • Public Works
Local Coastal Program ☒ • Community Development Certified March 11, 2020 Climate Action/ Adaptation Plan ☒ • Community Development • Public Works
Shoreline Management Plan and
LCP
Emergency Operations Plan ☒
• City Manager
• Fire Department
• Police Department

Continuity of Operations Plan ☐ • Police Department There is interest in preparing one Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP) ☐ • Fire Department Effort underway to get this plan developed, no timeline as of yet
Evacuation Plan ☐ • Fire Department
• Police Department
County OES working on this plan
and PG is included
Disaster Recovery Plan ☐ • IT
The City is working on a disaster
recovery policy for continuation of
tech infrastructure systems
following a disaster
Economic Development Plan ☒ • City Manager
• Administrative Services
Historic Preservation Plan ☒ • Community Development HRI Update underway Transportation Plan ☒ • Public Works
• Community Development Chapter 4 of the General Plan
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Floodplain Ordinance ☒ • Public Works Pacific Grove Municipal Code 11.97 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-16 ANNEX I
Table I-10
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Zoning Ordinance ☒ • Community Development Pacific Grove Municipal Code Title 23 Subdivision Ordinance ☒ • Community Development Pacific Grove Municipal Code Title 24 Site Plan Review Requirements ☒ • Community Development Ad-Hoc Committee review required for certain development projects
Unified Development Ordinance ☒ • City Manager Pacific Grove Municipal Code 1.19 Post-Disaster Redevelopment/
Reconstruction Ordinance ☒ • Community Development
Pacific Grove Municipal Code Title
23- addresses destroyed
buildings
Building Code ☒ • Community Development Pacific Grove Municipal Code 18.04 Fire Prevention Code ☒ • Fire Department Pacific Grove Municipal Code 18.32

Table I-11
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development
and land management practices
☒ • Community Development
• Public Works
Planners on staff with this
knowledge, City contracts with a civil
engineer for general engineering
assistance
Engineer(s) or professional(s)
trained in construction practices
related to buildings and/or
infrastructure
☒ • Community Development
City contracts with 4Leaf for building
inspection, plan check, and
additional engineering services
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of manmade or
natural hazards
☒ • Community Development
Planners on staff with this
knowledge, City contracts with a civil
engineer for general engineering
assistance
Building Inspector ☒ • Community Development
City contracts with 4Leaf for building
inspection, plan check, and
additional engineering services
Emergency Manager ☒ • Police Department
Floodplain Manager ☒ • Community Development
Land Surveyors ☐ Contract as needed
Resource development staff or
grant writers ☒
• Admin Services
• Public Works
• Police Department

Public Information Officer ☒ • Police Department Media Contacts, Website, City & Police Social Media platforms.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-17 ANNEX I
Table I-11
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Scientist(s) familiar with the
hazards of the community ☐ Contract as needed
Staff with education or expertise
to assess the community’s
vulnerability to hazards
☒
• Community Development
• Public Works
• Fire Department
• Police Department

Personnel skilled in Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) ☒ • IT/ Contract
Council is considering an IT Master
Plan, which includes training of staff.

Currently using contract services.

Maintenance programs to reduce
risk ☒ • Public Works Contract Arborist
Warning systems/services ☒ • Monterey County
• Police Department AlertMonterey, Social Media Alerts Mutual Aid Agreements ☒ • Police Department
• Fire Department
Mutual Aid Agreements with Fire &
Law Enforcement Agencies

Table I-12
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
General Funds ☒ • Finance City has a reserve policy, which includes funds for emergencies
Capital Improvements Project
Funding ☒ • Public Works
• Finance
Special Purpose Taxes ☒ • City Council
• Finance
The City could place an initiative on
the ballot for a special purpose tax
Stormwater Utility Fees ☐
Gas / Electric Utility Fees ☐
Water / Sewer Fees ☒ • Public Works
• Finance
The sewer fund balance could be
used to mitigate any damage to the
City’s sewer infrastructure
Development Impact Fees ☒ TAMC
General Obligation Bonds ☒ • Finance The City is eligible to issue General Obligation Bonds.

Special Tax and Revenue Bonds ☒ • City Council
• Finance
The City could place an initiative on
the ballot for a special tax. The City’s
current local tax is a general tax and
could be used for hazard mitigation
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) ☒ • Community Development CDD manages existing CDBG program funds
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-18 ANNEX I

Table I-13
Education and Outreach Capability
Educational and Outreach Resources Department Comments Local citizen or non-profit groups
focused on environmental
protection, emergency
preparedness, access and functional
needs populations, etc.
☒
• Human Resources
• Police Department
• Fire Department
City Volunteer Programs,
CERT, PGPD Citizens Academy
Alumni
Ongoing public education or
information program (e.g.,
responsible water use, fire safety,
household preparedness,
environmental education)
☒ • Police Department
• Fire Department
Utilize Social Media outlets
and community events to
share emergency
preparedness information
Natural disaster or safety related
school programs ☐
Public-private partnership initiatives
addressing disaster-related issues ☒ • Public Works

Table I-14
Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Effective Date
Community Rating System (CRS) No - -
ISO Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 3
ISO Public Protection Classification Yes 2
StormReady Certification Yes - -
TsunamiReady Certification Yes - -
Firewise Communities Certification No - -
I.6.1 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) COMPLIANCE Table I-15
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Designated Floodplain Administrator: Alyson Hunter, Director, Community Development NFIP Community Number: 060201
Flood Insurance Policies in Force: 35
Insurance Coverage in Force: $11,144,000
Written Premium in Force: $14,846
Total Loss Claims: 1
Total Payments for Losses: $6,784
Adopted Regulations that meet NFIP Requirements:
• Pacific Grove Community Floodplain Management Municipal Code Chapter 11.97 [Ord. 09-006 § 2, 2009]
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-19 ANNEX I
Table I-15
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Date of last NFIP Community Assistance Visit (CAV):

The City was visited by DWR staff on May 3, 2018. The result of the visit was the identification of new development within the SFHA (886 Cannery Row, aka, the Monterey Bay Aquarium). The DWR advised that a Substantial Improvement (SI) document be prepared to address this issue. This was resolved in June 2018. The second issue identified by the DWR during the CAV pertains to updating the City's Community Floodplain Management Ordinance (PGMC 11.97) to be in compliance with Title 44, CFR, Sec. 60.3 and reflect the current CA Model Floodplain Ordinance dated December 2006. The City adopted Ordinance 09-006 in 2009 to bring this chapter up to date.

Higher standards that exceed minimum NFIP requirement:

Although these may occur on a case-by-case basis, the City has not adopted "higher standards" that exceed NFIP minimum requirements. The City adopted a Substantial Improvement (SI) in a Special Hazard Flood Area (SHFA) procedure in 2018 to identify whether a property is within a designated SHFA and what sections need to be followed to be in compliance with FEMA regulations. The SI was prepared for the one area of the City's shoreline located in Flood Zone VE (FIRM Map Panel 06053C0307H (Revised June 21, 2017). There are no other developments within the VE zone.

Additional floodplain management provisions:

The City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) certified in March 2020 has coastal hazards policies to help ensure that new development and redevelopment is sited and designed to be safe from coastal hazards. The City’s Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) will be used to guide the management and maintenance of public infrastructure in the coastal zone.

Floodplain management activities performed that go beyond FEMA minimum requirements:

The City conducted a robust public outreach effort as part of the preparation of the SMP. These efforts included an online survey, an open house, and public workshops that highlighted the flood-related hazards along the coastline.

Existing impediments to running an effective NFIP program:

The City lacks operational capacity which results in impediments to running an effective NFIP program.

Specific actions that are ongoing or considered related to continued compliance with the NFIP:
• The City evaluates permit application forms to determine possible modifications focused on flood hazard prevention on an ongoing basis.
• The City maintains a map of areas that flood frequently and are subject to coastal hazards (Shoreline Management Plan). The City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) certified in March 2020 has coastal hazards policies to help ensure that new development and redevelopment is sited and designed to be safe from coastal hazards.
• The City will participate in local training efforts on floodplain management, the importance of participating in the NFIP, and the implications of failing to enforce the requirements of the program or failing to properly handle variance requests. • The City’s Building Official is trained on FEMA’s Substantial Damage Estimator and is interested in pursuing additional training.
• The City provides free sandbag supplies to the public during winter months.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-20 ANNEX I
I.6.2 SELF- ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY
Table I-16
Self-Assessment of Capability
Capability Degree of Capability
Planning and Regulatory Capability High
Administrative and Technical Capability High
Fiscal Capability Moderate
Education and Outreach Capability High
Political Capability Moderate
Overall Capability High
I.6.3 OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND/ IMPROVE MITIGATION CAPABILITIES Planning, regulatory, fiscal, administrative, technical, education, and outreach capabilities can all be expanded or improved using a combination of the following strategies:
• Increase capacity through staffing
• Training, and enhanced coordination among all department and jurisdictions • Emergency management/hazard specific program enhancements, training, and exercising • Increased funding opportunities and capacity
• Implementation of mitigation actions and projects
• Continuous research on grant opportunities for emergency management, hazard mitigation, and infrastructure and community development.

Capabilities and abilities to expand or improve existing policies and programs will be re-evaluated during the next Hazard Mitigation Plan update and annual plan review meetings.

I.6.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital improvement planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa. Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.

Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, the City made progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and actions into other planning initiatives.

The following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Capital Improvement Plan: The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate potential hazards. The City will strive to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future capital improvement plan. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-21 ANNEX I
possible funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk assessment. • Building Code: The City’s adoption of the 2016 California Building Code incorporated local modifications addressing seismic and fire hazards.
• Regulatory Codes: A number of the City’s existing codes and ordinances include provisions to reduce hazard risk including the zoning code, storm water management code and flood damage prevention ordinance.
• Local Coastal Program: The City’s updated Local Coastal Program was certified by the California Coastal Commission on March 11, 2020. It includes polices to reduce the risk of sea level rise, coastal flooding, and coastal erosion.
• 2015 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment: Identifies hazard vulnerability related to climate change.
• 2018 Shoreline Vulnerability Assessment: Assess the risk and vulnerability of the Pacific Grove shoreline to a variety of hazards.
• 2020 Shoreline Management Plan: Identifies Strategies to reduce the risk posed by a variety of hazards to the Pacific Grove shoreline.

Opportunities for Future Integration
The General Plan and the hazard mitigation plan are complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure. The General Plan is considered to be an integral part of this plan. An update to the General Plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. The City, through adoption of a General Plan and zoning ordinance, has planned for the impact of natural hazards. The process of updating this hazard mitigation plan provided the opportunity to review and expand on policies in these planning mechanisms. The City will create a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and the General Plan by identifying a mitigation action as such and giving that action a high priority. Other planning processes and programs that may be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
• General Plan, including the Safety Element
• Emergency Operations Plans
• Climate Action and Adaptation Plans
• Debris management plans
• Recovery plans
• Capital improvement programs
• Municipal codes
• Community design guidelines
• Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
• Stormwater management programs
• Water system vulnerability assessments
• Community wildfire protection plans
• Comprehensive flood hazard management plans
• Resiliency plans
• Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery action plans CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-22 ANNEX I
• Public information/education plans
Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be integrated via the update process.

I.7 PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Problem Statements are statements of particular interest regarding primary hazards of concern, geographic areas of concern, or vulnerable community assets. As part of the planning process, the City of Pacific Grove Planning Committee identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concern applicable to their jurisdiction. The Hazard Problem Statements were based on the risk assessment, the vulnerability analysis, and local knowledge.

Hazard Problem Statements helped the Planning Committee identify common issues and weaknesses, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation. Hazard Problem Statements for the City of Pacific Grove are identified below:
• The City is concerned with limited ingress/egress to the community following major disaster events and continues to review and update designated evacuation routes through its emergency operations plan (currently being updated). A related concern is the narrow design of many city streets, which will make mobility and evacuation difficult during major events. • The Monterey Interceptor pipeline, which transports all of the untreated sewage from the City of Monterey and Pacific Grove to the MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant in Marina, is a critical facility deemed at risk to the long-term effects of coastal erosion and sea level rise, particularly between the Seaside Pump Station and Monterey Beach Resort.
• The public water supply is deemed a critical local issue for the city (and entire peninsula), particularly with regard to the supply available during future major fires. The City has seen hydrant pressure drops during past events.
• City staff asserts that the wildland fire hazard area for their jurisdiction is more expansive than previously mapped through FRAS and shown in the current plan. There are significant numbers of dead or dying trees in the heavily forested “Retreat” and park areas, which leads to higher risks, especially when combined with the fact that most surrounding residential construction is wood frame with Class C roofs (more combustible/ flammable). • Widespread power outages are a concern for the City following major winter storms. • The City relies solely on commercial internet service providers such as Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon for its communication network infrastructure. Connections from these providers is unreliable. The City should have access to a more reliable municipal broadband connection. • The City is concerned about public health outbreaks, particularly with the recent events of COVID- 19, for our significant at-risk population groups of both seniors and children. In addition, the City heavily relies on revenue sources related to tourism and additional closures could have detrimental impacts on local economic recovery, our small business community, and funding for basic City services.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-23 ANNEX I
I.8 MITIGATION GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS
The mitigation strategy is the guidebook to future hazard mitigation administration, capturing the key outcomes of the MJHMP planning process. The mitigation strategy is intended to reduce vulnerabilities outlined in the previous section with a prescription of policies and physical projects. These mitigation actions should be compatible with existing planning mechanisms and should outline specific roles and resources for implementation success.

The City of Pacific Grove Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Mitigation Strategy in Volume 1, which included a benefit-cost analysis and consideration of mitigation alternatives. Based upon the risk assessment results and the City’s planning committee priorities, a list of mitigation actions was developed. The Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix, in Table I-18 lists each priority mitigation action, identifies time frame, the responsible party, potential funding sources, and prioritization, which meet the requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

Status of Previous Plan Actions
All actions from the 2016 Plan were reviewed and updated by the City during the planning process.

Table I-17 includes the status of actions completed or removed from the previous plan. In order to improve the mitigation action plan for this Plan update and align with the countywide Mitigation Action Plan, the City added more specificity and detail to previous plan actions in addition to the new actions added to the Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix.

Table I-17
City of Pacific Grove Completed Mitigation Actions from 2016 MJHMP 2016
Action # Description Status Narrative Update
8 Adopt a Local Coastal Plan with the
implementation of dune protection,
stabilization, and nourishment to
provide floodplain protection in the
coastal areas. Additionally, wildlife
safety should be linked with other
environmental strategies throughout
the Local Coastal Plan.

Completed
The City’s updated Local
Coastal Program was certified
by the California Coastal
Commission on March 11,
2020.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-24 ANNEX I
I City of Pacific Grove Hazard Mitigation Action Plan
Table I-18
City of Pacific Grove Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
1 Ongoing/
Continuous All
Develop a sustained public outreach program that
encourages consistent hazard mitigation content and
improves public awareness and knowledge regarding all types of hazards, preparedness, and mitigation measures.

Additionally, develop audience-specific hazard mitigation outreach efforts. Audiences include the elderly, children, tourists, non-English speaking residents, and home and
business owners.

Priority /
High
Disaster
Planning,
Community
Development,
Fire, CERT
General
Funds,
HMGP, and
PDM Grants
2 Ongoing/
Continuous Earthquakes
Develop an unreinforced masonry grant program that helps correct earthquake-risk nonmasonry building problems,
including chimney bracing and anchoring water heaters.

Additionally, ensure proper training on seismic codes for all buildings inspectors and encourage measures to reduce
earthquake damage risk.

Moderate
Community
Development,
Building
Division
General
Funds
3 Ongoing/
Continuous
Tsunami,
Winter Storms
Participate in the NOAA National Weather Service
TsunamiReady and StormReady Programs.

Priority /
High
Disaster
Planning
General
Funds
4 Ongoing/
Continuous Tsunami Maintain emergency vehicles with tsunami warning sirens and inform the public about the tsunami warning siren.

Moderate
Disaster
Planning, Police
Department
General
Funds
5 In Progress/
2-Years Wildfire Develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan and implement recommended strategies.

Priority /
High Fire Prevention
General
Funds,
Grant Funds
6 In Progress/
5-Years
Coastal
Erosion,
Flooding, Sea
Level Rise
Implement Local Coastal Plan policies related to hazard mitigation.

Moderate Community
Development
General
Funds,
Grant Funds
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE | I-25 ANNEX I
Table I-18
City of Pacific Grove Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix Action
#
Status/
Timeframe
Applicable
Hazard(s) Description Ranking /
Prioritization
Administering
Department
Potential
Funding
7 In Progress/
2-Years
Coastal
Erosion,
Flooding
Complete the Point Pinos Trail Project, which will remove the trail and beach parking out of the 30-year flood zone.

High Public Works
General
Funds,
Grant Funds
8 Ongoing/
Continuous
Flooding, Sea
Level Rise,
Drought
Establish watershed-based planning to address flood hazards, sea level rise potentials and stormwater runoff problems and encourage techniques to reduces rainwater runoff, which can prevent flooding and erosion. Specifically, encourage major land alteration projects to include the use of pervious surfaces and rainwater collection technology.

High Community
Development
General
Funds,
Grant
Funds,
9 In Progress/
5-Years
Flooding, Sea
Level Rise,
Tsunami,
Coastal
Erosion,
Wildfire, Dam
Failure
Obtain and implement a GIS Master Plan. Use GIS to regularly calculate and document vulnerable areas such as: flood- prone areas, sea level rise, tsunami inundation zones, coastal erosion zones, wildland fire areas, and areas affected by dam failure. This information shall be used to create an inventory of especially vulnerable zones, buildings, properties, and infrastructure. Additionally, use GIS as a tool to inform the public on hazard risk.

Moderate
Public Works,
Community
Development,
IT
General
Funds
10 New/ 5-
Years All
Increase the resiliency of the communication system by
creating redundancy so disruption to the system is minimized during and following disasters and to ensure continuity of government functions.

High IT
General
Funds,
Grant Funds
11 New/ In
Progress All
Continue to coordinate with the Navy, the City of Monterey, the Presidio of Monterey, and Naval Support Activity
Monterey on the Compatible Use Study, which looks at ways the military can better communicate and respond to
hazardous situations in concert with neighboring
municipalities.

Moderate Community
Development
General
Funds

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

J
ANNEX J:

CITY OF SALINAS

2021 Monterey County
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-1 ANNEX J
J. CITY OF SALINAS
J.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT
Primary Point of Contact
Skylar Thornton
Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal
Salinas Fire Department
65 W Alisal Street., Ste 210
Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 758-7422
[email protected]

J.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
J.2.1 LOCATION

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-2 ANNEX J
J.2.2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
The City of Salinas is the County seat and largest city in Monterey County and on California’s Central Coast. Located at the northern opening of the Salinas Valley, it is situated ten miles west of Monterey Bay and the Pacific Ocean, approximately mid-way between Santa Cruz and the Monterey Peninsula.

The City encompasses an area of 37.9 square miles at an elevation of approximately 52 feet above sea level. Salinas’ weather is influenced by its proximity to Monterey Bay. The morning fog is generally cleared by afternoon breezes. Salinas enjoys a mild climate with an average high of 68°F and low of 46°F and annual rainfall of 15.47 inches.

J.2.3 HISTORY
Salinas' earliest inhabitants were small tribes of Native Americans who were largely undisturbed during the Spanish era. It was not until Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1822 that outside settlers began to arrive in Salinas. Named for a nearby salt marsh, Salinas became the seat of Monterey County in 1872 and incorporated in 1874.

In the mid-1800s, Salinas' agricultural industry began to grow. In 1867, several local businessmen laid- out a town plan and enticed the Southern Pacific Railroad to build its tracks through Salinas City.

Agriculture continued as the area's major industry and by the end of World War I, the "green gold" growing in the fields helped make Salinas one of the wealthiest cities (per capita) in the United States.

During the growing seasons of the Great Depression, the volume of telephone and telegraph transmissions originating in Salinas was greater than that of San Francisco. This activity was reflected in a burst of building construction, many employing the streamlined shapes and organic patterns of Art Deco or Art Moderne.

J.2.4 POPULATION
The population of the City of Salinas is 163,542 people (2020 Census), an 8.7% increase since 2010.

Salinas is the largest city in Monterey County. More than one in three County residents lives in Salinas.

J.2.5 GOVERNING BODY FORMAT
T
he City of Salinas is organized under the Council-Manager form of government. The City Council is composed of six Council Members who are elected by district for four -y
ear terms, and a Mayor elected
at large for a two-y
ear term. The City Manager, who is appointed by City Council, is responsible for all City departments except the appointed City Attorney. The City Council legislates policies, enacts ordinances, approves the budget, and appoints advisory boards and commissions.

J.2.6 ECONOMY

AND TAX BASE
The City of Salinas is the County’s center for agricultural activity and the headquarters to many large growing and shipping companies. Although agriculture forms the primary economic base, more than 100 manufacturing firms are also located in the city. Some of the largest employers in the area include Taylor Farms, Ramco, the County of Monterey, and Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital. The City has a large suburban community, which consists mostly of late 20th century single family residences, ranging from modest bungalows to spacious homes. The city’s historic Main Street has undergone recent revitalization and boasts an emerging arts scene
CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-3 ANNEX J
J.3 PLANNING PROCESS
The City of Salinas followed the planning process explained in Volume 1 of the plan. In addition to providing representation on the Monterey County Hazard Mitigation Planning Steering Committee, the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process.

The City of Salinas held a Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder meeting to discuss vulnerabilities, mitigation activities that had occurred since the last plan update, key problem statements, and mitigation strategies on July 13, 2021. Key stakeholders present at the meeting included:
• Steve Carrigan, City Manager
• Samuel Klemek, Deputy Fire Chief
• Skylar Thornton, Battalion Chief/ Fire Marshal
• David Jacobs, Public Works Director
• Jim Pia, Assistant City Manager
• Marina Horta-Gallegos, HR Director
• Adriana Robles, City Engineer
• Michele Vaughn, Fire Chief
• Courtney Grossman Planning Manager
• Andrew Myrick, Senior Economic Development Manager
• John C. Murray, Police Commander
• Chris Callihan, City Attorney
• Roberto Filice, Acting Police Chief
J.4 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
Over the past 50 years, the community of Salinas has grown significantly. In 1950, Salinas was a small agricultural community of 14,000 persons, but has expanded to become the largest city in the County.

The current Salinas General Plan was adopted in 2002 and the City is currently in the process of a General Plan update. At the time of the 2002 General Plan, about 33% of the City’s area was devoted to residential uses. Commercial retail uses were approximately 9% and industrial uses 6%. While Salinas is surrounded by lands considered as “prime farmland,” the lands to the south and west of the City are the most productive. In April 2008, the City Council adopted an Agricultural Land Preservation Program, which contains measures to preserve agricultural lands to the south and west.

Since 2015, the City of Salinas has completed over 12 major planning efforts, many of which focus on infill opportunities that direct development away from hazard areas. Two examples include the Downtown Vibrancy Plan (2015) and Alisal Vibrancy Plan
(2019). Salinas has very little housing in its
downtown core compared to other cities and the Downtown Vibrancy Plan calls for over 650 units, mostly on existing surface parking lots, to address this “housing desert.” Removing parking from a downtown is often a politically difficult proposition, but Council’s approval showed a willingness to enact policies supporting denser development in the urban core, away from potential hazards. The Alisal is a disadvantaged neighborhood in Salinas with a significant need for affordable housing. The Alisal Vibrancy Plan also calls for infill development to help meet its built environment needs, in particular better utilization of land along the Market Street and East Alisal Street commercial corridors, CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-4 ANNEX J
and on vacant lots. The Alisal Vibrancy Plan also calls for more integration of Low Impact Design and green infrastructure in new development and public areas, which help manage stormwater and reducing flood risks. Implementation of the Downtown Vibrancy Plan and Alisal Vibrancy Plan is underway, and the City is in the process of rezoning multiple surface parking lots and other opportunity sites for mixed use development.

Safe Growth
The purpose of the Safe Growth Survey was to evaluate the extent to which each jurisdiction is in a position to grow safely relative to its natural hazards. The survey covered 9 distinct topic areas and was also completed as part of the 2016 Plan. This allowed survey results to be compared to help measure progress over time and to continue identifying possible mitigation actions as it relates to future growth and community development practices.

This survey was a subjective exercise used to provide some quantitative measures of how adequately existing planning mechanisms were being used to address the notion of safe growth. Each topic area included a number of statements, which were answered on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the degree to which the respondent agreed or disagreed with the statement as it relates to the City’s current plans, policies, and programs for guiding future community growth and development. Scores for each topic area statement were averaged to provide a topic area result and the topic area totals were averaged to provide an overall survey score. More information on the survey is provided in Capability Assessment in Volume 1. The Salinas Safe Growth Survey was completed by Adriana Robles, City Engineer for the City of Salinas Public Works Department. The results are summarized in Table J-1.

Table J-1
City of Salinas Safe Growth Survey Results
Topic Area 2021 2016
Land Use 4.00 4.50
Transportation 3.00 3.33
Environmental Management 4.33 3.00
Public Safety 3.00 4.00
Zoning Ordinance 3.25 4.25
Subdivision Regulations 2.67 3.00
Capital Improvement Program & Infrastructure Policies 2.33 3.00 Building Code 4.00 5.00
Economic Development 1.00 3.00
Average Survey Ratings 3.06 3.68
J.5 JURISDICTION SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT
The intent of this section is to profile the City of Salinas’s hazards and assess the City’s vulnerability distinct from that of the countywide planning area, which has already been assessed in Volume 1 of the plan. The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the County and describes the hazards, as well as their extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences, and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard vulnerability specific to the City of Salinas is included in this Annex.

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-5 ANNEX J
The City of Salinas’s Planning Team used the same risk assessment process as the Monterey County Steering Committee. The City’s Planning Team used the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey to compare the impact of various hazards that could affect the City. Each variable was scored by hazard by the Planning Team on a scale from 1 to 4, or negligible/unlikely to extensive/highly likely/ catastrophic. The score for each variable was calculated using a weighted average of all survey responses. Scores were then added together to determine an overall hazard score between 1 and 16.

Each score was associated with a qualitative degree of risk ranking from Negligible (between 1 and 4) to Very High (between 14.1 and 16). The Survey is described in more detail in Risk Assessment Methods in Volume 1. Table J-2 displays the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise that was performed by the City of Salinas’s Planning Team.

Table J-2
Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA): City of Salinas Hazard Geographic
Extent
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Magnitude/
Severity Impact Total
Out of 16
Degree of
Risk
Agricultural Emergencies 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.8 11.5 Substantial Coastal Erosion 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 4.9 Slight
Coastal Flooding 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 6.3 Possible
Cyber-Attack 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.4 12.7 High
Dam Failure 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.3 8.1 Moderate
Drought & Water Shortage 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.4 13.6 High
Earthquake 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.3 13.3 High
Epidemic 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.9 11.7 Substantial
Extreme Cold & Freeze 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 7.8 Possible
Extreme Heat 1.9 2.2 1.7 1.9 7.7 Possible
Flash Flood 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.3 8.5 Moderate
Hazardous Materials Incident 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 10.9 Substantial Invasive Species 1.6 1.5 1.7 2.0 6.8 Possible
Levee Failure 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 5.3 Slight
Localized Stormwater Flooding 2.6 2.9 2.3 2.3 10.1 Substantial Mass Migration 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 7.4 Possible
Pandemic 2.8 2.3 3.4 3.2 11.7 Substantial
Riverine Flooding 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.9 7.6 Possible
Sea Level Rise 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 5.9 Possible
Severe Winter Storms 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 9.7 Moderate
Slope Failure 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 5.7 Slight
Targeted Violence 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.7 10.3 Substantial
Terrorism 1.8 1.6 2.5 2.5 8.4 Moderate
Tsunami - - - - - -
Utility Interruption/ PSPS 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.4 10.6 Substantial Water Contamination 2.5 2.3 3.2 3.1 11.1 Substantial
Wildfire 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 9.8 Moderate
Windstorms 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 9.1 Moderate
CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-6 ANNEX J
J.5.1 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
The agricultural industry is a major economic driver in the City. Agricultural disasters pose a serious threat to the local economy and populations directly employed by the agriculture industry.

J.5.2 COASTAL EROSION
The City is not located on the coast, and therefore coastal erosion is not a major threat. Coastal erosion does threaten agricultural land in the Salinas Valley. Salinas is the hub for agriculture processing, therefore, if coastal erosion affects agriculture land outside the City, such affects could have indirect economic effects on the local economy. The City could also be impacted by other types of erosion not profiled in this Plan.

J.5.3 DAM AND LEVEE FAILURE
Dam Failure
There are no population, property, or infrastructure in the City located in the dam inundation zones of the Los Padres and Forest Lake dams.

Salinas also has the potential for inundation due to the failure of the Nacimiento and San Antonio Dams. Table J-3 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to spillway and dam failure of the Nacimiento and San Antonio dams.

Table J-3
Population and Property Exposed to Dam Failure Risk by Dam and Failure Type in Salinas Dam Failure Scenario Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Nacimiento Spillway Failure 1,018 5 $2,329,906 8 $154,697 Nacimiento Dam Failure 10,545 2,425 $1,077,104,095 804 $245,485,534 San Antonio Spillway Failure 0 0 $0 0 $0
San Antonio Dam Failure 8,825 1,805 $812,166,160 701 $316,793,892 A failure of the Nacimiento dam would expose 3 medical facilities, 6 government facilities, 7 communication facilities, and approximately 33 miles of roads to inundation risk. Major roads and possible evacuation routes exposed includes Blanco Road, Davis Road, Harkins Road, and Highway 68 on south end of the City, as well as Highway 183 northwest of City limits.

A failure of the San Antonio dam would expose 3 medical facilities, 2 educational facilities, 6 government facilities, 6 communication facilities, and approximately 31 miles of major to inundation risk. Major roads and possible evacuation routes exposed includes Abbot Street and Highway 101 on southeast end of the City, Blanco Road, Davis Road, Harkins Road, and Highway 68 on south end of the City, as well as Highway 183 northwest of City limits.

Dam inundation areas for the Nacimiento and San Antonio dams located in the City of Salinas is mapped in Figure J-1.

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-7 ANNEX J
Figure J-1
Dam Inundation Areas in the City of Salinas

Levee Failure
Based on Leveed Area from the US Army Corps of Engineers, National Levee Database, there is no population or property in the City exposed to levee failure risk. Many levees in the County protect important agricultural lands and a significant levee failure could have an indirect economic impact.

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-8 ANNEX J
J.5.4 DROUGHT AND WATER SHORTAGE
The entire population of the City is vulnerable to drought events. Drought can affect people’s health and safety, including health problems related to low water flows, poor water quality, or dust. Drought also is often accompanied by extreme heat, exposing people to the risk of sunstroke, heat cramps and heat exhaustion. Other possible impacts include recreational risks; effects on air quality; diminished living conditions related to energy, air quality, and hygiene; compromised food and nutrition; and increased incidence of illness and disease. Water shortages can affect access to safe, affordable water, with substantial impacts on low-income families and communities burdened with environmental pollution. A prolonged drought could also cause economic impacts. Increased demand for water and electricity may result in shortages and higher costs of these resources. While economic impacts will be most significant on industries that use water or depend on water for business, cascading economic effects can hurt many sectors of the economy. Agriculture, which will likely be impacted by drought conditions, is a major economic driver in the County, and the City could be impacted economically.

J.5.5 EARTHQUAKE
No known active faults are located in the City and no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning has been established by the State for the City. Consequently, the potential for ground rupture is low. Although the potentially active King City and Gabilan Creek Faults (active within the last three million years, though not the last 11,000 years) are located within the City, they are not expected to generate seismic activity. The greatest seismic threat is related to the San Andreas and Calaveras Faults.

The entire population of the City is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impacted, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. Similarly, all property and critical infrastructure in the City is potentially exposed to earthquake risk. According to Monterey County Assessor records, there are 32,057 residential and non-residential buildings in the City, with a total value of $12,421,420,074.

Since all structures in the City are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this represents the property exposure to seismic events.

Damage from earthquakes is often the result of liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs primarily in areas of recently deposited sands and silts and in areas of high groundwater levels. Especially susceptible areas include sloughs and marshes that have been filled in and covered with development. Salinas has several former wetland areas that have been "reclaimed" (drained and filled) and developed. In addition, Salinas rests on almost 1,800 feet of alluvium. Table J-4 summarizes population and property in the City exposed to liquefaction risk.

Table J-4
Population and Property Exposed Liquefaction Risk in Salinas Liquefaction Risk Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
High Liquefaction Susceptibility 40,954 2,233 $1,140,950,365 2,424 $1,255,332,144 Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility 24,168 4,947 $2,249,148,956 3,114 $1,075,645,532 CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-9 ANNEX J
Additionally, 2 emergency response facilities, 5 medical facilities, 24 government facilities, 67 communication facilities, some facilities containing hazardous materials, 5 miles of railroad, and about 80 miles of road are in a high liquefaction zone. Major roads and possible evacuation routes exposed includes portions of Highway 101, Abbot Street, Blanco Road, Highway 68, Davis Road, San Juan Grade Road, E Laurel Drive, and Old Stage Road, as well as Highway 183 northwest of City limits. Figure J-2 shows areas of liquefaction susceptibility within the City.

Figure J-2
Liquefaction Susceptibility in the City of Salinas

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-10 ANNEX J
J.5.6 FLOODING
FEMA flood zones were used to assess flooding risk. Table J-5 summarizes population and property in the City in the 1% annual chance and 0.2% annual chance floodplain.

Table J-5
Population and Property Exposed to Flooding Risk in Salinas FEMA Flood Zone Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
1% Annual Chance 15,415 502 $343,901,823 704 $379,194,821

0.2% Annual Chance 130,440 22,355 $8,837,316,183 8,542 $2,803,988,821 Portions of the Salinas Municipal Airport, 3 educational facilities, 5 government facilities, 5 communication facilities, and approximately 21 miles of road is located in the 1% annual chance floodplain. Major roads and possible evacuation routes located in the floodplain include portions of Highway 101, Abbot Street, and E Laurel Drive, as well as Blanco Road west of City limits and Highway 183 northwest of City limits . Figure J-3 shows the extent of the 1% annual chance and

0.2% annual chance floodplain in the City.

The Salinas area topography includes creeks and lakebeds that are dry during most of the year and figure prominently as open space within the City. Except for the Salinas River creeks, streams, and lakes are seasonal. Four natural channels flow from the Gabilan Mountains into the Salinas area. These include Alisal, Natividad, Gabilan, and Santa Rita Creeks. The Gabilan Creek channel has experienced siltation problems between Boronda Road and Laurel Drive, and within Carr Lake reducing the capacity of the creek. All of these creeks are tributary to the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) Reclamation Ditch 1665, although the Santa Rita Creek intersects the Reclamation Ditch 3.5 miles west of the city limits. This channel serves as the primary drainageway for the City.

Flood-prone areas in the City generally fall into a wide band on either side of the creeks, in the vicinity of the airport, and a narrow strip along the Reclamation Ditch running northwest- southwest through the City.

The following areas in the City of Salinas have a known potential for flooding:
• Carr Lake
• Cesar Chavez Park
• Gabilan Creek
• Kern Street
• Market Street
• Merced Street
• Natividad Creek
• Reclamation Ditch
• Salinas River
• Williams Road
This is not a complete list of areas that are within flood zones, but rather a list of areas with documented flooding problems.

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-11 ANNEX J
Figure J-3
FEMA 1% Annual Chance and 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain

J.5.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT
Hazardous materials are used in Salinas for a variety of purposes including manufacturing, agriculture, medical clinics, service industries, small businesses, schools, and households. The use

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-12 ANNEX J
of pesticides in agricultural operations is a large source of hazardous materials within the planning area since the City is surrounded by agricultural operations, and there are agricultural activities in Carr Lake. Hazardous materials also pass through the City in route to other destinations via the freeway, rail, and surface street system. The major transportation routes through the City are Highway 101 and the Union Pacific railroad.

To assess hazardous materials incident risk, buffer distances were used. The chosen buffer distance was based on guidelines in the US Department of Transportation’s Emergency Response Guidebook that suggest distances useful to protect people from vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic if inhaled. The recommended buffer distance referred to in the guide as the “protective action distance” is the area surrounding the incident in which people are at risk of harmful exposure. For purposes of this plan, a buffer distance of one mile was used, but actual buffer distances will vary depending on the nature and quantity of the release, whether the release occurred during the night or daytime, and prevailing weather conditions.

To analyze the risk to a transportation-related hazardous materials release, a one-mile buffer was applied to highways in the US Dept of Transportation, National Transportation Atlas Database. The result is a two-mile buffer zone around each transportation corridor that is used for this analysis. Risk from a fixed facility hazardous materials release, was analyzed using a one-mile buffer was applied facilities identified in the Monterey County 2019 Hazardous Materials Plan. The result was a one-mile buffer zone around each facility.

Table J-6 summarizes population and property that could be exposed to both mobile and fixed hazardous materials incidents.

Table J-6
Population and Property Exposed to Hazardous Materials Incident Risk in Salinas Hazardous Materials
Incident Type Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Mobile Source 82,575 12,974 $5,030,795,622 7,624 $2,888,369,090 Fixed Source 74,602 10,239 $3,740,878,882 5,872 $2,019,200,894 J.5.8 HUMAN CAUSED HAZARDS
It is often quite difficult to quantify the potential losses from human-caused hazards. While facilities themselves have a tangible dollar value, loss from a human-caused hazard often inflicts an even greater toll on a community, both economically and emotionally. The impact to identified values will vary from event to event and depend on the type, location, and nature of a specific incident. Of particular concern to the City of Salinas is the risk of both cyber-attacks and targeted violence.

The entire population of the City is exposed to cyber-attacks personally or at places of employment. All populations who use a computer or receive services from automated systems are exposed to cyber- terrorism. Because it is difficult to predict the particular target of cyber-terrorism, assessing vulnerability to the hazard is difficult. All critical facilities and infrastructure that are operated by a computer system are exposed to cyber-attacks.

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-13 ANNEX J
A targeted violence event could range from an individual attack to a coordinated attack by multiple agents upon multiple targets. Large-scale incidents have the potential to kill or injure many people in the immediate vicinity and may also affect people a relative distance from the initial event.

All structures in the City are physically vulnerable to a targeted violence event. The emphasis on accessibility, the opportunity for roof access, driveways underneath some structures, unmonitored areas, the proximity of many structures to transportation corridors and underground pipelines, and the potential for an active shooter to strike any structure randomly all have an impact on the vulnerability of structures. Schools, churches, large event venues, and workplaces are known locations of previous targeted violence incidents and are likely more vulnerable to attack.

All critical facilities and infrastructure could be impacted by targeted violence. The economic impact price tag of potential losses from targeted violence could be huge if lives are lost, jobs are lost, and assets are damaged. Violence can cause fear in residents and visitors to go into public spaces in the City, which could affect the economy.

J.5.9 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
All citizens in the City could be susceptible to the human health hazards. A large outbreak or epidemic, a pandemic or a use of biological agents as a weapon of mass destruction could have devastating effects on the population. While all of the population is at risk to the human health hazards, the young and the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and those with special needs are most vulnerable. The introduction of a disease such as influenza or the COVID-19 virus have impacted the whole population of the City, specifically vulnerable populations.

J.5.10 SEVERE WEATHER
All severe weather events profiled in this Plan have the potential to happen anywhere in the City.

Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Properties in poor condition or in high-risk locations may be susceptible to the most damage.

All critical facilities in the City likely exposed to severe weather hazards. The most common problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities and compromised access to roadways. Prolonged periods of extreme heat could result in power outages caused by increased demand for power for cooling.

The FEMA National Risk Index calculates annualized frequency, exposure and annual expected loss of building value and population to some severe weather hazards identified in this Plan. Based on zip code and census tract Countywide data was used to identify annualized frequency, exposure, and annual expected loss in the City from severe weather hazards. Though the entire City is considered vulnerable to these hazards, the FEMA data was used in this risk assessment to provide scale for the potential risk and impacts.

FEMA National Risk Index data from frequency and exposure to severe weather hazards is summarized in Table J-7.

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-14 ANNEX J
Table J-7
Annualized Frequency and Exposure to Severe Weather Events in Salinas Hail Strong Wind
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.34 Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.09 Exposed Population 143,754 Exposed Population 143,754
Exposed Building Values $10,738,627,000 Exposed Building Values $10,738,627,000 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $342
Heat Wave Tornado
Frequency (Event-Days) 0.37 Frequency (Distinct Events) 1.31 Exposed Population 142,690 Exposed Population 132,092
Exposed Building Values $10,655,330,097 Exposed Building Values $8,861,762,209 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $18 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $230,288,984
Lightning Winter Weather
Frequency (Distinct Events) 0.50 Frequency (Event-Days) 0.00 Exposed Population 143,754 Exposed Population 0
Exposed Building Values $10,738,627,000 Exposed Building Values $0 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $1,086 Expected Annual Loss of
Building Value $0
Source: FEMA National Risk Index
J.5.11 SLOPE FAILURE
Based on the FEMA National Risk Index, 5,295 people and $211,035,578 in building value in the City is exposed to landslide risk. Additionally, the City is not susceptible to earthquake induced to landslides.

Most of the City has slopes of 1 to 10%, although a few areas have slopes from 10 to 30% . To the east of the City, slopes increase toward the Gabilan Mountains; northeast of the City, slopes from 10 to 30% become more common. The risk of slope failure is associated with the hillsides surrounding the City. As development extends out closer to these areas, the risk of slope failure will increase. The fact that many homes are built on view property atop or below bluffs and on steep slopes subject to failure, further increases the risk. Slope failure events can block egress and ingress on roads and significantly impact brid ges, causing isolation for neighborhoods, traffic problems, transportation delays.

J.5.12 TSUNAMI
The City is not located in a mapped tsunami inundation zone.

J.5.13 UTILITY INTERRUPTION
All residents, visitors, and property in the City is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruptions. All critical facilities and infrastructure in the City that is operated by electricity is exposed and vulnerable to utility interruption. Additional emergencies occurring during power disruptions can compound the effects of utility interruption and influence the timeline of restoration. Depending on the CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-15 ANNEX J
circumstances surrounding the incident, utility disruption can impact transportation/fuel, communications, housing, critical infrastructure, first response, and the economy.

J.5.14 WILDFIRE
The location of historical fires surrounding the City of Salinas is mapped in Figure J-4.

Figure J-4
Historic Wildfires

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-16 ANNEX J
To assess wildfire risk, CAL FIRE Fire Threat data was used. Fire Threat combines expected fire frequency with potential fire behavior to create 4 threat classes, extreme, very high, high, and moderate.

Table J-8 summarizes population and property in the City in very high, high, and moderate fire threat areas.

Table J-8
Population and Property Exposed to Wildfire Risk in Salinas CAL FIRE Wildfire Threat Population Residential Property Non-Residential Property # Value # Value
Very High Fire Threat 0 0 $0 0 $0
High Fire Threat 3,812 27 $14,947,547 435 $49,467,844
Moderate Fire Threat 30,029 548 $414,954,233 1,403 $788,528,084 Though no critical facilities are located in very high or high fire threat zones, 1 fire station, 7 government facilities, and 11 communication facilities, and approximately 50 miles of road is located in a moderate fire threat area
Since Salinas is an urbanized community surrounded by agricultural lands, the greatest fire risk in Salinas is urban fires. Though no area within the City have been mapped as located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) by CAL FIRE, some surrounding areas have been designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as seen in Figure J-5. A risk of wildland fires is associated with these rangelands on the hillsides surrounding the City. As development extends out closer to these areas, the risk of wildland fires will increase.

Additionally, smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a health hazard, especially for sensitive populations including children, the elderly, and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

Smoke generated by wildfire contains visible and invisible emissions comprising particulate matter such as soot and tar; gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxides; and toxics such as formaldehyde and 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. Wildfires occurring in areas surrounding the City could lead to secondary public health risks.

Agriculture, a key economic driver for the City, is also vulnerable to wildfire risk. Structures, irrigation systems, and equipment, crops, livestock, and stored commodities can be lost to wildfire. Fires can also affect soil quality and smoke can have many negative impacts on crops. Fires also create a high-risk environment for agricultural workers. In addition to the dangers of an active fire, wildfire smoke, ash, and chemicals used to treat fires negatively affect air and water quality.

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-17 ANNEX J
Figure J-5
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Surrounding the City of Salinas

J.5.15 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The effects of climate change are varied and include warmer and more varied weather patterns and temperature changes. Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems in the City and will exacerbate the risk posed by many of the hazards previously profiled in this Plan.

Climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards.

Increasing temperatures will have direct impacts on public health and infrastructure. Drought,

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-18 ANNEX J
flooding, and wildfire will likely affect people’s livelihoods and the local economy. Changing weather patterns and more extreme conditions are likely to impact tourism and the local economy, along with changes to agriculture and crops, which are a critical backbone of the City’s economy.

J.6 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The City of Salinas performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs, and policies that enhance its ability to implement mitigation strategies. This section summarizes the following findings of the assessment:
• An assessment of planning and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table J-9 • An assessment of administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table J-10 • An assessment of fiscal capabilities is presented in Table J-11 • An assessment of education and outreach capabilities is presented in Table J-12 • Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table J-13 • A summary of participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is provided in Section J.6.1 in Table J-14
• An overall self-assessment of capability is presented in Section J.6.2 in Table J-15

Table J-9
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
Planning Documents
General Plan ☒ • City Admin
Capital Improvement Plan ☐ Unknown
Floodplain Management Plan ☒ • Public Works City Engineer Open Space Management Plan ☒ • Planning
Stormwater Management Plan ☒ • Public Works NPDES Permit Manager Coastal Management Plan ☐ • Not applicable
Local Coastal Program ☐ Not applicable
Climate Action/ Adaptation Plan ☒ • Public Works
• Community Development Needs update
Emergency Operations Plan ☒ • Fire Department Needs update Continuity of Operations Plan ☒
• Fire Department
• Police Department
• City Hall

Community Wildfire Protection Plan ☐ Not applicable
Evacuation Plan ☒ • Public Works
• Fire In the Dam Failure Plan
Disaster Recovery Plan ☐ • Unknown
Economic Development Plan ☒ • City Hall Economic Development Manager
Historic Preservation Plan ☒ • Community Development
CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-19 ANNEX J
Table J-9
Planning and Regulatory Capability
Document Department Comments
• City Hall
Transportation Plan ☒ • Public Works Traffic Engineer
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Floodplain Ordinance ☒ • Public Works
Zoning Ordinance ☒ • Community Development
Subdivision Ordinance ☒ • Community Development
• Public Works
Site Plan Review Requirements ☒ • Community Development • Public Works
Unified Development Ordinance ☐ Unknown
Post-Disaster Redevelopment/
Reconstruction Ordinance ☐ Unknown
Building Code ☒ • Community Development
Fire Prevention Code ☒ • Fire Department

Table J-10
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with
knowledge of land development and
land management practices
☒ • Public Works
Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained
in construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure
☒ • Public Works
Planner(s) or engineer(s) with an
understanding of manmade or natural
hazards
☒ • Public Works
Building Inspector ☒ • Community Development
Emergency Manager ☒ • Fire Department Fire Chief
Floodplain Manager ☒ • Public Works City Engineer
Land Surveyors ☐
Resource development staff or grant
writers ☒ Each department handles its
own grants.

Public Information Officer ☒ • Fire Department
Scientist(s) familiar with the hazards of
the community ☐
Staff with education or expertise to
assess the community’s vulnerability
to hazards
☒

• Public Works
• Fire Department
• Police Department

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-20 ANNEX J
Table J-10
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Department Comments
Personnel skilled in Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) ☒ • Public Works GIS Division Maintenance programs to reduce risk ☒ • Public Works
Warning systems/services ☒ Everbridge
Mutual Aid Agreements ☒ • Fire Department

Table J-11
Fiscal Capability
Fiscal Resources Department Comments
General Funds ☒ • Finance
Capital Improvements Project Funding ☒ • Finance
Special Purpose Taxes ☒ • Finance
Stormwater Utility Fees ☒ • Finance
Gas / Electric Utility Fees ☒ • Public Works
• Finance
Water / Sewer Fees ☒ • Finance
Development Impact Fees ☒ • Public Works
General Obligation Bonds ☐
Special Tax and Revenue Bonds ☒ • Finance
Community Development Block Grants ☒ • Community Development

Table J-12
Education and Outreach Capability
Educational and Outreach Resources Department Comments Local citizen or non-profit groups
focused on environmental protection,
emergency preparedness, access and
functional needs populations, etc.
☒ • Community Development
Ongoing public education or
information program (e.g., responsible
water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental
education)
☒ • Public Works
• Fire Department Social Media
Natural disaster or safety related
school programs ☒ • Fire Department Social Media
Public-private partnership initiatives
addressing disaster-related issues ☐

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-21 ANNEX J
Table J-13
Community Classifications
Participating? Classification Effective Date
Community Rating System (CRS) Yes 7 10/1/2013
ISO Public Protection Classification
StormReady Certification
TsunamiReady Certification No - -
Firewise Communities Certification No - -
Political Capability
Salinas has a General Plan in place, including a robust Economic Development Element. Additionally, the City has a variety of plans including:
• Public Art Master Plan (2020) • Central Area Specific Plan (2020) • Alisal Vibrancy Plan (2019) • Chinatown Revitalization Plan (2019) • Parks, Recreation, and Libraries Master Plan (2019) • West Area Specific Plan (2019) • Downtown Vibrancy Plan (2015) • Gateway Center Specific Plan (2011) • Salinas Ag-Industrial Center Specific Plan (2009)
All of these plans detail the outline of where City resources will be allocated to either improve quality of life, improve safety, or improve hazard mitigation.

J.6.1 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) COMPLIANCE Table J-14
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Designated Floodplain Administrator: Adriana Robles, City Engineer NFIP Community Number: 060202
Flood Insurance Policies in Force: 317
Insurance Coverage in Force: $95,459,500
Written Premium in Force: $320,007
Total Loss Claims: 31
Total Payments for Losses: $160,884
Adopted Regulations that meet NFIP Requirements:
• Flood Damage Prevention, Chapter 9, Article VI of the Municipal Code, adopted October 19, 2010 • Flood Overlay District, Zoning Code, Chapter 37, Article IV of the Municipal Code, adopted July 23, 2013
• Flood Insurance, Subdivision Ordinance, Section 31-705 of the Municipal Code, adopted December 13, 2016
Date of last NFIP Community Assistance Visit (CAV):

September 2016. Provided building information on six (6) structures built in the floodplain.

Higher standards that exceed minimum NFIP requirement:
• Freeboard requirement is two (2) feet above the Base Flood Elevation. • General Plan includes requirement for a 100-foot setback to top of creeks near riparian areas.

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-22 ANNEX J
Table J-14
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance
Additional floodplain management provisions:

Floodplain regulations are included in area plans such as the Central Area Specific Plan and West Area Specific Plan. The 2002 General Plan includes provisions for protections of wetland and riparian areas, along with floodplains and floodways.

Floodplain management activities performed that go beyond FEMA minimum requirements:

The City of Salinas maintains a monthly log of all the maintenance required of drainage systems and the yardage of any trash removal for all waterways, outfalls, inlet filters, ditches, and basins.

The City’s public education and outreach includes brochures for illicit discharges, annual flood insurance promotion to all residences within the floodplains and flood risk awareness and flood insurance social media posts and posters in our permit center.

Existing impediments to running an effective NFIP program:

The biggest challenges are funding and lack of staff to run a more effective program.

Specific actions that are ongoing or considered related to continued compliance with the NFIP:
• Maintain digital FEMA elevation certificates for all construction in the floodplain. • Evaluate permit applications to determine possible modifications focused on flood prevention. • Develop a checklist for review of building/development permit plans and for inspection of development in floodplains.
• Establish a goal to have each plan reviewer and building inspector attend a training periodically. • Encourage or require certain local staff positions to obtain and maintain Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) certification.
• Maintain a map of areas that flood frequently and prioritize those areas for inspection immediately after the next flood. If outside FEMA special flood hazard areas, consider requiring existing NFIP regulatory standards through overlay zoning, etc. • Hold informative work sessions for newly elected officials and new appointees to planning commissions and appeals/variance boards, to provide an overview of floodplain management, the importance of participating in the NFIP, and the implications of failing to enforce the requirements of the program or failing to properly handle variance requests. • Obtain FEMA’s Substantial Damage Estimator and attend training; develop mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions to augment local personnel after disasters. • Conduct a review of other regulatory programs and planning tools, and report on opportunities to improve consistency with the objectives of floodplain management. • Develop handouts for permit applications on specific issues such as installation of manufactured homes in flood hazard areas according to HUD’s installation standards, or guidance on improving/repairing existing buildings to better withstand potential hazards.

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-23 ANNEX J
J.6.2 SELF- ASSESSMENT OF CAPABILITY
Table J-15
Self-Assessment of Capability
Capability Degree of Capability
Planning and Regulatory Capability High
Administrative and Technical Capability Moderate
Fiscal Capability Limited
Education and Outreach Capability Moderate
Political Capability Moderate
Overall Capability Moderate
J.6.3 OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND/ IMPROVE MITIGATION CAPABILITIES City of Salinas can improve its capability at hazard mitigation by sharing the capabilities between departments. The City can place department specific capabilities in a shared folder that gets updated every 3-5 years. City personnel could drill on the occurrence of various hazards in the city and what the trigger points are for involvement of different departments; based on hazard type.

Planning, regulatory, fiscal, administrative, technical, education, and outreach capabilities can all be expanded or improved using a combination of the following strategies:
• Increase capacity through staffing
• Training, and enhanced coordination among all department and jurisdictions • Emergency management/hazard specific program enhancements, training, and exercising • Increased funding opportunities and capacity
• Implementation of mitigation actions and projects
• Continuous research on grant opportunities for emergency management, hazard mitigation, and infrastructure and community development.

Capabilities and abilities to expand or improve existing policies and programs will be re-evaluated during the next Hazard Mitigation Plan update and annual plan review meetings.

J.6.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING INITIATIVES
The information on hazards, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this hazard mitigation plan is based on the best available data. Plan integration is the incorporation of this information into other relevant planning mechanisms, such as general planning and capital improvement planning. It includes the integration of natural hazard information and mitigation policies, principles and actions into local planning mechanisms and vice versa. Additionally, plan integration is achieved though the involvement of key staff and community officials in collaboratively planning for hazard mitigation. This section identifies where such integration is already in place, and where there are opportunities for further integration in the future.

CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-24 ANNEX J
Existing Integration
In the performance period since adoption of the previous hazard mitigation plan, the City made progress on integrating hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and actions into other planning initiatives.

The following plans and programs currently integrate components of the hazard mitigation strategy:
• Capital Improvement Plan: The capital improvement plan includes projects that can help mitigate potential hazards. The City will strive to ensure consistency between the hazard mitigation plan and the current and future capital improvement plan. The hazard mitigation plan may identify new possible funding sources for capital improvement projects and may result in modifications to proposed projects based on results of the risk assessment. • Building Code: The City’s adoption of the 2016 California Building Code incorporated local modifications addressing seismic and fire hazards.
• Regulatory Codes: A number of the City’s existing codes and ordinances include provisions to reduce hazard risk including the zoning code, storm water management code and flood damage prevention ordinance.

Opportunities for Future Integration
The General Plan and the hazard mitigation plan are complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure. The General Plan is considered to be an integral part of this plan. An update to the General Plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan. The City, through adoption of a General Plan and zoning ordinance, has planned for the impact of natural hazards. The process of updating this hazard mitigation plan provided the opportunity to review and expand on policies in these planning mechanisms. The City will create a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and the General Plan by identifying a mitigation action as such and giving that action a high priority. Other planning processes and programs that may be coordinated with the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
• General Plan, including the Safety Element
• Emergency Operations Plans
• Climate Action and Adaptation Plans
• Debris management plans
• Recovery plans
• Capital improvement programs
• Municipal codes
• Community design guidelines
• Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
• Stormwater management programs
• Water system vulnerability assessments
• Community wildfire protection plans
• Comprehensive flood hazard management plans
• Resiliency plans
• Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery action plans • Public information/education plans
CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-25 ANNEX J
Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be integrated via the update process.

J.7 PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Problem Statements are statements of particular interest regarding primary hazards of concern, geographic areas of concern, or vulnerable community assets. As part of the planning process, the City of Salinas Planning Committee identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concern applicable to their jurisdiction. The Hazard Problem Statements were based on the risk assessment, the vulnerability analysis, and local knowledge.

Hazard Problem Statements helped the Planning Committee identify common issues and weaknesses, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation. Hazard Problem Statements for the City of Salinas are identified below:
• The City is vulnerable to major flooding events that can cause moderate damages. While a major concern, the Salinas River is not the only source of potential flooding, various tributaries including Natividad Creek, Santa Rita Creek, and Alisal Creek are not adequately conveyed through the City to the Salinas River due to backflow issues and inadequate drainage systems. One area of particular concern for future flood damages is the Sherwood Park Mobile Home Park and surrounding areas downstream of Carr Lake (and reclamation ditch maintained by Monterey County) in the center of the City.
• The City faces unique vulnerabilities to major hazard events due to its relatively high population and development density (the highest in Monterey County), particularly with regard to earthquake ground-shaking events that could have community-wide impacts. • The City is vulnerable to large wind and storm events which can cause significant infrastructure damage and power outages. Severe storms can overwhelm emergency response resources. The City’s Public Works Yard is also located in an area vulnerable to flooding, which could affect response capabilities.
• The City has extensive vulnerabilities related to homelessness issues in waterways and flood risk.

Stormwater is tightly regulated by the state. The volume of people living in the City’s waterways is increasing. Tied to the increase in the volume of people is the associated debris and waste generated. The trash and associated living components create waste that can clog culverts and grates, leading to backing up the system and impacting residents, roads, and businesses.

Additionally, there is a human waste component leading to additional contamination of runoff. • The City of Salinas has steps in place to mitigate Cyber-attacks. Through external vulnerability tests and user "clicker" education, the City does provide mitigation to avoid attacks. The City has IDS/IPS protection on the edge of the network and implements 2FA. Cyber-attacks are challenging to avoid.

The City uses a scalable VDI environment for most every user, so a compromised system can be immediately isolated and wiped if needed. The City uses a zero-day attack vector protection on each virtual machine to help notify and mitigate attacks. The City also implements an email forwarding notification system and implements a Personal Identifiable Information (PII) mitigation blocking system to help keep any PII attacks/breaches to a minimum, or if PII is sent out of the CITY OF SALINAS Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | J-26 ANNEX J
network. Additional education is needed to further improve recognizing various threats from all sources.
• The City of Salinas has a wide variety of hazardous materials in its jurisdiction. The City of Salinas has Southern Pacific Railroad and Highway 101 running through its jurisdiction. With that, there is a high volume of Hazmat moving through City limits daily. Most of the City’s fixed hazmat sources are related to agriculture, in the form of refrigerants and pesticides. The volumes and types of hazardous materials are regulated by Monterey County. The City of Salinas as a whole is vulnerable to attacks on our hazmat sources. The Salinas Fire Department in cooperation with Seaside Fire Department has a OES Type 1 Hazmat team that covers Monterey and San Benito Counties. This team is also on the statewide matrix for response to greater emergencies. The team is a defensive resource.
• The City of Salinas is vulnerable to targeted acts of violence given its proximity to several military institutions (Defense Language Institute, Naval Post Graduate School), and being a hub for local gangs (Nortenos in primis). Gangs, specifically, are targeting our youths with a radicalization campaign aimed at shaping the future of the gangs while inciting our youth to violence and encouraging them to strike in the heart of our vibrant city.

• As a result of this consistent overdraft of groundwater levels in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, basin levels have dropped below sea level, allowing seawater to intrude from the Monterey Bay into aquifers located 180 and 400 feet below ground surface. Drought conditions can lead to deeper and deeper groundwater pumping and this loss of groundwater increases sea water intrusion. Seawater intrusion of the 180 ft aquifer could lead to contaminated water and effect the water supply for the City of Salinas.
• Because of factors such as age, disability, income, and housing status, the population of the City of Salinas includes many residents that are vulnerable to risks associated with climate change. These risks amplify other hazards, such as severe storms, drought, and wildfire. Most of the housing stock in the City was designed for a mild climate, not for mitigating extreme heat days and other events.

J.8 MITIGATION GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS
The mitigation strategy is the guidebook to future hazard mitigation administration, capturing the key outcomes of the MJHMP planning process. The mitigation strategy is intended to reduce vulnerabilities outlined in the previous section with a prescription of policies and physical projects. These mitigation actions should be compatible with existing planning mechanisms and should outline specific roles and resources for implementation success.

The City of Salinas Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Mitigation Strategy in Volume 1, which included a benefit-cost analysis and consideration of mitigation alternatives. Based upon the risk assessment results and the City’s planning committee priorities, a list of mitigation actions was developed. The Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Matrix, in Table J-17 lists each priority mitigation action, identifies time frame, the responsible party, potential funding sources, and prioritization, which meet the requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.