Santa Rosa City Council
October 8, 2024

16.1.2 How Climate Change Affects Hazard Mitigation
Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems of the planning area in a variety of ways. Consequences of climate change include increased flood vulnerability, and increased heat-related illnesses.

The most important effect for the development of this plan is that climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards.

An essential aspect of hazard mitigation is predicting the likelihood of hazard events in a planning area. Typically, predictions are based on statistical projections from records of past events. This approach assumes that the likelihood of hazard events remains essentially unchanged over time. Thus, averages based on the past frequencies of, for example, floods are used to estimate future frequencies: if a river has flooded an average of once every 5 years for the past 100 years, then it can be expected to continue to flood an average of once every 5 years.
16-1

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Source: NASA, 2020
Figure 16-1. Global Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over Time For hazards that are affected by climate conditions, the assumption that future behavior will be equivalent to past behavior is not valid if climate conditions are changing. As flooding is generally associated with precipitation frequency and quantity, for example, the frequency of flooding will not remain constant if broad precipitation patterns change over time. Specifically, as hydrology changes, storms currently considered to be the 100-year flood might strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk.

The risks of landslide, severe storms, and wildfire are all affected by climate patterns as well. For this reason, an understanding of climate change is pertinent to efforts to mitigate natural hazards. Information about how climate patterns are changing provides insight on the reliability of future hazard projections used in mitigation analysis.

16.1.3 Current Indicators of Climate Change
Global Indicators
The major scientific agencies of the United States—including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—have presented evidence that climate change is occurring. NASA summarizes key evidence as follows (NASA, 2020a):
• Global Temperature Rise—The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 ºF since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010.
• Warming Oceans—The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 2,300 feet of ocean showing warming of more than 0.4 ºF since 1969.
16-2

16. Climate Change
• Shrinking Ice Sheets—The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, and Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.
• Glacial Retreat—Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world—including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
• Decreased Snow Cover—Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier • Sea Level Rise—Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year. • Declining Arctic Sea Ice—Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades
• Extreme Events—The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing since 1950, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events. • Ocean Acidification—Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.

California Indicators
Climate change poses an immediate and growing threat to California’s environment, public health, and economic vitality. Monitoring and research efforts across the state generate observational data that describe changes that are already underway. These data can serve as the basis for indicators that track trends over time. Climate change indicators help to track, evaluate, and report on the climate change issues the state is working to address. They facilitate the communication of climate-related information to a broad audience by synthesizing large volumes of complex data into a concise, easily understood format. The California Fourth Climate Assessment identifies temperature, precipitation, drought, snowpack, fog, wildfire, and sea level rise as the most dynamic and indicative elements of a changing climate in the greater Bay Area (Ackerly et al. 2018).

Impact on Physical Systems
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has identified the following physical impacts as indicators of climate change in the state (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2018):
• Dissolved Oxygen in Coastal Waters—Throughout the south coast survey region, dissolved oxygen levels to at least 500-meter depths have declined.
• Lake Water Temperature—Average water temperatures in Lake Tahoe—derived from measurements from the bottom to the surface of the lake—have gone up by nearly a full degree Fahrenheit since 1970, at an average rate of 0.02 ºF each year. In the last four years, Lake Tahoe’s waters warmed at a rate about 10 times faster than the long-term rate. This rapid warming is of special concern, because Lake Tahoe’s enormous volume should make it less vulnerable to change. • Snow-Water Content—Snow-water content has ranged from over 200 percent of average in 1952, 1969 and 1983 to a record-low 5 percent of average in 2015 during the extreme drought. Regional differences in snow-water content have been noted in the Sierra Nevada. Cooler air temperatures at higher elevations 16-3

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements generally allow for more snow to accumulate. Since 1950, the northern Sierra Nevada showed an overall decline of 7.4 inches. Less of a decline (1.2 inches) has occurred in the southern region, where elevations are higher. These declines are part of a broader pattern of decreasing snowpack in the western United States. This pattern correlates with warming spring temperatures and earlier snowmelt in recent years. • Coastal Ocean Temperature—Sea surface temperature increased at the rate of 0.2 °F per decade at Pacific Grove (between 1920 and 2014) and at La Jolla (between 1917 and 2016). Since 1973, however, warming at La Jolla occurred at a faster rate of 0.6 °F per decade. At Trinidad Bay, sea surface temperatures increased at the rate of 0.4 °F per decade over the same shorter time period (1973 - 2016).

Unusually warm waters occurred in the Pacific Ocean in 2014-2015, leading to widespread impacts on marine life, including shifts in species distribution, mass stranding of sea lions and sea birds, and fishery closures (further discussed below). This marine heat wave first appeared as a large area of exceptionally high sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska in November 2013 (nicknamed “the warm blob”). It later extended along the entire west coast of North America. • Glacier Change—The surface area of seven Sierra Nevada glaciers has decreased dramatically since the beginning of the twentieth century. The graph on the right shows the fraction of the area of these glaciers relative to the year 1903. These glaciers are among the largest at higher elevations for which data are available. In 2014, the size of these glaciers ranged from 14 to 52 percent of their 1903 area—a reduction of 48 to 86 percent.
• Sea Level Rise—Sea level has risen by about 7 inches at San Francisco since 1900 and by about 6 inches at La Jolla since 1924. Sea levels show year-to-year variability but are rising overall at almost all tide gauge locations in California.
• Snowmelt Runoff—Since 1906, the fraction of annual snowmelt runoff that flows into the Sacramento River between April and July has decreased by about 9 percent. The 2015 water year had the third lowest percentage of spring runoff on record. Compared to the 50-year period between 1906 and 1955, peak monthly runoff (when runoff volume is at its maximum) occurred nearly a month earlier in 1956 – 2007.

This shift indicates an earlier onset of springtime temperatures.

Impact on Biological Systems
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has identified the following biological impacts as indicators of climate change in the state (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2018):
• Changes in Forests and Woodlands—Compared to the 1930s, forests across much of California today have lower densities of large trees (over 24 inches in diameter), and higher densities of small trees (4 to 12 inches in diameter). Pines have declined in all regions, while oaks have increased in two Sierra Nevada regions but decreased in the South and Central Coast ranges. Water stress, which increases in a warming climate, poses a greater risk to large trees and pines than to small trees and oaks. Other factors that influence forest structure and composition and are exacerbated by climate change include fire suppression, logging practices and wildfires.
• Forest Tree Mortality—Annual tree mortality in California forests increased in 2014, two years into the 2012 – 2016 drought. Steep increases in mortality followed in subsequent years; the highest number, 62 million tree deaths, was recorded in 2016. The drought may foreshadow an increasingly common condition known as a “hotter drought,” where warm temperatures coincide with periodic dry years. When temperatures are high, plant water demand increases while soil moisture decreases, creating a stress on trees. This stress in combination with bark beetle infestation led to the dramatic number of tree deaths. 16-4

16. Climate Change
• Heat-Related Mortality and Morbidity—Heat-related deaths and illnesses in California increased dramatically in 2006 following a record-breaking heatwave. That year, at least 140 deaths occurred between July 15 and August 1. About 16,000 more emergency room visits, and about 1,100 more hospitalizations than usual occurred during this period (compared to a similar time period in the summer of 2006 when there was not a heat wave). Multiple locations in California broke records for the highest number of uninterrupted days over 100 °F ever recorded: 11 in Sacramento; 12 in Modesto; and 21 in Woodland Hills near Los Angeles. Deaths related to this heat wave were largely attributed to elevated nighttime temperatures.
• Wildfires—The number of acres burned by wildfires statewide has increased since 1950. Although fires are fewer in number, large fires—affecting 1,000 acres or more—account for most of the area burned. On average, there are about half as many large fires each year as fires affecting less than 1,000 acres.

16.1.4 Projected Future Impacts
Climate change projections contain inherent uncertainty, for example, dependence upon future greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Generally, the uncertainty in greenhouse gas emissions is addressed by the presentation of differing scenarios: low-emissions or high-emissions scenarios. In low-emissions scenarios, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced substantially from current levels. In high-emissions scenarios, greenhouse gas emissions generally increase or continue at current levels. Uncertainty in outcomes is generally addressed by averaging a variety of model outcomes. Despite this uncertainty, climate change projections present valuable information to help guide decision-making for possible future conditions.

Global Projections
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, projects that Earth’s average temperatures will rise between 2.5 and 10 ºF over the next 100 years (NASA, 2020). Some research has concluded that every increase of 2 ºF in average global average temperature can have the following impacts (National Research Council, 2011):
• 3 to 10 percent increases in the amount of rain falling during the heaviest precipitation events, which can increase flooding risks
• 200 to 400 percent increases in the area burned by wildfire in parts of the western United States • 5 to 10 percent decreases in stream flow in some river basins • 5 to 15 percent reductions in the yields of crops as currently grown.

Sea level is rising at increasing rates due to global warming of the atmosphere and oceans and melting of the glaciers and ice sheets. Rising sea level and projections of stronger and more frequent El Niño events indicate a growing vulnerability to coastal flooding and erosion. While the IPCC’s “business as usual” scenario, in which greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate of increase, predicts up to 3.61 feet of global sea level rise by 2100 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) n.d.), other observations and projections suggest that these ranges do not capture the full range of physically plausible global average sea level rise over the 21st century (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2017). The National Climate Assessment completed by NOAA suggested that sea levels could rise as much as 8.2 feet by the end of the century if rapid loss of Antarctic ice occurred (U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 2018). 16-5

–
- - - - - -
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Projections for California
The following sections summarize information developed for the planning area by Cal-Adapt, a resource for public information on how climate change might impact local communities, based on the most current data available. The projections are averaged across the county-wide planning area and include information from two emissions scenarios developed by the IPCC (low emissions and high emissions).

Modeled Climate Changes
Table 16-1 summarizes projected impacts for three potential climate change scenarios. By the end of the century under a high-emissions scenario, the following changes are projected, depending on the scenario:
• Average maximum temperatures would rise by up to 11.7 °F. • Average minimum temperatures would rise by up to 8.4 °F. • Average precipitation could increase by 35 percent or decrease by 21 percent • The water deficit would increase by up to 22 percent
Table 16-1. Historical and Future Projections for Climate Information in Sonoma County Change from Current (1981 2010) Average
Moderate Warming, High
Rainfall
Moderate Warming, Moderate
Rainfall Hot, Low Rainfall
Variable 2040 2069 2070 2099 2040 2069 2070 2099 2040 2069 2070 2099 Precipitation 25% 35% -2% 6% -19% -21%
Minimum Winter Temperature 3.4 ºF 6.2 ºF 2.7 ºF 5.5 ºF 4.8 ºF 8. 4ºF Maximum Summer Temperature 4.8 ºF 8.6 ºF 3.9 ºF 7.6 ºF 6.6 ºF 11.7 ºF Water Deficit 5% 10% 6% 10% 12% 22%
Groundwater Recharge 25% 29% 4% 6% -20% -17%
Runoff 61% 90% -1% 22% -32% -34%
Source: California Landscape Conservation Partnership. 2021 Sea Level Rise
Sea levels have been rising over the past several decades and are expected to continue to rise. Sea level rise is mostly attributed to two factors: the expansion of water as it warms (thermal expansion) and the melting of ice sheets and glaciers. As average ocean temperatures continue to increase, thermal expansion will continue and can be projected with some degree of certainty. Less certain is how quickly ice sheets will melt, accounting for most of the uncertainty in projections.

Sea level rise will cause currently dry areas to be permanently or chronically inundated. Temporary inundation from extreme tide events and storm surge also will change. Unlike many other impacts resulting from climate change, sea level rise will have a defined extent and location. This allows for a more-detailed risk assessment to be conducted for this climate change impact (see Chapter 12). Although the extent and timing of sea level rise is still uncertain, assessing potential areas at risk provides information appropriate for planning purposes. 16-6

16. Climate Change

16.1.5 Responses to Climate Change
Communities and governments worldwide are working to address, evaluate and prepare for climate changes that are likely to impact communities in coming decades. Generally, climate change discussions encompass two separate but inter-related considerations: mitigation and adaptation. The term “mitigation” can be confusing, because it’s meaning changes across disciplines:
• Mitigation in emergency management—as generally addressed in this hazard mitigation plan—is typically defined as the effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters. • Mitigation in climate change discussions is defined as a human intervention to reduce impacts on the climate system. It includes strategies to reduce greenhouse gas sources and emissions and enhance greenhouse gas sinks.

In this chapter, mitigation is used as defined by the climate change community. In the other chapters of this plan, mitigation is primarily used in an emergency management context.

Adaptation refers to adjustments in natural or human systems in response to the actual or anticipated effects of climate change and associated impacts. These adjustments may moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities.

Mitigation and adaptation are related, as the world’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will affect the degree of adaptation that will be necessary. Some initiatives and actions can both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support adaptation to likely future conditions.

Societies across the world are facing the need to adapt to changing conditions associated with natural disasters and climate change. Farmers are altering crops and agricultural methods to deal with changing rainfall and rising temperature; architects and engineers are redesigning buildings; planners are looking at managing water supplies to deal with droughts or flooding.

Adaptive capacity goes beyond human systems, as some ecosystems are able to adapt to change and to buffer surrounding areas from the impacts of change. Forests can bind soils and hold large volumes of water during times of plenty, releasing it through the year; floodplains can absorb vast volumes of water during peak flows; coastal ecosystems can hold out against storms, attenuating waves and reducing erosion. Other ecosystem services—such as food provision, timber, materials, medicines and recreation—can provide a buffer to societies in the face of changing conditions. Ecosystem-based adaptation is the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall strategy to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. This includes the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of specific ecosystems that provide key services.

Assessment of the current efforts and adaptive capacity of the planning partners participating in this hazard mitigation plan are included in the jurisdiction-specific annexes in Volume 2.

16.2 SONOMA COUNTY EFFORTS TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE

16.2.1 A Roadmap for Climate Resilience in Sonoma County In April 2016, the North Bay Climate Adaptation Initiative released A Roadmap for Climate Resilience in Sonoma County. The roadmap provides a framework and recommendations for how Sonoma County should approach climate resilience. It defines nine climate resilience goals to address extreme heat, drought, wildfires, fewer 16-7

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements freezing nights, extreme floods, higher sea level, and high storm surges. Each goal has a set of priority actions to address the climate hazards related to the goal.

Since the roadmap was published, Sonoma County has experienced more frequent and severe climate hazards, including devastating Russian River floods in 2019 and extreme wildfires in 2017, 2019, and 2020. Given current and forecasted climate conditions, each of these hazards will continue to be a significant risk for Sonoma County.

16.2.2 Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority The Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA) leads a local government coalition to mobilize regional climate action in Sonoma County. RCPA is a special district governed by a Board of Directors comprising representatives from the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and council members from each of the county’s cities. The RCPA provides a forum for local elected officials to engage in dialogue on a wide range of topics related to decarbonization, carbon sequestration, and community resilience.

The RCPA developed Climate Action 2020 Plan: A Regional Program for Sonoma County Communities, but it was challenged in court and its environmental impact report was ruled to be inadequate. Unable to adopt the Climate Action 2020 Plan, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors adopted the Climate Change Action Resolution to help create countywide consistency and clear guidance about coordinated implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures. Under the resolution, Sonoma County agrees to work toward the RCPA’s countywide target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Sonoma County adopts the following goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and will pursue local actions that support these goals:
• Increase building energy efficiency
• Increase renewable energy use
• Switch equipment from fossil fuel to electricity
• Reduce travel demand through focused growth
• Encourage a shift toward low-carbon transportation options • Increase vehicle and equipment fuel efficiency
• Encourage a shift toward low-carbon fuels in vehicles and equipment • Reduce idling
• Increase solid waste diversion
• Increase capture and use of methane from landfills
• Reduce water consumption
• Increase recycled water and graywater use
• Increase water and waste-water infrastructure efficiency • Increase use of renewable energy in water and wastewater systems • Reduce emissions from livestock operations
• Reduce emissions from fertilizer use
• Protect and enhance the value of open and working lands 16-8

16. Climate Change
• Promote sustainable agriculture
• Increase carbon sequestration
• Reduce emissions from the consumption of goods and services; and The County will continue to work to increase the health and resilience of social, natural, and built resources to withstand the impacts of climate change by pursuing local actions that support the following goals:
• Promote healthy, safe communities
• Protect water resources
• Promote as sustainable, climate-resilient economy
• Mainstream the use of climate projections
Potential objectives would address the economic, social, and environmental impacts of future wildfires, floods, extreme heat, drought, sea level rise, and other climate change risks.

16.3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT— HAZARDS OF CONCERN
The following sections provide information on how each identified hazard of concern for this planning process may be impacted by climate change and how these impacts may alter current exposure and vulnerability to these hazards for the people, property, critical facilities, and environment in the planning area.

16.3.1 Dam Failure
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
The California Fourth Climate Change Assessment identifies expected changes to rainfall and winter storm patterns. On average, changes in California ’s annual precipitation levels are not expected to be dramatic; however, the increase in frequency and intensity for the largest storms (sometimes referred to as atmospheric rivers) may pose increasing risks to the Sonoma County’s critical infrastructure, including dams. Dams are designed partly based on assumptions about a river ’s flow behavior, expressed as hydrographs. Changes in weather patterns can have significant effects on the hydrograph used for the design of a dam. If the hygrograph changes, it is conceivable that the dam can lose some or all of its designed margin of safety, also known as freeboard.

If freeboard is reduced, dam operators may be forced to release increased volumes earlier in a storm cycle in order to maintain the required margins of safety. Such early releases of increased volumes can increase flood potential downstream. According to the California Department of Water Resources, flood flows on many California rivers have been record-setting since the 1950s. This means that water infrastructure, such as dams, have been forced to manage flows for which they were not designed. The California Division of Safety of Dams has indicated that climate change may result in the need for increased safety precautions to address higher winter runoff, frequent fluctuations of water levels, and increased potential for sedimentation and debris accumulation from changing erosion patterns and increases in wildfires. According to the Division, climate change also will impact the ability of dam operators to estimate extreme flood events (California Department of Water Resources, 2008).

Dams are constructed with safety features known as “spillways.” Spillways are put in place on dams as a safety measure in the event of the reservoir filling too quickly. Spillway overflow events, often referred to as “design 16-9

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements failures,” result in increased discharges downstream and increased flooding potential. Although climate change will not increase the probability of catastrophic dam failure, it may increase the probability of design failures.

Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the dam failure hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population—Population exposure and vulnerability to the dam failure hazard could change as the demand on aging infrastructure increases due to a changing hydrograph. • Property—Property exposure and vulnerability to the dam failure hazard could change as the demand on aging infrastructure increases due to a changing hydrograph. • Critical facilities—The exposure and vulnerability of critical facilities could change as the demand on aging infrastructure increases due to a changing hydrograph. Dam owners and operators are sensitive to the risk and may need to alter maintenance and operations to account for changes in the hydrograph and increased sedimentation. Critical facility owners and operators in levee failure inundation areas should always be aware of residual risk from flood events that may overtop the levee system. • Environment—The exposure and vulnerability of the environment to dam failure could change for the same reasons cited above. Ecosystem services may be used to mitigate some factors that could increase the risk of design failures, such as increasing the natural water storage capacity in watersheds above dams.
• Economy—Dams in California are highly regulated and monitored. While the threat of dam failure could increase due to the impacts from climate change, it is assumed that dam owner/operators will be aware of potential deficiencies due to state regulation and oversight. The largest economic impacts will be costs associated with retrofits to these facilities so that they have the strength and integrity to withstand increased demand associated with a changing hydrograph.

16.3.2 Drought
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
Global water resources are already experiencing the following stresses without climate change:
• Growing populations
• Increased competition for available water
• Poor water quality
• Environmental claims
• Uncertain reserved water rights
• Groundwater overdraft
• Aging urban water infrastructure.

With a warmer climate, droughts are projected to become more frequent, more severe, and longer lasting.

According to California’s Fourth Climate Assessment, future increases in temperature, regardless of whether total precipitation goes up or down, will likely cause longer and deeper California droughts, posing major problems for water supplies, natural ecosystems, and agriculture (Ackerly et al., 2018). 16-10

16. Climate Change
Because changes in precipitation patterns are still uncertain, the potential impacts and likelihood of drought are also uncertain, however climatic water deficits are projected to increase across most climate scenarios. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has noted impacts of climate change on statewide water resources by charting changes in snowpack, sea level, and river flow. As temperatures rise and more precipitation comes in the form of rain instead of snow, these changes will likely continue or grow even more significant.

DWR estimates that the Sierra Nevada snowpack, which provides a large amount of the water supply for other parts of the state, will experience a 48- to 65-percent loss by the end of the century compared to historical averages. Projections for the planning area show a significant decline in projected snow water equivalent in April snowpack. Increasing temperatures may also increase net evaporation from reservoirs by 15 to 37 percent.

As a result of climate change, Sonoma County can expect to experience hotter, drier weather with longer summers causing more frequent and more severe droughts. Climate Ready Sonoma County: Climate Hazards and Vulnerabilities by the North Bay Climate Adaptation Initiative looks at the risks and uncertainties involved with climate readiness. Although models disagree about whether Sonoma County precipitation levels will decrease or increase as a result of climate change, projected warmer temperatures are expected to increase the rate of evaporation from bodies of water, further decreasing the amount of available water. However, all scenario models indicate more variable precipitation, with unusual amounts of rain at unusual times, contributing to increased drought. With longer periods when soils are drier and less runoff into reservoirs, drought conditions reduce local water supply, stress regional supplies, and limit the availability of statewide water sources (County of Sonoma 2017).

Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the drought hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population—Since droughts typically do not directly kill, injure or displace people, population exposure and vulnerability to drought are unlikely to increase as a result of climate change, in the context for hazard mitigation planning. However, greater numbers of people may need to engage in behavior change, such as water saving efforts to mitigate the economic impacts discussed below. • Property—Property exposure and vulnerability may increase as a result of increased drought resulting from climate change, although this would most likely occur in non-structural property such as crops and landscaping. It is unlikely that structure exposure and vulnerability would increase as a direct result of drought, although secondary hazards associated with drought, such as wildfire, may increase and threaten structures (see wildfire section below).
• Critical facilities—Critical facility exposure and vulnerability are unlikely to increase as a result of increased drought resulting from climate change, with the exception of water and wastewater critical infrastructure. The demand for water storage is likely to increase as water tables are depleted from the extraction of groundwater.
• Environment—The vulnerability of the environment may increase as a result of increased drought resulting from climate change. Prolonged or more frequent drought resulting from climate change may stress ecosystems in the region, which include many special-status species. • Economy—The largest measurable impacts of drought tend to be economic. Increased incidence of drought could increase the potential for impacts on the local economy. 16-11

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements

16.3.3 Earthquake
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
The impacts of global climate change on earthquake probability are unknown. Some scientists say that melting glaciers could induce tectonic activity as ice melts and water runs off, shifting tremendous amounts of weight on the earth’s crust. NASA and USGS scientists found that retreating glaciers in southern Alaska may be opening the way for future earthquakes there (NASA, 2004).

Secondary impacts of earthquakes could be magnified by climate change. Soils saturated by repetitive storms or heavy precipitation could experience liquefaction or an increased propensity for slides during seismic activity due to the increased saturation. Dams storing increased volumes of water due to changes in the hydrograph could fail during seismic events.

Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
Because impacts on the earthquake hazard are not well understood, increases in exposure and vulnerability of local resources are not able to be determined.

16.3.4 Flood
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
Use of historical hydrologic data has long been the standard of practice for designing and operating water supply and flood protection projects. For example, historical data are used for flood forecasting models and to forecast snowmelt runoff for water supply. This method of forecasting assumes that the climate of the future will be similar to that of the period of historical record. However, the hydrologic record cannot be used to predict changes in frequency and severity of extreme climate events such as floods. Scientists project greater storm intensity with climate change, resulting in more direct runoff and flooding. High frequency flood events in particular will likely increase with a changing climate. What is currently considered a 1-percent-annual-chance also may strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk. Going forward, model calibration must happen more frequently, new forecast-based tools must be developed, and a standard of practice that explicitly considers climate change must be adopted.

Climate change is already impacting water resources, and resource managers have observed the following:
• Historical hydrologic patterns can no longer be solely relied upon to forecast the water future. • Precipitation and runoff patterns are changing, increasing the uncertainty for water supply and quality, flood management and ecosystem functions.
• Extreme climatic events will become more frequent, necessitating improvement in flood protection, drought preparedness and emergency response.

The amount of snow is critical for water supply and environmental needs, but so is the timing of snowmelt runoff into rivers and streams. Rising snowlines caused by climate change will allow more mountain areas to contribute to peak storm runoff. Changes in watershed vegetation and soil moisture conditions will likewise change runoff and recharge patterns. As stream flows and velocities change, erosion patterns will also change, altering channel shapes and depths, possibly increasing sedimentation behind dams, and affecting habitat and water quality. With 16-12

16. Climate Change
potential increases in the frequency and intensity of wildfires due to climate change, there is potential for more floods following fire, which increase sediment loads and water quality impacts.

Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the flood hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population and Property—Population and property exposure and vulnerability may increase as a result of climate change impacts on the flood hazard. Runoff patterns may change, resulting in flooding in areas where it has not previously occurred.
• Critical facilities—Critical facility exposure and vulnerability may increase as a result of climate change impacts on the flood hazard. Runoff patterns may change, resulting in risk to facilities that have not historically been at risk from flooding. Changes in the management and design of flood protection critical facilities may be needed as additional stress is placed on these systems. Planners will need to factor a new level of safety into the design, operation, and regulation of flood protection facilities such as dams, bypass channels and levees, as well as the design of local sewers and storm drains. • Environment—The exposure and vulnerability of the environment may increase as a result of climate change impacts on the flood hazard. Changes in the timing and frequency of flood events may have broader ecosystem impacts that alter the ability of already stressed species to survive. • Economy—If flooding becomes more frequent, there may be impacts on the local economy. More resources may need to be directed to response and recovery efforts, and businesses may need to close more frequently due to loss of service or access during flood events.

16.3.5 Landslide/Mass Movements
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
Climate change may impact the variability of storm patterns, potentially increasing the probability of more intense storms with varying duration. Increase in global temperature is likely to affect the snowpack and its ability to hold and store water. Warming temperatures also could increase the occurrence and duration of droughts, which would increase the probability of wildfire, reducing the vegetation that helps to support steep slopes. Each these factors would increase the probability of mass movements occurring.

Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the mass movement hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population and Property—Increased frequency and severity of rainfall and wildfire events are likely to increase the frequency and severity of landslide events in the planning area. Climate change is unlikely to impact slopes or soil types, but it could impact vegetation type and coverage, which would make some areas more vulnerable to soil saturation from increased rainfall. Steep slopes (10 percent grades or higher) in WUI (wildland urban interface) areas are likely to see increases in vulnerability. • Critical facilities—Critical facility exposure and vulnerability would be unlikely to increase due to climate change impacts on the mass movement hazard, except for those in areas as noted above.

However, critical facility owners and operators may experience more frequent disruption to service provision resulting from mass movement hazards. For example, transportation systems may experience 16-13

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements more frequent delays if movements blocking these systems occur more frequently. In addition, increased sedimentation resulting from mass movements may negatively impact flood control facilities, such as dams.
• Environment—Except for areas noted above, exposure and vulnerability of the environment would be unlikely to increase because of climate change. Landslide impacts on vegetation and wildlife are mostly negative, but are generally local, which allows species to recover with time. In the long term, landslides may even have positive effects on the habitats of flora and fauna (Schuster and Highland, 2003). • Economy—Changes to the mass movement hazard resulting from climate change are unlikely to result in impacts on the local economy; but impacts may be felt if the limited major highways in the planning area are repeatedly impacted.

16.3.6 Sea Level Rise
The sea-level rise hazard is associated almost entirely with climate change. Therefore, the sea-level rise risk assessment presented in Chapter 12 addresses the impacts of climate change on this hazard.

16.3.7 Severe Weather
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
Climate change presents a challenge for risk management associated with severe weather. The frequency of weather-related disasters is increasing, leading to increased economic losses. The science for linking the severity of specific severe weather events to climate change is still evolving; however, a number or trends provide some indication of how climate change may be impacting these events. According to the U.S. National Climate Change Assessment (2014), there were more than twice as many high temperature records as low temperature records broken between 2001 and 2012, and heavy rainfall events are becoming more frequent and more severe.

The increase in average surface temperatures can also lead to more intense heat waves. Evidence suggests that heat waves are already increasing, especially in western states. Extreme heat days in the planning area are likely to increase.

Climate change impacts on other severe weather events such as thunderstorms and high winds are still not well understood.

Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the severe weather hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population and Property—Population and property exposure and vulnerability are likely to increase as a direct result of climate change impacts on the severe weather hazard in term of summer extreme heat events and potentially winter storm events. Secondary impacts, such as the risk of fire or extent of localized flooding, may increase, impacting greater numbers of people and structures. • Critical facilities—Critical facility exposure and vulnerability may increase as a result of climate change impacts on the severe weather hazard. Critical facility owners and operators may experience more frequent disruption to service provision. For example, more frequent and intense heat waves or storms may cause more frequent disruptions in power service.
16-14

16. Climate Change
• Environment—More frequent storms and heat events and more intense rainfall may place additional stress on already stressed ecosystems.
• Economy—Climate change impacts on the severe weather hazard may impact the local economy through more frequent disruption to services, such as power outages.

16.3.8 Tsunami
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
The impacts of global climate change on tsunami probability are unknown. Some scientists say that melting glaciers could induce tectonic activity, inducing earthquakes. Other scientists have indicated that underwater avalanches (also caused by melting glaciers), may also result in tsunamis. Even if climate change does not increase the frequency with which tsunamis occur, it may result in more destructive waves. As sea levels continue to rise, tsunami inundation areas would likely reach further into communities than current mapping indicates.

Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
As land area likely to be inundated by tsunami waves increases, exposure and vulnerability to the tsunami hazard may increase for population, property, critical facilities, and the environment. Changes to the tsunami hazard from climate change may result in more direct economic impacts on a greater number of businesses and economic centers, as well as the infrastructure systems that support those businesses.

16.3.9 Wildfire
Climate Change Impacts on the Hazard
Climate change has the potential to affect multiple elements of the wildfire system: fire behavior, ignitions, fire management, and vegetation fuels. Hot dry spells create the highest fire risk. Increased temperatures may intensify wildfire danger by warming and drying out vegetation, which can increase flammability.

Changes in climate patterns may impact the distribution and perseverance of insect outbreaks that create dead trees (increase fuel). When climate alters fuel loads and fuel moisture, forest susceptibility to wildfires changes.

Climate change also may increase winds that spread fires. Faster fires are harder to contain, and thus are more likely to expand into residential neighborhoods.

Exposure, Sensitivity and Vulnerability
The following summarizes changes in exposure and vulnerability to the wildfire hazard resulting from climate change:
• Population—California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment - Bay Regional Report states that “wildfires will continue to be a major disturbance in the region. Future wildfire projections suggest a longer fire season, an increase in wildfire frequency, and an expansion of the area susceptible to fire.” • Property and Critical facilities—The exposure and vulnerability of property and infrastructure is anticipated to increase based on projections from California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. The application and enforcement of codes and standards to mitigate the risk from wildfire hazards could help to decrease this risk as development moves into wildfire hazard areas. 16-15

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements • Environment— It is possible that the exposure and vulnerability of the environment will be impacted by changes in wildfire risk due to climate change. Natural fire regimes may change, resulting in more or less frequent or higher intensity burns. These impacts may alter the composition of the ecosystems in areas in and surrounding planning area. If more acres are burned every year, wildlife may be more stressed as the suitable habitat is lost.
• Economy— Recent wildfire activity in California has shown that economic impacts include the value of destroyed and damaged capital, the health costs related to air pollution exposure, and indirect losses due to broader economic disruption cascading along with regional and national supply chains. Indirect economic impacts can cascade outside of the impacted areas. These impacts can be expected to increase if the frequency and severity of wildfires increase as projected. Preventative power outages and direct loss of property due to wildfires also cause significant economic impacts.

16.4 ISSUES
Major gaps in current knowledge and understanding about how climate change will impact Sonoma County’s hazards are as follows:
• Planning for climate change related impacts can be difficult due to inherent uncertainties in projection methodologies (although there are confirmed trends in terms of increasing temperatures, increasing water deficits, and increasing wildfire hazards).
• Average temperatures are expected to continue to increase in the planning area, which may lead to a host of primary and secondary impacts, such as an increased incidence of heat waves. • Expected changes in precipitation patterns are still poorly understood and could have significant impacts on the water supply and flooding in the planning area since all future scenarios project greater rainfall variability from year to year..
• Some impacts of climate change are poorly understood such as potential impacts on the frequency and severity of earthquakes, thunderstorms, and tsunamis.
• Potentially heavy rain events may result in inland stormwater flooding after stormwater management systems are overwhelmed.
• Permanent and temporary inundation resulting from sea level rise has the potential to impact portions of the population and assets in the planning area.
• There are still many unknowns regarding relationships between wildfire and a changing climate.

However, current models project increasing wildfire probability and risks of structure loss based on impacts of climate change and projected development. Continued research and modeling are necessary to better understand the impacts of climate change on the fire environment throughout the planning area and to inform adaptation strategies
• Climate change has the potential to impact the following:
 The vulnerability of municipal and on-site water supplies  Forest structure, composition, and flammability
 The severity of wildfires and acres burned
 The adequacy of access and evacuation routes
 Response times for limited fire suppression resources  Heat wave duration coupled with wildfire smoke, especially as they affect disadvantaged populations unlikely to have air conditioning.
16-16

17. HAZARDS OF INTEREST
The hazards of concern assessed in Chapters 7 through 15 and rated and rated in Chapter 18 are those that present significant risks in the planning area. Additional hazards, both natural and human-caused, were identified by the Steering Committee as having some potential to impact the planning area, but at a much lower risk level than the hazards of concern. These other hazards are identified as hazards of interest.

The sections below provide short profiles of each hazard of interest, including qualitative discussion of their potential to impact in Sonoma County. No formal risk assessment of these hazards was performed, and no mitigation initiatives have been developed to address them. However, all planning partners for this plan should be aware of these hazards and should take steps to reduce the risks they present whenever it is practical to do so.

17.1 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
According to the World Health Organization, a pandemic involves the worldwide spread of a new disease. While an epidemic remains limited to one city, region, or country, a pandemic will spread beyond national borders and possibly worldwide. Authorities consider a disease to be an epidemic when the number of people with the infection is higher than the forecast number within a specific region. If an infection becomes widespread in several countries at the same time, it may turn into a pandemic. A new virus strain or subtype that easily transmits between humans can cause a pandemic. Bacteria that become resistant to antibiotic treatment may also be behind the rapid spread (Felman 2020).

Sometimes, pandemics occur when new diseases develop the ability to spread rapidly. Often, a new virus cannot spread between animals and people, but after it changes or mutates, it may start to spread easily, and a pandemic may result. Seasonal flu epidemics generally occur because of a viral subtype that is already circulating among people. Novel subtypes, on the other hand, generally cause pandemics. These subtypes will not previously have circulated among humans. A pandemic can lead to social disruption, economic loss, and general hardship on a wide scale (Felman 2020).

In March 2020, Sonoma County was included in the FEMA Major Disaster Declaration for the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. As of January 2021, about 23,000 people, or 4.57 percent of the Sonoma County population, had contracted the coronavirus and 234 people, 1.01 percent of the population, had died from it (Sonoma County Emergency 2021). As of January 2021, over 18,000 people in Sonoma County had received the COVID-19 vaccine (Sonoma County Emergency 2021).
17-1

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements

17.2 TERRORISM

17.2.1 Defining Terrorism
Acts of terrorism are intentional, criminal, malicious acts with the following characteristics:
• They involve the use of illegal force.
• They are intended to intimidate or coerce.
• They are committed in support of political or social objectives.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) categorizes two types of terrorism in the United States:
• Domestic terrorism involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are directed at elements of our government or population without foreign direction. The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City is an example of domestic terrorism. The FBI is the primary response agency for domestic terrorism. The FBI coordinates domestic preparedness programs and activities of the United States to limit acts posed by terrorists, including the use of weapons of mass destruction. • International terrorism involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are foreign-based or directed by countries or groups outside the United States, or whose activities transcend national boundaries. Examples include the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the attacks of September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Three factors distinguish terrorism hazards from other types of hazards:
• In the case of chemical, biological, and radioactive agents, their presence may not be immediately obvious, making it difficult to determine when and where they may have been released, who has been exposed, and what danger is present for first responders and emergency medical technicians. • There is limited scientific understanding of how these agents affect the population at large. • Terrorism evokes strong emotional reactions, ranging from anxiety to fear to anger to despair to depression.

Most terrorist events in the United States have been bombing attacks, involving detonated or undetonated explosive devices, tear gas, pipe bombs, or firebombs. The effects of terrorism can vary from loss of life and injuries to property damage and disruptions in services such as electricity, water supplies, transportation, or communications. The event may have an immediate effect or a delayed effect. Terrorists often choose targets that offer limited danger to themselves and areas with relatively easy public access. Foreign terrorists look for visible targets where they can avoid detection before and after an attack such as international airports, large cities, major special events, and high-profile landmarks.

17.2.2 Cyberterrorism
Cyberterrorism is the use of computers and information, particularly over the Internet, to recruit others to a cause, cause physical or financial harm, or cause a severe disruption of service. It can be driven by religious, political, or other motives. Like traditional terrorism tactics, cyberterrorism seeks to evoke strong emotional reactions, but it does so through information technology rather than a physically violent or disruptive action.

Cyberterrorism has three main types of objectives (Kostadinov 2012):
17-2

17. Hazards of Interest
• Organizational—Cyberterrorism with an organizational objective includes functions other than cyber- attacks. Terrorist groups today use the internet every day for recruitment, training, fundraising, communication, or planning. Organizational cyberterrorism can use platforms such as social media as a tool to spread a message beyond country borders and instigate physical forms of terrorism. Organizational efforts may include system attacks as a tool for training new members of a faction in cyber warfare. • Undermining—Cyberterrorism with undermining as an objective seeks to hinder the normal functioning of computer systems, services, or websites. Such methods include defacing, denying, and exposing information. These attacks aim to undermine the victim’s high dependence on online structures to support vital operational functions. They typically do not result in grave consequences unless undertaken as part of a larger attack. Undermining attacks on computers include the following:
 Physical attack against computer equipment, a computer facility, or transmission lines to disrupt the reliability of equipment.
 Using electromagnetic energy, usually in the form of an electromagnetic pulse, to attack computer equipment or data transmissions. By overheating circuitry or jamming communications, an electronic attack disrupts the reliability of equipment and the integrity of data.  Using malicious code directed against computer processing code, instruction logic, or data. The code can generate malicious network packets that disrupt data or logic. This type of cyber-attack can disrupt the reliability of equipment, the integrity of data, and the confidentiality of communications. • Destructive—The destructive objective for cyberterrorism is what organizations fear most. Through the use of computer technology and the Internet, the terrorists seek to inflict destruction or damage on tangible property or assets, and even death or injury to individuals. There are no cases of pure cyberterrorism as of the date of this plan.

17.2.3 Addressing Terrorism
While education, heightened awareness, and early warning of unusual circumstances may deter crime and terrorism, intentional acts that harm people and property are possible at any time. Public safety entities react to the threat, locating, isolating and neutralizing further damage, and investigating potential scenes and suspects to bring criminals to justice. Those involved with terrorism response, including public health and public information staff, are trained to deal swiftly with the public’s emotional reaction. The area of the event must be clearly identified in all emergency alert messages to prevent those not affected by the incident from overwhelming local emergency rooms and response resources, which would reduce service to those actually affected. The public must be informed clearly and frequently about what government agencies are doing to mitigate the impacts of the event.

The public will also be given clear directions on how to protect the health of individuals and families.

In dealing with terrorism, the unpredictability of human beings must be considered. People with a desire to perform criminal acts may seek out targets of opportunity that may not fall into established lists of critical areas or facilities. First responders train not only to respond to organized terrorism events, but also to respond to random acts by individuals who, for a variety of reasons ranging from fear to emotional trauma to mental instability, may choose to harm others and destroy property.

The Sonoma County Department of Emergency Management is responsible for the mitigation, preparedness, planning, coordination of response, and recovery activities related to county emergencies and disasters, including terrorism. The department serves as the primary coordination point for emergency management’s activities affecting more than one jurisdiction, and the unincorporated areas of the county. The Department of Emergency Management became an independent County department in July 2019. 17-3

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements In January 2019, the County adopted a resolution authorizing the County Administrator and the Director of Emergency Management to seek state and federal financial funding assistance through the State of California or the federal Department of Homeland Security related to homeland security, emergency management, hazard mitigation, preparedness and disaster response programs, which could include counterterrorism initiatives (County of Sonoma 2019).

17.3 CYBER-ATTACK
A cyber threat is an intentional and malicious crime that compromises the digital infrastructure of a person or organization, often for financial or terror-related reasons. Such attacks vary in nature and are perpetrated using digital mediums or sometimes social engineering to target human operators. Generally, attacks last minutes to days, but large-scale events and their impacts can last much longer. As information technology continues to grow in capability and interconnectivity, cyber threats become increasingly frequent and destructive. In 2014, internet security teams at Symantec and Verizon indicated that nearly 1 million new pieces of malware—malicious code designed to steal or destroy information—were created every day (Harrison and Pagliery 2015).

Cyber threats differ by motive, attack type and perpetrator profile. Motives range from the pursuit of financial gain to political or social aims. Cyber threats are difficult to identify and comprehend. Types of threats include using viruses to erase entire systems, breaking into systems and altering files, using someone’s personal computer to attack others, or stealing confidential information. The spectrum of cyber risks is limitless, with threats having a wide-range of effects on the individual, community, organizational, or nation. The following sections describe cyber-attacks in general and, more specifically, cyberterrorism.

Public and private computer systems are subject to a variety of cyber-attacks, from blanket malware infection to targeted attacks on system capabilities. Cyber-attacks seek to breach IT security measures designed to protect an individual or organization. The initial attack is followed by more severe attacks for the purpose of causing harm, stealing data, or financial gain. Organizations are prone to attacks that can be either automated or targeted.

Table 17-1 describes the most common cyber-attack mechanisms faced by organizations today.

Since 2013, a type of cyber-attack called cyber ransom has become increasingly common against individuals and small- and medium-sized organizations. Cyber ransom occurs when an individual downloads ransom malware, or ransomware, often through phishing or drive-by download, and the subsequent execution of code results in encryption of all data and personal files stored on the system. The victim then receives a message that demands a fee in the form of electronic currency or cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin, for the decryption code. In October 2015, the FBI said that commonly used ransomware is so difficult to override, that victims should pay the ransom to retrieve their data (Danielson 2015).

With millions of threats created each day, the importance of protection against cyber-attacks becomes a necessary function of everyday operations for individuals, government facilities, and businesses. The increasing dependency on technology for vital information storage and the often automated method of infection means higher stakes for the success of measurable protection and education.
17-4

17. Hazards of Interest
Table 17-1. Common Mechanisms for Cyber Attacks
Type Description
Socially Engineered
Trojans
Programs designed to mimic legitimate processes (e.g. updating software, running fake antivirus software) with the end goal of human-interaction caused infection. When the victim runs the fake process, the Trojan is installed on the system.

Unpatched Software Nearly all software has weak points that may be exploited by malware. Most common software exploitations occur with Java, Adobe Reader, and Adobe Flash. These vulnerabilities are often exploited as small amounts of malicious code are often downloaded via drive-by download.

Phishing Malicious email messages that ask users to click a link or download a program. Phishing attacks may appear as legitimate emails from trusted third parties.

Password Attacks Third party attempts to crack a user’s password and subsequently gain access to a system. Password attacks do not typically require malware, but rather stem from software applications on the attacker ’s system. These applications may use a variety of methods to gain access, including generating large numbers of generated guesses, or dictionary attacks, in which passwords are systematically tested against all of the words in a dictionary.

Drive-by Downloads Malware is downloaded unknowingly by the victims when they visit an infected site.

Denial of Service
Attacks
Attacks that focus on disrupting service to a network in which attackers send high volumes of data until the network becomes overloaded and can no longer function.

Man in the Middle Man-in-the-Middle attacks mirror victims and endpoints for online information exchange. In this type of attack, the attacker communicates with the victims, who believe they are interacting with a legitimate endpoint website.

The attacker is also communicating with the actual endpoint website by impersonating the victim. As the process goes through, the attacker obtains entered and received information from both the victim and endpoint.

Malvertising Malware downloaded to a system when the victim clicks on an affected ad.

Advanced Persistent
Threat
An attack in which the attacker gains access to a network and remains undetected. Advanced persistent threat attacks are designed to steal data instead of cause damage. 17-5

18. RISK RATING
FEMA requires all hazard mitigation planning partners to have jurisdiction-specific mitigation actions based on local risk, vulnerability, and community priorities. This plan included a risk rating protocol for each planning partner, in which “risk” was calculated by multiplying probability by impact on people, property and the economy. The risk estimates were generated using methodologies promoted by FEMA. The Steering Committee reviewed, discussed and approved the methodology and results. All planning partners rated risk for their own jurisdictions following the same methodology.

Numerical ratings of probability and impact were based on the hazard profiles and exposure and vulnerability evaluations presented in Chapters 7 through 16. Using that data, each planning partner rated the risk of all the natural hazards of concern described in this plan. When available, estimates of risk were generated with data from Hazus or GIS. For hazards of concern with less specific data available, qualitative assessments were used. As appropriate, results were adjusted based on local knowledge and other information not captured in the quantitative assessments. The hazards of interest described in Chapter 17 were not rated for the following reasons:
• A key component of risk as defined for the planning effort is probability of occurrence. While it is possible to assign a recurrence interval for natural hazards because of historical occurrence, it is not feasible to assign recurrence intervals for the other hazards of interest, which lack such historical precedent.
• Federal hazard mitigation planning regulations do not require the assessment of non-natural hazards (44 CFR, 201.6 ). It is FEMA’s position that this is a local decision.

Risk rating results are used to help establish mitigation priorities. Each partner used its risk rating to inform the development of its action plan. Planning partners were directed to identify mitigation actions, at a minimum, to address each hazard with a “high” or “medium” risk rating. Actions that address hazards with a low or no hazard rating are optional.

Volume 2 presents the risk ratings for each planning partner. The following planning-area-wide risk rating was prepared by the planning team.

18.1 PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
The probability of occurrence of a hazard is indicated by a probability factor based on likelihood of annual occurrence:
• High—Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3) • Medium—Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor =2) • Low—Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor =1) • No exposure—There is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) 18-1

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements The assessment of hazard frequency is based on past hazard events in the area and the potential for changes in the frequency of these events resulting from climate change. Table 18-1 summarizes the probability assessment for each natural hazard of concern for this plan.

Table 18-1. Probability of Hazards
Hazard Event Probability (high, medium, low) Probability Factor Dam Failure Medium 2
Drought High 3
Earthquake (Hayward Scenario) Medium 2
Flooding (1% annual chance) High 3
Landslide/Mass Movement (very high/high risk areas) High 3 Sea Level Rise (200-cm + 100-yr) High 3
Severe Weather High 3
Tsunami Low 1
Wildfire (very high/high risk areas) High 3

18.2 IMPACT
Hazard impacts were assessed in three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property and impacts on the local economy. Numerical impact factors were assigned as follows:
• People—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. It should be noted that planners can use an element of subjectivity when assigning values for impacts on people. Impact factors were assigned as follows:
 High—25 percent or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)  Medium—10 percent to 25 percent of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)  Low—10 percent or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)  No impact—None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) • Property—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard event:
 High—25 percent or more of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3)
 Medium—10 percent to 25 percent of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2)
 Low—10 percent or less of the total assessed property value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1)
 No impact—None of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) • Economy—Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value vulnerable to the hazard event. Values represent estimates of the loss from a major event of each hazard in comparison to the total replacement value of the property exposed to the hazard. Loss estimates separate from the exposure estimates were generated for the earthquake, flooding, and tsunami hazards using Hazus. For other hazards, such as dam failure, landslide/mass movement and wildfire, vulnerability was estimated as a percentage of exposure, due to the lack of loss estimation tools specific to those hazards. 18-2

= = =

18. Risk Rating
 High—Estimated loss from the hazard is 10 percent or more of the total exposed property value (Impact Factor = 3)
 Medium—Estimated loss from the hazard is 5 percent to 10 percent of the total exposed property value (Impact Factor = 2)
 Low—Estimated loss from the hazard is 5 percent or less of the total exposed property value (Impact Factor = 1)
 No impact—No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0) The impacts of each risk category were assigned a weighting factor to reflect the significance of the impact. These weighting factors are consistent with those typically used for measuring the benefits of hazard mitigation actions:
impact on people was given a weighting factor of 3; impact on property was given a weighting factor of 2; and impact on the economy was given a weighting factor of 1. Table 18-2 summarizes the impacts for each hazard.

Table 18-2. Impact on People, Property and the Economy from Hazards People
(Weighting Factor 3)
Property
(Weighting Factor 2)
Economy
(Weighting Factor 1)
Hazard Event
Impact /
Score
Weighted
Score
Impact /
Score
Weighte
d Score
Impact /
Score
Weighted
Score
Dam Failure Medium / 2 6 Medium / 2 4 Medium / 2 2
Drought None / 0 0 Low / 1 2 Medium / 2 2
Earthquake (Hayward Scenario) High / 3 9 High / 3 6 High / 3 3 Flooding (1% annual chance) Low / 1 3 Low / 1 2 Low / 1 1 Landslide/Mass Movement (very high/high risk areas) Medium / 2 6 High / 3 6 Medium / 2 2 Sea Level Rise (200-cm + 100-yr) Low / 1 3 Low / 1 2 Low / 1 1 Severe Weather Medium / 2 6 Low / 1 2 Low / 1 1
Tsunami Low / 1 3 Low / 1 2 None / 0 0
Wildfire (very high/high risk areas) Low / 1 3 Medium / 2 4 Medium / 2 2

18.3 RISK RATING
The risk rating for each hazard was determined by multiplying the probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors, as summarized in Table 18-3. Based on these ratings, each hazard was identified as being in the highest, medium, or lowest risk category. Figure 18-1 shows the hazard risk rating for the planning area. Hazard risk rating for each participating planning partner can be found in Volume 2 of this plan.

Table 18-3. Hazard Risk Rating
Hazard Event
Probability
Factor
Sum of Weighted
Impact Factors Total (Probability x Impact)
Dam Failure 2 6 + 4 + 2 = 12 24
Drought 3 0 + 2 + 2 = 4 12
Earthquake (Hayward Scenario) 2 9 + 6 + 3 = 18 36
Flooding (1% annual chance) 3 3 + 2 + 1 = 6 18
Landslide/Mass Movement (very high/high risk areas) 3 6 + 6 + 2 = 14 42 Sea Level Rise (200-cm + 100-yr) 3 3 + 2 + 1 = 6 18
Severe Weather 3 6 + 2 + 1 = 9 18
Tsunami 1 3 + 2 + 0 = 5 5
Wildfire (very high/high risk areas) 3 3 + 4 + 2 = 9 27/36a a. The quantitative score for wildfire (27) was adjusted base on the judgment of County staff to a score equivalent to earthquake. 18-3

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements 4 Earthquake
36 Landslide/ Mass
Movement
42 Wildfire
36 Dam Failure
24 Flood
18 Sea-level rise
18 Severe Weather
18 Drought
12 Tsunami
51 2
3 Highest
Risk
Medium
Risk
Lowest
Risk
Values shown are risk rating. Larger circles indicate higher rating. 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Figure 18-1. Hazard Risk Rating
10 18-4

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021 PART 3—MITIGATION STRATEGY

19. MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES
Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). The Steering Committee reviewed the guiding principle, goals and objectives from the 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan. It was determined that the 2010 plan’s guiding principle, goals, and objectives still reflect community priorities and the results of the risk assessment. Therefore, only minor changes were made, to clarify intent and meaning. The guiding principle, goals, objectives and actions in this plan all support each other.

Goals were selected to support the guiding principle. Objectives were selected that met multiple goals. Actions (presented in Chapter 19) were prioritized based on their ability to meet multiple objectives.

19.1 MISSION STATEMENT
A mission statement focuses the range of objectives and actions to be considered. This is not a goal because it does not describe a hazard mitigation outcome, and it is broader than a hazard-specific objective. The mission statement for this hazard mitigation plan is as follows:

Create a resilient Sonoma County for the whole community.

19.2 GOALS
The following are the mitigation goals for this plan:

1. Protect people and minimize loss of life, injury, and social impacts.

2. Minimize potential for loss of property, economic and social impacts, and displacement due to hazards.

3. Minimize potential for environmental impacts and consider a broad-range of mitigation solutions, including nature-based solutions where feasible.

4. Communicate natural hazard risk to the whole community within Sonoma County.

5. Support and inform the development of relevant mitigation policies and programs.

6. Promote an adaptive and resilient Sonoma County that proactively anticipates the future impacts from hazards within the county.

7. Pursue the development and implementation of long-term, cost-effective, and environmentally sound mitigation projects.

8. Enhance the capability/capacity of the Sonoma County planning area to prepare, respond, and recover from the impact of natural hazards.

The effectiveness of a mitigation strategy is assessed by determining how well these goals are achieved. 19-1

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements

19.3 OBJECTIVES
The selected objectives meet multiple goals, as listed in Table 19-1. Therefore, the objectives serve as a stand- alone measurement of the effectiveness of a mitigation action, rather than as a subset of a goal. The objectives also are used to help establish priorities.

Table 19-1. Objectives for the Hazard Mitigation Plan
Objective
Number Objective Statement
O-1 Incorporate mitigation best management measures into plans, codes, and other regulatory standards for t he private sector, nonprofit agencies, and community-based organizations within the planning area.

O-2 Maintain established partnerships in the identification and implementation of mitigation measures in the Sonoma County Planning area.

O-3 Retrofit, purchase, mitigate or relocate structures in high hazard areas, with an emphasis on those subject to repetitive damages.

O-4 Promote and implement hazard mitigation plans and projects that are consistent with state, regional, and local climate a ction and adaptation goals, policies, and programs.

O-5 Improve and expand systems that provide warning and emergency communications to the whole community.

O-6 Increase resilience and capabilities of community lifelines.

O-7 Prevent (or discourage) new development in hazardous areas to ensure that if building occurs in high-risk areas that it is done in such a way as to minimize risk.

O-8 At the local government level, continually improve understanding of the location and potential impacts of natural hazards in all planning mechanisms that address current and future land uses within the planning area.

O-9 Consider the impacts of natural hazards in all planning mechanisms that address current and future land uses within the planning area
O-10 Minimize adverse impacts from flood risk on vulnerable communities.

O-11 Through the enforcement of relevant federal, state, and local regulations, sustain life and property protection measures for all communities and structures located in the Sonoma County planning area.

O-12 All cities, the County, special districts, and tribal organizations will develop, adopt, and implement local hazard mitigati on principles that may be integrated with local comprehensive plan safety elements, Community Wildfire Protection Plans, floodplain management plans, facilities master plans, and other local planning initiatives. 19-2

20. MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES AND ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

20.1 MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES
Catalogs of hazard mitigation best practices were provided to the planning partnership that present a broad range of alternatives to be considered for use in Sonoma County, in compliance with 44 CFR (Section 201.6(c)(3)(ii)).

One catalog was developed for each hazard of concern evaluated in this plan. These catalogs are based on practical experience from around the country as well as FEMA guidance on mitigation best-management practices. The catalogs present alternatives that are categorized in two ways:
• By who would have responsibility for implementation:
 Individuals (personal scale)
 Businesses (corporate scale)
 Government (government scale).
• By what the alternative would do:
 Manipulate the hazard
 Reduce exposure to the hazard
 Reduce vulnerability to the hazard
 Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard.

The catalogs were provided to each planning partner in a “toolkit” prepared by the core planning team to support the development of the action plans identified in this plan. The alternatives presented include actions to mitigate current risk from hazards and actions to reduce risk from changes in hazard impacts resulting from climate change. Hazard mitigation actions recommended in this plan were selected from an analysis of the alternatives in the catalogs. The catalogs provide a baseline of mitigation alternatives that are backed by a planning process, are consistent with the established goals and objectives, and are generally within the capabilities of the planning partners to implement. The catalogs provide a list of what could be considered to reduce risk from natural hazards within the planning area. Recommended actions were selected based on an analysis of each partner’s ability to implement the action. Actions may not have been selected for one or more of the following reasons:
• The action is not feasible.
• The action is already being implemented.
• The planning partner does not have the capability to implement the action. • There is an apparently more cost-effective alternative. • The action does not have public or political support.

The catalogs for each hazard are presented in Table 20-1 through Table-20-8.
20-1

- - -
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 20-1. Alternatives to Mitigate the Dam Failure Hazard Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale
• Manipulate the
• Reduce exposure to
 Replace earthen
• Reduce vulnerability
 Flood-proof facilities
• Build local capacity
to respond to or
prepare for the
 Educate employees
on the probable
impacts of a dam
 Develop a continuity
of operations plan
• Manipulate the • Manipulate the hazard:
hazard:  Remove dams hazard:
 Harden dams  None  Remove dams
 Harden dams • Reduce exposure to the hazard:
the hazard:
• Reduce exposure to
 Replace earthen dams with hardened structures
 Relocate critical facilities out of dam failure inundation areas failure inundation
 Relocate out of dam the hazard:
 Consider open space land use in designated dam failure inundation areas areas dams with hardened
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
to the hazard:
structures • Reduce vulnerability
 Adopt higher floodplain standards in mapped dam failure inundation areas
appropriate levels
to the hazard:  Elevate home to
 Retrofit critical facilities within dam failure inundation areas • Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard:
respond to or prepare
within dam failure • Build local capacity to
 Map dam failure inundation areas inundation areas
 Enhance emergency operations plan to include a dam failure component for the hazard:
 Institute monthly communications checks with dam operators  Learn about risk  Inform the public on risk reduction techniques reduction for the dam  Adopt real-estate disclosure requirements for the re-sale of property failure hazard hazard:
located within dam failure inundation areas  Learn the evacuation  Consider the probable impacts of climate change in assessing the risk routes for a dam associated with the dam failure hazard failure event
 Establish early warning capability downstream of listed high hazard dams  Educate yourself on failure  Consider the residual risk associated with protection provided by dams in early warning systems future land use decisionsand the dissemination
of warnings
20-2

- - -

20. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity
Table-20-2. Alternatives to Mitigate the Drought Hazard Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale
• Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard:
 None  None
• Reduce exposure to the
 Groundwater recharge through stormwater management
 Develop a water recycling program • Reduce exposure to  Increase “above-the-dam” regional natural water storage the hazard: hazard:
systems  None  None
• Reduce vulnerability to the • Reduce exposure to the hazard:
to the hazard:
• Reduce vulnerability
 Identify and create groundwater backup sources hazard:
 Drought-resistant landscapes
 Reduce private water system
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:  Drought-resistant  Water use conflict regulations landscapes
 Support alternative irrigation
techniques to reduce water
use and encourage use of
 Reduce water system losses
losses
 Reduce water system losses
 Distribute water saving kits
 increase conventional storage that is filled during high-flow systems (through
 Modify plumbing
periods
water saving kits)
supplies
• Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the climate-sensitive water  For homes with on- hazard:
site water systems:  For businesses with on-site
water systems: increase
storage, utilize rainwater
 Public education on drought resistance
increase storage,  Identify alternative water supplies for times of drought; mutual utilize rainwater aid agreements with alternative suppliers catchment catchment
• Build local capacity to
respond to or prepare for the
 Develop drought contingency plan
 Develop criteria “triggers” for drought-related actions • Build local capacity to  Improve accuracy of water supply forecasts respond to or prepare  Modify rate structure to influence active water conservationfor the hazard: hazard:
techniques
conservation
 Practice active water  Practice active water
 Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the drought hazard
conservation
20-3

- - -
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table-20-3. Alternatives to Mitigate the Earthquake Hazard Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale
critical functions outside
hazard area where possible
• Reduce vulnerability to the
• Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard:
 None  None  None
• Reduce exposure to the hazard: • Reduce exposure to the • Reduce exposure to the hazard:
 Locate outside of hazard area (off  Locate critical facilities or functions outside hazard hazard:
soft soils) area where possible  Locate or relocate mission- • Reduce vulnerability to the • Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
 Harden infrastructure hazard:
 Provide redundancy for critical functions  Retrofit structure (anchor house  Adopt higher regulatory standards structure to foundation) hazard:
 Secure household items that can  Build redundancy for critical • Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for cause injury or damage (such as functions and facilities the hazard:
water heaters, bookcases, and  Retrofit critical buildings and areas housing mission-critical
 Provide better hazard maps
other appliances)  Provide technical information and guidance  Build to higher design functions
• Build local capacity to
respond to or prepare for the
 Enact tools to help manage development in hazard
• Build local capacity to respond areas (e.g., tax incentives, information)  Include retrofitting and replacement of critical to or prepare for the hazard:
system elements in capital improvement plan  Practice “drop, cover, and hold” hazard:
 Adopt higher standard for  Develop strategy to take advantage of post-disaster  Develop household mitigation opportunities plan, such as creating a retrofit new construction; consider “performance-based design”
when building new structures
 Keep cash reserves for
 Warehouse critical infrastructure components such savings account, communication as pipe, power line, and road repair materials capability with outside, 72-hour  Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan self-sufficiency during an event  Initiate triggers guiding improvements (such as  Keep cash reserves for reconstruction  Inform your employees on the
possible impacts of
earthquake and how to deal
with them at your work facility.
 Develop a continuity of
<50% substantial damage or improvements) reconstruction  Further enhance seismic risk assessment to target  Become informed on the hazard high hazard buildings for mitigation opportunities. and risk reduction alternatives  Develop a post-disaster action plan that includesavailable. grant funding and debris removal components.  Develop a post-disaster action plan for your household operations plan
20-4

- - -

20. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity
Table-20-4. Alternatives to Mitigate the Flooding Hazard Personal Scale Corporate Scale
• Manipulate the
hazard:
 Clear storm
drains and
culverts
 Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce
exposure to the
hazard:
 Locate outside
of hazard area
hazard:
 Clear storm
drains and
culverts
 Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce exposure
to the hazard:
 Locate critical
facilities or
functions outside
Government Scale
• Manipulate the • Manipulate the hazard:
 Maintain drainage system
 Institute low-impact development
techniques on property
 Dredging, levee construction, and
providing regional retention areas
 Structural flood control, levees,
channelization, or revetments.
 Stormwater management regulations
and master planning
 Acquire vacant land or promote open
space uses in developing watersheds
to control increases in runoff
 Facilitate managed retreat from, or
upgrade of, the most at-risk areas
 Require accounting of sea level rise
in all applications for new
development in shoreline areas
 Implement Assembly Bill 162 (2007)
requiring flood hazard information in
local general plans
• Build local capacity to respond to
or prepare for the hazard:
 Produce better hazard maps
 Provide technical information and
 Elevate utilities
above base
flood elevation
 Use low-impact
development
techniques
• Reduce
vulnerability to
the hazard:
 Raise
structures
above base
flood elevation
 Elevate items
within house
above base
flood elevation
 Build new
homes above
base flood
elevation
 Flood-proof
structures
• Build local
capacity to
respond to or
prepare for the
hazard:
 Buy flood
insurance
household
 Develop
plan, such as
retrofit savings,
communication
with outside,
72-hour self-
sufficiency
during and
after an event
hazard area
guidance
 Enact tools to help manage
development in hazard areas
(stronger controls, tax incentives, and
information)
 Incorporate retrofitting or
replacement of critical system
elements in capital improvement plan
 Develop strategy to take advantage
of post-disaster opportunities
 Warehouse critical infrastructure
• Reduce exposure to the hazard:
 Use low-impact  Locate or relocate critical facilities development outside of hazard area
techniques
• Reduce
vulnerability to
the hazard:
 Build
redundancy for
critical functions
or retrofit critical
buildings
 Provide flood-
proofing when
new critical
components
 Develop and adopt a continuity of
operations plan
 Consider participation in the
Community Rating System
 Maintain and collect data to define infrastructure
must be located
in floodplains
• Build local
risks and vulnerability
 Train emergency responders
 Create an elevation inventory of
structures in the floodplain
 Develop and implement a public
information strategy
 Charge a hazard mitigation fee
 Integrate floodplain management
policies into other planning
mechanisms within the planning
area.
 Preserve undeveloped vulnerable
shorelinecapacity to
respond to or
prepare for the
hazard:
 Keep cash
reserves for
 Restore existing flood control and
riparian corridors
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
 Harden infrastructure, bridge
replacement program
 Raise structures above base flood level reconstruction  Support and  Consider the probable impacts of
climate change on the risk
 Provide redundancy for critical
functions and infrastructure implement
hazard  Adopt regulatory standards such as
freeboard standards, cumulative associated with the flood hazard disclosure for  Consider the residual risk associated sale of property with structural flood control in future in risk zones. land use decisions Solicit cost- substantial improvement or damage,
lower substantial damage threshold;
compensatory storage, non-conversion
deed restrictions.  Enforce National Flood Insurance sharing through partnerships with
others on
 Stormwater management regulations
and master planning.
 Adopt “no-adverse impact” floodplain
management policies that strive to not
Master Plan
Program requirements
 Adopt a Stormwater Management
projects with
multiple benefits. increase the flood risk on downstream communities
 Develop an adaptive management
plan to address the long-term
impacts of sea level rise
 Acquire or relocate identified repetitive
loss properties
 Promote open space uses in identified
high hazard areas via techniques such
as: planned unit developments,
easements, setbacks, greenways,
sensitive area tracks.
 Adopt land development criteria such
as planned unit developments, density
transfers, clustering
 Institute low impact development
techniques on property
 Acquire vacant land or promote open
space uses in developing watersheds
to control increases in runoff
20-5

- - -
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table-20-5. Alternatives to Mitigate the Landslide/Mass Movement Hazard Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
 Stabilize slope (dewater,
armor toe)
 Reduce weight on top of slope
• Reduce exposure to the
hazard area (off unstable land
and away from slide-run out
area)
• Reduce vulnerability to the
• Build local capacity to
respond to or prepare for the
 Institute warning system, and
develop evacuation plan
 Keep cash reserves for
 Develop a continuity of
operations plan
 Educate employees on the
potential exposure to landslide
hazards and emergency
response protocol.
• Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard:
 Stabilize slope (dewater,  Stabilize slope (dewater, armor toe) armor toe)  Reduce weight on top of slope
 Reduce weight on top of slope • Reduce exposure to the hazard:
 Minimize vegetation removal  Acquire properties in high-risk landslide areas. and the addition of impervious  Adopt land use policies that prohibit the placement of hazard:
surfaces. habitable structures in high-risk landslide areas.  Locate structures outside of • Reduce exposure to the • Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
hazard:  Adopt higher regulatory standards for new development  Locate structures outside of within unstable slope areas. hazard area (off unstable land  Armor/retrofit critical infrastructure against the impact of and away from slide-run out landslides. hazard:
area) • Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the  Retrofit at-risk facilities • Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
hazard:  Produce better hazard maps
 Retrofit home  Provide technical information and guidance hazard:
 Enact tools to help manage development in hazard • Build local capacity to areas: better land controls, tax incentives, informationrespond to or prepare for the  Develop strategy to take advantage of post-disaster hazard:
opportunities  Institute warning system, and reconstruction  Warehouse critical infrastructure components develop evacuation plan  Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan  Keep cash reserves for  Educate the public on the landslide hazard and reconstruction appropriate risk reduction alternatives.  Educate yourself on risk  Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the reduction techniques for risk associated with the landslide hazard landslide hazards 20-6

- - -

20. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity
Table-20-6. Alternatives to Mitigate the Severe Weather Hazard Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale
• Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard:
 None  None  None
• Reduce exposure to the • Reduce exposure to the • Reduce exposure to the hazard:
hazard:  Develop an urban heat island reduction program that includes hazard:
an urban forest program or plan  None
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard:
hazard:
• Reduce vulnerability to the
 Harden infrastructure such as locating utilities underground  Trim trees back from power lines  Insulate house  Relocate critical infrastructure (such as
power lines)
underground
 Designate snow routes and strengthen critical road sections power
 Provide redundant heat and
and bridges
• Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the  Insulate structure  Plant appropriate trees near  Reinforce or relocate hazard:
home and power lines (“Right  Support programs such as “Tree Watch” that proactively tree, right place” National manage problem areas through use of selective removal of Arbor Day Foundation hazardous trees, tree replacement, etc.

Program)  Establish and enforce building codes that require all roofs to  Install tree wire withstand snow loads • Build local capacity to • Build local capacity to
respond to or prepare
 Increase communication alternatives respond to or prepare for the  Modify land use and environmental regulations to support hazard:
vegetation management activities that improve reliability in could affect power lines
 Trim or remove trees that for the hazard:
utility corridors.  Trim or remove trees
that could affect power  Modify landscape and other ordinances to encourage sufficiency
 Promote 72-hour self-
appropriate planting near overhead power, cable, and phone lines  Create redundancy
 Equip facilities with a
lines
radio.
 Obtain a NOAA weather
 Provide NOAA weather radios to the public
 Equip vital facilities with
emergency power
 Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk generator.
 Obtain an emergency NOAA weather radio
associated with the severe weather hazard
 Review and update heat response plan in light of climate sources. change (heat events) projections
 None
• Reduce vulnerability to
the hazard:
critical infrastructure
such as power lines to
meet performance
expectations
20-7

- - -
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 20-7. Alternatives to Mitigate the Tsunami Hazard Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale
• Manipulate the hazard:
• Reduce exposure to the
whenever possible
• Reduce vulnerability to
 Mitigate personal
property for the impacts
• Build local capacity to
respond to or prepare for
 Develop and practice a
corporate evacuation
plan
 Educate employees on
the risk exposure from
ways to minimize that risk
• Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard:
 None  None  Build wave abatement structures (e.g. the “Jacks” looking structure designed by the Japanese) • Reduce exposure to the • Reduce exposure to the hazard: hazard: hazard:
 Locate structure or functions outside of hazard area whenever area
 Locate outside of hazard  Locate structure or
possible mission critical functions
 Harden infrastructure for tsunami impacts outside of hazard area • Reduce vulnerability to  Relocate identified critical facilities located in tsunami high the hazard:
hazard areas
mitigation techniques to
 Apply personal property
• Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: the hazard:
 Adopt higher regulatory standards that will provide higher levels anchoring your foundation
your home such as
of protection to structures built in a tsunami inundation area and foundation openings  Utilize tsunami mapping to guide development away from high to allow flow though.
of tsunami
risk areas through land use planning
• Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the respond to or prepare for
• Build local capacity to
hazard:
the hazard:
the hazard:
 Use probabilistic tsunami mapping and land use guidance from the state when published
household evacuation plan
 Develop and practice a
 Provide incentives to guide development away from hazard areas
risk exposure from the
 Educate yourself on the
 Improve the tsunami warning and response system
tsunami hazard and ways  Provide residents with tsunami inundation maps to minimize that risk
the tsunami hazard and
 Join NOAA’s Tsunami Ready program
 Develop and communicate evacuation routes
warning signs and signals
 Understand tsunami
 Enhance the public information program to include risk reduction options for the tsunami hazard
20-8

- - -

20. Mitigation Best Practices and Adaptive Capacity
Table-20-8. Alternatives to Mitigate the Wildfire Hazard Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale
• Manipulate the
 Clear potential fuels
on property such as
dry underbrush and
defensible space
defensible space
and provide water on
building materials
plantings in buffer
areas of high wildfire
• Build local capacity
to respond to or
prepare for the
 Support Firewise
USA community
 Create /establish
stored water supplies
firefighting.
• Manipulate the hazard: • Manipulate the hazard:
 Clear potential fuels on  Clear potential fuels on property such as dry underbrush and property such as dry
hazard:
diseased trees
overgrown underbrush  Implement best management practices on public lands and diseased trees • Reduce exposure to the hazard:
diseased trees • Reduce exposure to the  Create and maintain defensible space around structures and infrastructure hazard:
 Locate outside of hazard area
defensible space around
 Create and maintain
 Enhance building code to include use of fire resistant materials in structures
 Create and maintain
high hazard area.
 Locate outside of hazard • Reduce vulnerability to the hazard: around structures area  Create and maintain defensible space around structures and and infrastructure  Mow regularly infrastructure  Locate outside of
 Use fire-resistant building materials • Reduce vulnerability to  Use fire-resistant plantings in buffer areas of high wildfire threat. the hazard:
 Consider higher regulatory standards (such as Class A roofing) defensible space around
 Create and maintain to the hazard:
 Establish biomass reclamation initiatives
structures and provide
 Create and maintain
 Reintroduce fire (controlled or prescribed burns) to fire-prone water on site ecosystems around structures
 Manage fuel load through thinning and brush removal
materials
 Use fire-resistant building and infrastructure
 Establish integrated performance standards for new development to harden homes.
around home
 Create defensible spaces site
• Build local capacity to respond to or prepare for the hazard:  Use fire-resistant  More public outreach and education efforts, including an active • Build local capacity to Firewise USA program  Use fire-resistant respond to or prepare for  Possible weapons of mass destruction funds available to enhance the hazard:
fire capability in high-risk areas  Employ techniques from the National Fire  Identify fire response and alternative evacuation routes and establish where needed
threat.

Protection Association’s
 Seek alternative water supplies Firewise USA program to  Become a Firewise USA community safeguard home
 Use academia to study impacts/solutions to wildfire risk  Identify alternative water hazard:
 Establish/maintain mutual aid agreements between fire service supplies for fire fighting agencies  Install/replace roofing
 Develop, adopt, and implement integrated plans for mitigatingmaterial with non- initiatives. wildfire impacts in wildland areas bordering on development combustible roofing  Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk materials and implement associated with the wildfire hazard in future land use decisionsother strategies to harden to be utilized for  Establish a management program to track forest and rangeland homes from embers and health flame impingement
 Provide incentives to for existing structures to be hardened against wildfire.
• Reduce exposure to
the hazard:
hazard area
• Reduce vulnerability
20-9

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements

20.2 ADAPTIVE CAPACITY
Adaptive capacity is defined as the ability to adjust to potential damage, take advantage of opportunities, or respond to consequences (IPCC, 2014). This term is typically used while discussing climate change adaptation; however, it is similar to the alternatives presented in the tables for building local capacity. In addition to hazard- specific capacity building, the following list provides general alternatives that planning partners considered to build capacity for adapting to both current and future risks (Cal EMA, et al., 2012):
• Incorporate climate change adaptation into relevant local and regional plans and projects. • Establish a climate change adaptation and hazard mitigation public outreach and education program. • Build collaborative relationships between regional entities and neighboring communities to promote complementary adaptation and mitigation strategy development and regional approaches. • Establish an ongoing monitoring program to track local and regional climate impacts and adaptation strategy effectiveness.
• Increase participation of low-income, immigrant, non-English-speaking, racially and ethnically diverse, and special-needs residents in planning and implementation. • Ask local employers and business associations to participate in local efforts to address climate change and natural hazard risk reduction.
• Conduct a communitywide assessment and develop a program to address health, socioeconomic, and equity vulnerabilities.
• Focus planning and intervention programs on neighborhoods that currently experience social or environmental injustice or bear a disproportionate burden of potential public health impacts. • Use performance metrics and data to evaluate and monitor the impacts of climate change and natural hazard risk reduction strategies on public health and social equity. • Develop coordinated plans for mitigating future flood, landslide/mass movement, and related impacts through concurrent adoption of updated general plan safety elements and local hazard mitigation plans. • Update safety elements to reflect existing hazards and projected climate change impacts on hazards. • Implement general plan safety elements through zoning and subdivision practices that restrict development in floodplains, landslide/mass movement, and other natural hazard areas. • Identify and protect locations where native species may shift or lose habitat due to climate change impacts (sea level rise, loss of wetlands, warmer temperatures, drought). • Collaborate with agencies managing public lands to identify, develop, or maintain corridors and linkages between undeveloped areas.
• Promote economic diversity.
• Incorporate consideration of climate change impacts as part of infrastructure planning and operations. • Conduct a climate impact assessment on community infrastructure. • Identify gaps in legal and regulatory capabilities and develop ordinances or guidelines to address them. • Identify and pursue new sources of funding for mitigation and adaptation activities. • Hire new staff or provide training to current staff to ensure an adequate level of administrative and technical capability to pursue mitigation and adaptation activities. 20-10

21. AREA-WIDE ACTION PLAN

21.1 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ACTIONS
The Steering Committee reviewed the catalogs of hazard mitigation alternatives and selected area-wide actions to be included in a hazard mitigation action plan. The selection of area-wide actions was based on the risk assessment of identified hazards of concern and the defined hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Table-21-1 lists the recommended hazard mitigation actions that make up the action plan. The timeframe indicated in the table is defined as follows:
• Short Term = to be completed in 1 to 5 years
• Long Term = to be completed in greater than 5 years
• Ongoing = currently being funded and implemented under existing programs.

21.2 ACTION PLAN PRIORITIZATION
The actions recommended in the action plan were prioritized based on the following factors:
• Cost and availability of funding
• Benefit, based on likely risk reduction to be achieved • Number of plan objectives achieved
• Timeframe for project implementation
• Eligibility for grand funding programs
Two priorities were assigned for each action:
• A high, medium or low priority for implementing the action • A high, medium or low priority for pursuing grant funding for the action.

The sections below describe the analysis of benefits and costs and the assignment of the two priority ratings. 21-1
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table-21-1. Action Plan—Countywide Mitigation Initiatives Hazards
Addressed Lead Agency Possible Funding Sources or Resources Cost Time Line Objectives CW-1—The County will pursue an “Information Sharing Access Agreement” with FEMA allowing the County to readily access FEMA repetitive loss data for the entire county as needed at a level of detail to study and analyze repetitive flood loss problems in the county Flood Permit Sonoma County General Fund Low Short-term 2, 7, 8, 10 CW-2—Continue to maintain a county-wide hazard mitigation website and the associated Story-Map that will store the hazard mitigation plan and provide the public an opportunity to monitor plan implementation progress. Each planning partner can support this initiative by including an initiative in its action plan of creating a link to the County hazard mitigation website.

All Hazards Permit Sonoma with support from
County DEM
County General Fund Low Ongoing 2, 8, 12
CW-3—Leverage public outreach partnering capabilities in the planning area (such as CERT) to promote a uniform and consistent message on the importance of proactive hazard mitigation.

All Hazards County DEM County General Fund Low Ongoing 2, 8, 12

CW-4—Continue to update hazard mapping with best available data and science as it evolves, within the capabilities of the planning partnership. Support FEMA’s RiskMAP initiative.

All Hazards Permit Sonoma with support from
all planning partners and FEMA
Region IX
FEMA mitigation grant funding, FEMA’s
Cooperating Technical Partners program,
County capital improvement program funding
Medium Long-term,
depending
upon funding
2, 7, 8, 10
CW-5—Retain a steering committee as a working body over time to monitor progress of the hazard mitigation plan, provide technical assistance to planning partners, manage data, and oversee the update of the plan according to schedule. This body will continue to operate under the ground rules established at its inception.

All Hazards Permit Sonoma with support from
County DEM
County General Fund Low Ongoing 2, 8, 12
CW-6—Strive to capture time-sensitive, perishable data—such as high-water marks, extent and location of hazard, and loss information— following hazard events to support future updates to the risk assessment as well as other plans and programs that utilize hazard extent and location data
All Hazards County DEM County General Fund and FEMA Public Assistance following declared disaster events
Low Ongoing 2, 8, 12
CW-7—Utilize viable and relevant information, data and tools (Hazus models) developed as part of the update to the risk assessment of this plan update to support training and exercise of the County’s preparedness, response and recovery programs All Hazards County DEM County General Fund, Emergency
Management Program Development,
Homeland Security Grant Program
Low Ongoing 2, 5, 8, 10,
12 21.2.1 Benefit/Cost Review
The action plan must be prioritized according to a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed actions (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(3)(iii)). For this hazard mitigation plan, a qualitative benefit-cost review was performed for each action by assigning ratings for benefit and cost as follows:
• Cost:
 High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the action; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).  Medium—The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re- apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years.
 Low—The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program.
• Benefit:
21-2

21. Area-Wide Action Plan
 High—Action will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.  Medium—Action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or action will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.  Low—Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term.

To assign priorities, each action with a benefit rating equal to or higher than its cost rating (such as high benefit/medium cost, medium benefit/medium cost, medium benefit/low cost, etc.) was considered to be cost- beneficial. This is not the detailed level of benefit/cost analysis required for some FEMA hazard-related grant programs. Such analysis would be performed at the time a given action is being submitted for grant funding.

21.2.2 Implementation Priority
Implementation priority ratings were assigned as follows:
• High Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and has a secured source of funding. Action can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years). • Medium Priority—An action that meets multiple objectives, has benefits that exceed costs, and is eligible for funding though no funding has yet been secured for it. Action can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years), once funding is secured. Medium-priority actions become high-priority actions once funding is secured.
• Low Priority—An action that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, has benefits that do not exceed the costs or are difficult to quantify, has no secured source of funding, and is not eligible for any known grant funding. Action can be completed in the long term (1 to 10 years). Low-priority actions may be eligible for grant funding from programs that have not yet been identified.

21.2.3 Grant Pursuit Priority
Grant pursuit priority ratings were assigned as follows:
 High Priority—An action that meets identified grant eligibility requirements, has high benefits, and is listed as high or medium implementation priority; local funding options are unavailable or available local funds could be used instead for actions that are not eligible for grant funding.  Medium Priority—An action that meets identified grant eligibility requirements, has medium or low benefits, and is listed as medium or low implementation priority; local funding options are unavailable.
 Low Priority—An action that has not been identified as meeting any grant eligibility requirements.

21.2.4 Prioritization Summary for Mitigation Actions
Table 21-2 lists the priority of each area-wide action.

Action #
# of
Objectives
Met
T
Benefits
able 21-2.

Costs
Prioritization o
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
f Area-Wide
Is Action
Grant
Eligible?
Mitigation Actions
Can Action be Funded
under Existing
Programs/ Budgets?
Implementation
Priority
Grant
Pursuit
Priority
CW-1 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High N/A
CW-2 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High N/A
CW-3 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High N/A
21-3

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Action #
# of
Objectives
Met Benefits Costs
Do Benefits
Equal or
Exceed Costs?
Is Action
Grant
Eligible?
Can Action be Funded
under Existing
Programs/ Budgets?
Implementation
Priority
Grant
Pursuit
Priority
CW-4 4 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes High Medium
CW-5 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High N/A
CW-6 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High N/A
CW-7 5 Medium Low Yes No Yes High N/A

21.3 CLASSIFICATION OF MITIGATION ACTIONS
Each recommended action was classified based on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves.

Mitigation types used for this categorization are as follows:
• Prevention—Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • Property Protection—Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
• Public Education and Awareness—Actions to inform residents and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education.
• Natural Resource Protection—Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, wetland restoration and preservation, and green infrastructure.
• Emergency Services—Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities. • Structural Projects—Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard.

Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. • Climate Resilience—Actions that incorporate methods to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of climate change. Includes aquifer storage and recovery activities, incorporating future conditions projections in project design or planning, or actions that specifically address jurisdiction-specific climate change risks, such as sea level rise or urban heat island effect.
• Community Capacity Building—Actions that increase or enhance local capabilities to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences. Includes staff training, memorandums of understanding, development of plans and studies, and monitoring programs.

Table 21-3 shows the classification based on this analysis.

Table 21-3. Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Actions That Address the Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education &
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilience
Community
Capacity Building
Dam Failure CW-4, CW-6 CW-2, CW-3 CW-3, CW-7 CW-2, CW-3, CW-5 21-4

21. Area-Wide Action Plan
Actions That Address the Hazard, by Mitigation Type
Hazard Prevention
Property
Protection
Public
Education &
Awareness
Natural
Resource
Protection
Emergency
Services
Structural
Projects
Climate
Resilience
Community
Capacity Building
Drought CW-4, CW-6 CW-2, CW-3 CW-3, CW-7 CW-2, CW-3, CW-5 Earthquake CW-4, CW-6 CW-2, CW-3 CW-3, CW-7 CW-2, CW-3, CW-5 Flooding CW-1, CW-4,
CW-6
CW-1 CW-1, CW-2 CW-3, CW-7 CW-1 CW-1, CW-2, CW-3,
CW-5
Landslide/ Mass
Movement
CW-4, CW-6 CW-2, CW-3 CW-3, CW-7 CW-2, CW-3, CW-5
Sea-Level Rise CW-4, CW-6 CW-2, CW-3 CW-3, CW-7 CW-2, CW-3, CW-5 Severe Weather CW-4, CW-6 CW-2, CW-3 CW-3, CW-7 CW-2, CW-3, CW-5 Tsunami CW-4, CW-6 CW-2, CW-3 CW-3, CW-7 CW-2, CW-3, CW-5 Wildfire CW-4, CW-6 CW-2, CW-3 CW-3, CW-7 CW-2, CW-3, CW-5 21-5

22. PLAN ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE

22.1 PLAN ADOPTION
A hazard mitigation plan must document that it has been formally adopted by the governing bodies of the jurisdictions requesting federal approval of the plan (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(5)). For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval must document that is has been formally adopted. This plan will be submitted for a pre-adoption review to Cal OES and FEMA Region IX prior to adoption. Once pre-adoption approval has been provided, all planning partners will formally adopt the plan. DMA compliance and its benefits cannot be achieved until the plan is adopted. Copies of the resolutions adopting this plan for all planning partners can be found in Appendix F of this volume.

22.2 ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The area-wide action plan in Chapter 21 and jurisdiction-specific action plans in Volume 2 present a range of action items for reducing loss from hazard events. The planning partners have prioritized actions and can begin to implement the highest-priority actions over the next five years. The effectiveness of the hazard mitigation plan depends on its effective implementation and incorporation of the outlined action items into all partners’ existing plans, policies, and programs. Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation but can be implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or improved public participation. Sonoma County will have lead responsibility for overseeing the plan implementation. Plan implementation will be a shared responsibility among all planning partners and agencies identified as lead agencies in the action plans.

22.3 PLAN MAINTENANCE STRATEGY
Plan maintenance is the formal process for achieving the following:
• Ensuring that the hazard mitigation plan remains an active and relevant document and that the planning partnership maintains its eligibility for applicable funding sources • Monitoring and evaluating the plan annually and producing an updated plan every five years • Continuing public participation throughout the plan maintenance and implementation process • Incorporating the mitigation strategies outlined in this plan into existing planning mechanisms and programs, such as any relevant comprehensive land-use planning process, capital improvement planning process, and building code enforcement and implementation.

A steering committee will be maintained to participate in the plan maintenance strategy, which is summarized in Table 22-1. The sections below further describe each element. 22-1

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Table 22-1. Plan Maintenance Matrix
Approach Timeline Lead Responsibilitya
Plan Monitoring
Track the implementation of actions
over the performance period of the
plan
Continuous over the 5-year performance
period of the plan
Permit Sonoma will be the lead agency responsible
for the plan monitoring. All planning partners will
monitor themselves and report to Permit Sonoma.

Monitoring contacts will be the primary point of
contacts listed in the jurisdictional annexes.

Progress Reporting
Track actions over the performance Continuous during the 5-year Permit Sonoma will be responsible for progress period of the plan; assemble an annual performance period of the plan reporting. Participating planning partners are report outlining the status of planning responsible for maintaining the status of and partners’ projects reporting on their respective projects in accordance with the identified timeline. Permit Sonoma will then
assemble and maintain the annual report.

Plan Evaluation
Review the status of previous actions; Upon initiation of hazard mitigation plan All planning partners assess changes in risk; evaluate update, comprehensive general plan success of integration update, or major disaster
Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms
Create a linkage between the hazard Ongoing during the performance period All planning partners mitigation plan and individual of this plan as opportunities for jurisdictions’ general plans or similar integration become available, or plans identified in the core capability according to timelines identified in the assessments action plans for each planning partner
Grant Monitoring and Coordination
As grant opportunities present As grants become available Permit Sonoma and Sonoma County DEM provide themselves, consider options to notification to planning partners and convene grant pursue grants to fund actions funding meeting as needed. identified in this plan
Plan Update
The planning partnership will Funding and organizing to begin in FY All planning partners reconvene, at a minimum, every 2024/2025 or upon comprehensive 5 years to guide a comprehensive update to General Plan or major disaster update of the plan.

Continuing Public Participation
Maintain the website, bring the plan to Continuous over the 5-year performance Permit Sonoma will be the lead agency responsible. the Board of Supervisors meeting for period of the plan Planning partner points of contact identified in annual review, and receive comments Volume 2 annexes will help support. through the website.
a. Responsible lead party may designate an alternate. Jurisdictional points of contact identified in Volume 2 have support responsibility.

22.3.1 Plan Monitoring
Sonoma County Permit and Resource Department (Permit Sonoma) will be the lead agency with Sonoma County Department of Emergency Management (DEM) as the alternate agency responsible for monitoring the plan, and each partner will have monitor plan implementation by tracking the status of all recommended mitigation actions in its action plan. Staff or departments with primary responsibility are identified in each jurisdictional annex (see Volume 2) and summarized in Table 22-1.
22-2

22. Plan Adoption and Maintenance

22.3.2 Progress Reporting
The steering committee will convene an annual meeting to evaluate the progress on the action plan during a 12- month performance period. This review will include such items as the following:
• Summary of any hazard events that occurred during the performance period and impact of these events on the planning area
• Review of mitigation success stories
• Review of continued public involvement
• Brief discussions about why targeted strategies were not completed • Reevaluation of the action plan to establish if the timeline for projects needs identified to be amended • Recommendations for new projects
• Changes in or potential for new funding options
• The impact of any other planning programs or initiatives that involves hazard mitigations Based on the review, participating partners will complete a progress report template (see Appendix G) and forward it Permit Sonoma to prepare a formal annual report on plan progress. This report will be retained by the County, with copies forwarded to planning partners and Cal OES. This report should be used as follows:
• The reporting period will cover a 12-month period starting from the date of plan approval by FEMA Region IX
• Permit Sonoma will send out reminder emails to all planning partners no later than three months before the due date
• Planning partners will submit status updates and sections of the annual report no later than two weeks prior to the due date
• Permit Sonoma will prepare the annual report including planning partner information no later than one month following the progress reporting due date
• Permit Sonoma will be responsible for ensuring the report is posted to the County’s website that is dedicated to hazard mitigation
• The report will also contain public outreach and engagement made during the reporting period • The steering committee will use the information in the annual report to identify projects of interest for the following year and to apply for respective mitigation and/or resiliency grants • All partners will present the report findings to their governing bodies to inform them of the progress of mitigation and resiliency efforts implemented during the reporting period An annual progress is not a requirement under 44 CFR, but it is recommended since it may enhance the planning partnership’s opportunity for grand funding. Failure to prepare annual progress reporting will not jeopardize a planning partner’s compliance under the DMA; it may jeopardize its opportunity to leverage funding opportunities with other planning partners. Permit Sonoma will follow up with planning partners that do not participate in the annual reporting as deemed necessary. 22-3

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements

22.3.3 Plan Evaluation
The plan will be evaluated by how successfully the implementation of identified actions has helped to achieve the goals and objectives identified in this plan. This will be assessed by a review of the changes in risk that occur over the performance period and by the degree to which mitigation goals and objectives are incorporated into existing plans, policies and programs. Plan evaluation will be a shared responsibility among all planning partnership members and agencies identified as lead agencies in the area-wide and jurisdiction-specific action plans.

22.3.4 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms
The information on hazard, risk, vulnerability, and mitigation contained in this plan is based on the best science and technology available at the time this plan was prepared. The general plans of the planning partners are considered to be integral parts of this plan. The planning partners, through adoption of general plans and zoning ordinances, have planned for the impact of natural hazards. The hazard mitigation plan development process provided them with an opportunity to review and expand on policies contained within these planning mechanisms. The planning partners used their general plans and the hazard mitigation plan as complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk exposure to the citizens of the planning area.

An update to a general plan may trigger an update to the hazard mitigation plan.

All municipal planning partners are committed to creating a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and their individual general plans by identifying a mitigation action to do so 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:
• Emergency response plans
• Training and exercise of emergency response 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 22-4

22. Plan Adoption and Maintenance
participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be incorporated via the update process.

For the special purpose district planning partners to this plan, identified planning capabilities include capital facility plans, emergency operations plan, continuity of operations plans and community wildfire protection plans.

Special purpose districts do not have land use authority, so integration with land use plans is not a capability for districts. However, for the planning capabilities that the districts do possess, they will integrate where appropriate relevant sections of this plan when those plans are scheduled for updates. This has already occurred for most of the district planning partners as indicated in Volume 2 of this plan.

22.3.5 Grant Monitoring and Coordination
Permit Sonoma and Sonoma County DEM will identify grant funding opportunities and send notifications to participating partner jurisdictions. Once these opportunities are identified, planning partners interested in pursuing a grant opportunity will convene in a short meeting to review the hazard mitigation plan and pursue a strategy to capture that grant funding. Permit Sonoma will assume lead responsibility for planning and facilitating grant opportunity meetings. Review of the hazard mitigation plan at these meetings can include the following:
• Discussion of any hazard events that occurred during the prior year and their impact on the planning area • Impact of potential grant opportunities on the implementation of mitigation actions • Re-evaluation of the action plans to determine if the timeline for identified actions need to be amended (such as changing a long-term action to a short-term action because of funding availability) • Recommendations for new actions
• Impact of any other planning programs or initiatives that involve hazard mitigation.

If multiple planning partners decide to pursue the same grant funding opportunity, partnerships can be formed to utilize the hazard mitigation plan in the grant application.

22.3.6 Plan Update
Federal regulations require that local hazard mitigation plans be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for approval in order to remain eligible for benefits awarded under the Disaster Mitigation Act (44 CFR Section 201.6.d(3)). This plan’s format allows the planning partnership to review and update sections when new data become available. New data can be easily incorporated, resulting in a plan that will remain current and relevant.

The planning partnership intends to update the plan on a five-year cycle from the date of plan approval. This cycle may be accelerated to less than 5 years based on the following triggers:
• A presidential disaster declaration that impacts the planning area • A hazard event that causes loss of life
• A 20-year plan update of a participating jurisdiction’s general plan It will not be the intent of the update process to develop a complete new hazard mitigation plan. Based on needs identified by the planning team, the update will, at a minimum, include the following elements:
• The update process will be convened through a new steering committee. 22-5

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements • The hazard risk assessment will be reviewed and, if necessary, updated using best available information and technologies.
• Action plans will be reviewed and revised to account for any actions completed, dropped, or changed and to account for changes in the risk assessment or planning partnership policies identified under other planning mechanisms (such as the general plan).
• The draft update will be sent to appropriate agencies and organizations for comment. • The public will be given an opportunity to comment on the update prior to adoption. • Partners’ governing bodies will adopt their respective portions of the updated plan.

Because plan updates can require a year or more to complete, Permit Sonoma will initiate efforts to update the plan before it expires. Permit Sonoma will consider applying for funding to update the plan in Fiscal Year 2024/2025 grant cycle or will identify an alternate source of funding for the plan update in order to begin the update process in the spring of 2025.

22.3.7 Continuing Public Participation
The public outreach strategy used during development of the current update will provide a framework for public engagement through the plan maintenance process. It can be adapted for ongoing public outreach as determined to be feasible by the planning partnership. A steering committee similar to the one involved in developing this hazard mitigation plan update will be put in place to provide stakeholder input on plan maintenance activities.

The public will continue to be apprised of hazard mitigation activities through the website and reports on successful hazard mitigation actions provided to the media. Permit Sonoma will keep the website maintained, including monitoring the email address where members of the public can submit comments to the steering committee. This site will house the final plan and will be a one-stop shop for information regarding the plan, the partnership and plan implementation. Copies of the plan also will be distributed to the Sonoma County library system.

Once a year, Permit Sonoma will bring the plan to a Board of Supervisors meeting for review. These meetings are also televised and on public notices in community newspaper.

Upon initiation of the next plan update process, a new public involvement strategy will be initiated, with guidance from the new steering committee. This strategy will be based on the needs and capabilities of the planning partnership at the time of the update. At a minimum, it will include the use of local media outlets. 22-6

REFERENCES
Ackerly, David, Andrew Jones, Mark Stacey, Bruce Riordan. (University of California, Berkeley). 2018. San Francisco Bay Area Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number:

CCCA4-SUM-2018-005. Accessed at https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Reg_Report-SUM- CCCA4-2018-005_SanFranciscoBayArea_ADA.pdf
Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO). 2013. “Introduction to Dams.” Dam Safety 101. Accessed 2017. http://www.damsafety.org/news/?p=e4cda171-b510-4a91-aa30-067140346bb2.

Berkeley Seismology Lab. 2018. California Faults. Accessed 2021. https://seismo.berkeley.edu/hayward/index.html.

Brown, William M. III, David M. Perkins, Edgar V. Leyendecker, Arthur D. Frankel, James W. Hendley II, and Peter H. Stauffer. 2001. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). “Hazard Maps Help Save Lives and Property.” 2001.

Accessed 2017. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1996/fs183-96/fs183-96.pdf.

Cal FIRE. 2012. “Fire Hazard Severity Zone Re-Mapping Project.” The website of Cal FIRE. Accessed 2018. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/projects/hazard/fhz
Cal FIRE. 2012a. “Fire Hazard Severity Zone Development.” The website of Cal FIRE. Accessed 2018. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_development California Coastal Commission. 2019. Climate Change; Sea Level Rise. Accessed 2021. https://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slr/.

California Department of Conservation. 2003. “Faults and Earthquakes in California; Note 31.” Accessed online:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Note_31.pdf California Department of Finance. 2020. “E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the States, 2001- 2010, with 2000 and 2010 Census Counts.” Website of the State of California Department of Finance. Accessed 2020. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-4/2001-10/ California Department of Finance. 2020a. “E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011- 2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark.” Website of the State of California Department of Finance. Accessed 2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/Estimates/e-4/2010-21/ California Department of Water Resources. 2008. Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaptation for California’s Water. Accessed 2018.
https://www.water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/climatechange/docs/ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf References-1

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements California Division of Safety of Dams. 2017. Criteria for DSOD’s Downstream Hazard Potential Classification.

Accessed 2018. https://www.water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Division- of-safety-of-dams/Emergency-Action-Planning/Files/Publications/Criteria-for-DSODs-Downstream-Hazard- Potential-Classification.pdf
California Division of Safety of Dams. 2021. Dams within Jurisdiction of the State of California. Accessed 2021. https://www.water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of-safety-of- dams/Files/Publications/Dams-Within-Jurisdiction-of-the-State-of-California-Alphabetically-by-County.pdf California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) et al. 2012. “California Adaptation Planning Guide.” Accessed 2017. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/APG_Understanding_Regional_Characteristics.pdf.

California Employment Development Department. 2021. Major Employers in Sonoma County. Accessed 2021. https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/majorer/countymajorer.asp?CountyCode=000097.

California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2018. “Dam Emergency Action Planning.” Website of Cal OES. Accessed 2018. http://www.caloes.ca.gov/for-individuals-families/hazard-mitigation- planning/dam-emergency-action-planning
California Landscape Conservation Partnership. 2021. “The Climate Commons.” Webpage accessed at http://climate.calcommons.org/basic/welcome-climate-commons California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2018. 2018 Indicators of Climate Change in California. Accessed 2021. https://oehha.ca.gov/climate-change/2018-indicators-climate-change-california.

California Office of the Attorney General. 2021. Climate Change Impacts in California. Accessed February 2021. https://oag.ca.gov/environment/impact#:~:text=Sea%20level%20rise%2C%20coastal%20flooding,and%20work %20in%20coastal%20counties.&text=As%20sea%20levels%20rise%2C%20saltwater,and%20levee%20systems %20will%20increase.

California Public Utilities Commission. 2021. Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) / De-Energization. Accessed 2021. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/psps/.

Cardona, O.D., M.K. van Aalst, J. Birkmann, M. Fordham, G. McGregor, R. Perez, R.S. Pulwarty, E.L.F.

Schipper, and B.T. Sinh. 2012: Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA. Accessed 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap2_FINAL-1.pdf Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012. “Drought and Health.” Accessed February 2017. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/drought/.

Climate Central. 2021. “Surging Seas Risk Finder; Sonoma County, California, USA.” Page on Climate Central website. Accessed at https://riskfinder.climatecentral.org/county/sonoma-county.ca.us?comparisonType=postal- code&forecastName=Basic&forecastType=NOAA2017_int_p50&level=3&unit=ft References-2

References
Climate Connections. 2021. “Silent calamity: The health impacts of wildfire smoke.” YaleClimateConnections.org website page, accessed at: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/05/silent- calamity-the-health-impacts-of-wildfire-smoke/
City of Sonoma. 2017. History of Sonoma. September 1. Accessed 2021. https://www.sonomacity.org/history-of- sonoma/#:~:text=Native%20American%20Period%20%5BBefore%201823,the%20arrival%20of%20the%20Euro peans.

County of Sonoma. 2013. “Sonoma County General Plan 2020; Open Space and Resource Conservation Element.” Permit and Resource Management Department. Accessed 2021. https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Long-Range-Plans/General-Plan/Open-Space-and-Resource-Conservation/.

County of Sonoma. 2016. “Groundwater Availability.” Map, Permit Sonoma. Accessed 2021. https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147553775.

County of Sonoma. 2017. “2016 Sonoma County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan.” Permit Sonoma; Fire & Emergency Services Department.

County of Sonoma. 2019. “Department of Homeland Security Authorized Agent Signature Authority.” Board of Supervisors Agenda Item Summary Report, Department of Emergency Management. Accessed 2021. https://sonoma-county.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=872&meta_id=257688.

County of Sonoma. 2019. “Sonoma County Local Coastal Plan (Public Review Draft).” Accessed 2021. https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Long-Range-Plans/Local-Coastal-Program/Public-Review- Draft/#separateSections.

County of Sonoma. 2021. “Sonoma at a Glance.” Economic Development Board. Accessed 2021. http://sonomaedb.org/Why-Sonoma-County/Sonoma-at-a-Glance/.

County of Sonoma. 2021. Income and Rent Limits. June 1. Accessed June 8, 2021. https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CDC/Housing-and-Neighborhood-Investment/Income-and-Rent-Limits/#local.

County of Sonoma. n.d. Sonoma County Historic Overview. Accessed 2021. https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Planning/Historic-Resources/Sonoma-County-Historic-Overview/.

Danielson, Tess. 2015. The FBI says you may need to pay up if hackers infect your computer with ransomware.

October 26. Accessed 2019. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/s/fbi-recommends-pay-hackers-infect- 185625373.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAN6lJrIEj 712_hGe9UjyaOIOjOxzrdJn3Tzvsdr6gHgqemY3TjtfJTV6pAtkkzRQFbPMrcdZubyMrZV_XemNdCIy_nIg1HF TFbN3.

Drought Impact Reporter. 2021. The website of the National Drought Mitigation Center. Accessed 2021. http://drought.unl.edu/monitoringtools/droughtimpactreporter.aspx Dunbar, Paula K, and Craig S Weaver. 2015. U.S. States and Territories National Tsunami Hazard Assessment:

Historical record and sources for waves – Update. Boulder, CO: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Accessed 2021.
https://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/documents/Tsunami_Assessment_2016Update.pdf.

References-3

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Dunbar, Paula K. and Craig S. Weaver. 2015. United States and Territories National Tsunami Hazard Assessment: Historical record and Sources for Waves-Update. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/resources/weather_fatalities.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2015. “Why Dams Fail.” Webpage of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Website. Last updated April 7, 2015. Available online at: https://www.fema.gov/why-dams- fail
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 2021. Unemployment Rate in Sonoma County, CA. Accessed 2021. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/CASONO6URN.txt.

Felman, Adam. 2020. What to know about pandemics. March 30. Accessed 2021. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/148945.

Fire Safe Sonoma. 2016. “Sonoma County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.” Accessed 2021. https://www.firesafesonoma.org/wp-content/uploads/cwpp-final.pdf.

FireDepartment.net. 2021. “Sonoma County, CA Fire Departments.” Page of the FireDepartment.net website accessed at https://www.firedepartment.net/directory/california/sonoma-county Hansen, E. M., Schreiner L. C. , and Miller J. F. 1982. Application of probable maximum precipitation estimates, United States east of the 105th meridian. Hydrometeorological Rep. 52, Silver Spring, MD: National Weather Service.

Harrison, Virginia, and Jose Pagliery. 2015. Nearly 1 million new malware threats released every day. April 14.

Accessed 2019. https://money.cnn.com/2015/04/14/technology/security/cyber-attack-hacks-security/index.html.

Heady, W. N., B. S. Cohen, M. G. Gleason, J. N. Morris, S. G. Newkirk, K. R. Klausmeyer, H. Walecka, E.

Gagneron, M. Small. 2018. Conserving California’s Coastal Habitats: A Legacy and a Future with Sea Level Rise. The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, CA; California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA.

Accessed at
https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/Marine/crr/library/Documents/TNC_SCC_CoastalA ssessment_lo.pdf
Howell, Junia, and James R. Elliott. 2018. “Damages Done: The Longitudinal Impacts of Natural Hazards on Wealth Inequality in the United States.” Social Problems (Oxford Academic) 66 (3). Accessed 2021. https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article/66/3/448/5074453#137726978.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parts A, B and Annexes.” Accessed January 2017. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). n.d. Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Accessed 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/.

Kostadinov, Dimitar. 2012. Cyberterrorism Defined (as distinct from “Cybercrime”). December 21. Accessed 2018. https://resources.infosecinstitute.com/topic/cyberterrorism-distinct-from-cybercrime/.

References-4

References
Larsen, Mort, Prentice, Carol S., Kelsey, Harvey M., Zachariasen, Judith, and Rotberg, Gabriel L. 2005. “Paleoseismic Investigation of the Maacama Fault at the Haehl Creek Site, Willits, California.” Geological Society of America Cordilleran Section 101st Annual Meeting. San Francisco. Accessed 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20160814083719/https:/gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005CD/finalprogram/abstract_85295.ht m.

Lewis, Michael S. No date. “Beaufort Wind Chart—Estimating Winds Speeds.” The website of NOAA. Accessed 2018. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/Image/iwx/publications/Beaufort_Wind_Chart.pdf Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC & ABAG). 2021. “Bay Area Census; Race Ethnicity Percentage by County, 1980 – 2010.” Accessed June 28, 2021 at http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/historical/shrcorace.htm National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems:

Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Accessed at https://doi.org/10.17226/24935
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2004. NASA Earth Observatory News Web Site Item, dated August 2, 2004. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25145 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2020. NASA Global Climate Change web page “The relentless rise of carbon dioxide.” Accessed at: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the- relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2020a. NASA Global Climate Change web page “Climate Change: How Do We Know?.” Accessed at: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2021. The Effects of Climate Change. Accessed 2021. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/.

National Centers for Environmental Information. 2018. “NGDC/WDS Global Historical Tsunami Database.” Accessed 2018. https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu_db.shtml National Centers for Environmental Information. 2021a. “Climate Prediction Center, Palmer Z Index.” Accessed at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/monitoring_and_data/drought.shtml.

National Centers for Environmental Information. 2021b. “Climate Prediction Center, Palmer Drought Severity Index.” Accessed at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/monitoring_and_data/drought.shtml.

National Centers for Environmental Information. 2021c. “Climate Prediction Center, Palmer Hydrological Drought Index.” Accessed at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/monitoring_and_data/drought.shtml.

National Centers for Environmental Information. 2021d. “Climate Prediction Center, Standard Precipitation Index.” Accessed at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/Drought/Monitoring/spi.shtml.

National Drought Mitigation Center. 2021. “Types of Drought.” Website accessed June 2021 at https://drought.unl.edu/Education/DroughtIn-depth/TypesofDrought.aspx References-5

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2017. “Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States.” Silver Spring, MD. Accessed 2021. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/techrpt83_Global_and_Regional_SLR_Scenarios_for_the_US_fina l.pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2018. “Sea Level Rise Viewer.” Accessed at https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2018a. “Enhanced F Scale for Tornado Damage.” The website of NOAA. Accessed 2018. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-scale.html National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service (NOAA and NWS). 2009. “National Weather Service Glossary.” Accessed 2018. http://w1.weather.gov/glossary/.

National Research Council. 2011. Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Accessed at https://doi.org/10.17226/12877
National Severe Storms Laboratory. 2018. “Severe Weather 101.” The website of the National Severe Storms Laboratory. Accessed 2018. https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/wind/types/ National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. 2001. Designing for Tsunamis: Seven Principles for Planning and Designing for Tsunami Hazards. Accessed 2018.
https://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/documents/designingfortsunamis.pdf Nicholls, Ben. 2020. Personal communication with CAL FIRE West Division Chief Ben Nicholls. November 12, 2020.

Pacific Gas & Electric. n.d. Learn about Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events. Accessed 2021. https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/outages/public-safety-power-shuttoff/learn-about-psps.page.

Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. 2018. “Cascadia Subduction zone.” Website accessed 2018. https://pnsn.org/outreach/earthquakesources/csz
Pan American Health Organization. 2012. “Older people & disasters.” Information sheet prepared by the Pan American Health Organization, Regional Office for the Americas of the World Health Organization. Accessed at https://www.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2012/Disasters-English.pdf Permit Sonoma. 2017. “Bodega Bay Focused Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Strategies.” Accessed 2021.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjl58aM7MHwAhXOXc 0KHSMmD4IQFjAAegQIAhAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsonomacounty.ca.gov%2FWorkArea%2FDownloadAs set.aspx%3Fid%3D2147578801&usg=AOvVaw2KGTMDj6xnuXrYDlvI2SN-.

San Francisco Bay Conversation and Development Commission. 2011. Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. October 6, 2011. Accessed at https://bcdc.ca.gov/BPA/LivingWithRisingBay.pdf
References-6

References
Schuster, Robert L. and Lynn M. Highland. 2003. “Impact of Landslides and Innovative Landslide-Mitigation Measures on the Natural Environment.” U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. Accessed at https://pubs.usgs.gov/op/HongKongJuly/HongKongJuly21sm.pdf Society for Research in Child Development. 2020. “Understanding the Impacts of Natural Disasters on Children.” Website article posted August 13, 2020. Accessed at https://www.srcd.org/research/understanding-impacts- natural-disasters-children
Sonoma County Emergency. 2021. COVID-19 Vaccine Update. Accessed 2021. https://socoemergency.org/emergency/novel-coronavirus/vaccine-information/.

Sonoma County Emergency. 2021. Sonoma County Coronavirus Data at a Glance. Accessed 2021. https://socoemergency.org/emergency/novel-coronavirus/.

Sonoma Water. 2018. “2018 Water Supply Strategies Action Plan.” Accessed 2021. https://www.sonomawater.org/media/PDF/Water%20Resources/Water%20Supply/Water%20Supply%20Strategie s/WSSAP%202018%20FINAL%20v2.pdf.

Sonoma Water. 2021. Urban Water Management Plan. March. Accessed 2021. https://www.sonomawater.org/uwmp.

Sonoma Water. 2021a. “Current Water Supply Levels.” Website accessed June 2021 at https://www.sonomawater.org/current-water-supply-levels Sonoma Water. 2021b. “Zoning and Land Use (Staff Version).” Online GIS map. Accessed June 28, 2021 at https://sonomacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6cc8a5f296b8433d96cbd5db528f4d36 Sonoma Water. n.d. Water Supply. Accessed May 6, 2021. https://www.sonomawater.org/water-supply.

Sonomavalley.com. 2021. About Sonoma Valley: The Birthplace of California’s Famed Wine Industry. Accessed 2021. https://www.sonomavalley.com/about/history-of-sonoma-valley/.

Southern California Earthquake Center. 2018. “A Site Conditions Map for California Based on Geology and Hear Wave Velocity.” The website of the Southern California Earthquake Center. Accessed 2018 at http://scecinfo.usc.edu/phase3/wills.html
State of California. 2018. California Legislative Information website. Accessed 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=8589.5.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Sonoma County, California Profile Page (2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates). Accessed June 4, 2021. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0500000US06097.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021a. “Race.” U.S. Census Bureau Quickfacts footnote. Accessed at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI625219 U.S. Census Bureau. n.d. Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units (Table S2504). Accessed May 17, 2021.

References-7

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=United%20States&t=Year%20Structure%20Built&g=0500000US06097&t id=ACSST1Y2019.S2504.

U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. 2018. U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit web page on drought:
https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/water/drought
U.S. Drought Monitor (USDM). 2020. Tabular Data Archive, data for Sonoma County, California. Accessed at https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Data/DataTables.aspx
U.S. Drought Monitor (USDM). 2021. What is the USDM. Accessed at https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/About/WhatistheUSDM.aspx U.S. Drought Portal. 2020. National Integrated Drought Information System. Accessed 2020. https://www.drought.gov/drought/data-gallery/crop-moisture-index U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2016. Map of known active geologic faults in the San Francisco Bay region.

Accessed May 2021. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/map-known-active-geologic-faults-san-francisco-bay- region.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. “Measuring Earthquakes FAQs.” Accessed February 2017. https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9828/3357.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. A New Map of Rodgers Creek Fault in Sonoma County, California. July

16. Accessed 2021. https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/science/a-new-map-rodgers-creek- fault-sonoma-county-california?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. “How many deaths result from landslides each year?” USGS website accessed at: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-deaths-result-landslides-each-year?qt- news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products
U.S. Geological Survey. n.d. Earthquake Hazard and Probability Maps. Accessed May 6, 2021. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/.

U.S. Geological Survey. n.d. What is the probability that an earthquake will occur in the Los Angeles Area? In the San Francisco Bay area? Accessed May 6, 2021. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-probability-earthquake-will- occur-los-angeles-area-san-francisco-bay-area?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products.

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2018. “Fourth National Climate Assessment; Chapter 2, Our Changing Climate.” Accessed 2021. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/.

U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1972. Soil Survey; Sonoma County California. U.S. Department of Agriculture in Cooperation with University of California. Accessed 2021. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/sonomaCA1972/sonomaCA1972.pdf.

USDA Farm Services Agency. 2021. Disaster Designation Information. USDA web page accessed at https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/disaster-assistance-program/disaster-designation- information/index
References-8

References
Wildfiretoday.com 2018. “One year later, looking at the disastrous Northern California wildfires.” October 9, 2018. Page of the wildfiretoday.com website. Accessed at https://wildfiretoday.com/tag/pocket-fire/ Wikipedia. 2021. “August 2020 California lightning wildfires. Wikipedia website page accessed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2020_California_lightning_wildfires References-9

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021 Appendix A. Public Involvement Materials

STEERING COMMITTEE

MEETING SUMMARIES

MEETING SUMMARY
Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday – July 23, 2020
Location: Online Meeting
Subject: Steering Committee No. 1
Project Name: Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan-Update In Attendance Attendees: 25
Phoned in: All
Planning Team: Bart Spencer (Lead), Rob Flaner
Not Present: N/A
Summary Prepared by: Des Alexander
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Item Action
Welcome and Introductions
• Chair, Ms. Lisa Hullete greet ed the committee and introduce d Tetra Tech, the county’s consultant for the MJHMP
• Rob Flaner and Bart Spencer introduce d Tetra Tech and the Tetra Tech team
• As the lead planner, Bart walked through the agenda
Project Overview
• While discussing the work plan, Bart explained that the committee will keep any impacts from the ongoing COVID
pandemic in mind as meetings and assignments are scheduled • The planning team will work to keep everyone on-task as this process progresses over the next few months. The homework that will be given by Tetra Tech will be used to provide insight and guidance on where the steering committee wants the
HMP to go.

MJHMP Steering Committee Role
• It was explained to the committee that Lisa, who is the Chair, will coordinate with Rob and Bart on all actions
• There was discussion around the role and necessity of a Vice- Chair, who would run meetings in the event of Lisa’s absence

MEETING SUMMARY
Item Action
o Later in the meeting Shari Meads from the City of
Santa Rosa volunteers to be the Vice-Chair and is
elected by consensus
• Rob explained FEMA requirement that all meetings be
advertised to the public once the charter is approved
• Bart and Rob explained the attendance policy. All members are asked to email the program manager () if they are unable to attend the meeting; non-participating members will be asked to identify alternates if they miss multiple meetings; to reach quorum, 50% + 1 participation is required
• Bart also explained the virtual meeting guidelines. All meetings must be interactive, but are not required to be in real time; the committee must interact with the public at least twice; and when public facing meetings occur, the committee must
consider social distancing protocols
• Bart and Rob explained that ground rules/charter must be adopted today and sent to FEMA in order to maintain
compliance
• Participating jurisdictions were asked to identify potential alternates and to send their contact information to Lisa MJHMP Plan Review
• Bart reminded committee members about the homework
assignment mentioned in the agenda
• Assignment 1: Review the California State HMP, specifically the hazards of concern for Sonoma County. Committee members should think about if CA HMP goals and objectives are
consistent with those identified in the 2016 Sonoma County LHMP. Members should also look for items and think about issues that would be specific to their jurisdictions or municipalities, and they should also think about what kind of projects could be done that would be specific to their
respective organizations
• Rob asked that organizations/municipalities with their own separate plans also evaluate those to identify alignments between the plans of the county and state. He expressed that it is important that all plans maintain consistency.

Public Involvement Strategy
• Bart and Lisa discussed the press release sent out by Lisa that announced the commencement of the plan update process
Motion to adopt the ground rules was
made by Shari Meads, seconded by
Karen Gaffney and approved by the
committee
Shari Meads was elected Vice-Chair by
committee consensus

MEETING SUMMARY
Item Action
• Bart and Rob discussed the importance of keeping the public informed, and state that the HMP website will be updated with the HMP’s status (at start and end of process)
• The committee was asked to provide any suggestions on additional outreach capabilities that may be available
Phase 1 – Jurisdictional Annex Process
• Bart discussed the goals and the stages of phase 1 of the jurisdictional annex process. Phase 1 seeks to identify the most relevant hazards to the county and requires the participation of every organization in order to identify Sonoma County’s most relevant hazards. Rob added that the annex process is very helpful to organizations that may seek grant funding for improvement projects.
• Bart and Lisa stated that phase 1 will be disseminated by July 31st and that Tetra Tech will assist organizations with completing this process. Once completed, committee
members will submit their annexes to Bart and Lisa
• Annexes should be completed within 30 days. Bart and Rob express that the most likely hazards to be identified by all would be fire, flooding, and earthquake. It is mentioned that all critical (i.e. necessary for physical and/or economic function) facilities need to be identified. Rob suggests members look at FEMA’s community lifeline definitions to help identify critical facilities
Action Items and Next Steps
•
Bart asked the committee to budget about an hour and a half for meetings moving forward. Several committee members ask if meeting time can be adjusted and everyone votes on the new time agreement
• Bart, Rob, and Lisa reiterated the importance of completing homework assignments
• Committee members were asked to submit any questions to Lisa or the Tetra Tech team prior to the meeting. All actions that need to take place will be made clear in the next agenda Next Meeting: Thursday, August 27, 2020 from 1 pm to 2:30 pm Future meeting day/time agreed upon
by group: Last Thursday of the Month
from 1 pm to 2:30 pm.

MEETING SUMMARY
Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday, September 24, 2020
Location: Digital
Subject: Steering Committee Meeting No. 2
Project Name: Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update In Attendance Attendees: 25 (21 SoCo, 4 TT)
Planning Team: Lisa Hulette, Bart Spencer, Rob Flaner, Carol Baumann, Des Alexander
Not Present: N/A
Summary Prepared by: Des Alexander
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Item Action
Welcome and Introductions
• Lisa Hulette welcomed members of the steering committee to Previous steering committee the 2nd meeting for Sonoma County’s MJHMP update meeting notes were approved • Des Alexander did a roll call, where 21 committee members were in attendance, with 4 members of Tetra Tech also on the call.
• No members of the public were on the call.

Planning Process
• Motion to approve meeting summary for Steering Committee meeting 1 was made by Shari Meads, seconded by Kim Jordan, and approved
• All planning partners who wish to participate in process have been contacted
• Lisa and Bart discussed the draft mission/vision statement document that was sent to committee members. The document featured several sample mission and vision statements, as well as several goals and objectives

Meeting Summary
Item Action
• Although several members did not have a comment, most of the comments that were made were focused on using fewer and more general words; making sure equity was factored into mitigation process, actions, and outcome; placing more
emphasis on disaster mitigation with green infrastructure; separate natural and man-made hazards in the goals section Hazards of Concern
• The homework from the last meeting was briefly discussed.

Considering the rescheduling of everything due to the wildfires, the county and Sonoma County-portion of the state HMPs will be discussed at the next meeting. Participating cities were also asked to review their individual HMPs if they had them. • Bart discussed the differences between natural hazards and human-caused hazards, as well as how each will be covered in the HMP. For natural hazards, he discussed the importance of using historical data to track probabilities.
• It was proposed that severe weather, sea level rise, tsunami, dam failure, drought, and pandemic be added to the current countywide hazards of earthquake, flood, wildland fire, and landslide. Bart and Rob explained the justifications for each hazard, specifically pandemic. Rob stated it would be very difficult for the plan to get public and political support right now without any mention of pandemic mitigation. Pandemic would not get its own section like the other hazards, but would be looped into the “other hazards of concern” section
• Discussion included information that failure of Warm Springs Dam was analyzed and modeled as part of the NEPA process for constructing the dam; Lisa and TT will connect with Sonoma Water separately to get needed information; most supported listed and suggested hazards
• Motion to include all listed and suggested hazards made by Lisa Hulette, seconded by Kim Jordan
• Approved by committee
Phase 1 Annexes
• The instructions and phase 1 annex forms went to all
participating partners. Tetra Tech is still in the process of receiving them, but they are due soon.
• Bart explains the three phased approach to the annex process.

The first phase asks for general hazards throughout the county; the second phase seeks to build an HMP that is specific to its jurisdiction by ranking hazards accordingly; the third phase asks All listed and suggested hazards
approved by consensus
2 Meeting Summary
Item Action
municipalities and districts to devise specific action items for them to take to mitigate those habits. Rob explained that there are different processes for municipalities and districts, so it is important that each one get the correct instructions.

Public Involvement Strategy
• Domenica stated that the website is in the process of being updated to better inform the public. She stated that there is room for a sub-committee to be created in the future to discuss strategies for website improvement.
• Bart also discussed surveys that can be sent out to engage the public. He explained that Tetra Tech would create a survey that would ask the public about their current knowledge of and level of preparation for relevant hazards
• Bart also said that committee members can send screenshots and descriptions of their public engagement strategies to Tetra Tech
Closing Comments
• Action Steps: Steering committee members will decide the best goals and objectives are best for the HMP. The goal is to pare Tetra Tech agreed to create survey the number of goals to 4-6 and the number of objectives to 8- to send to committee 12. • Tetra Tech agreed to set up a poll for everyone to vote for the mission and vision statements, as well as top goals and objectives
• It was suggested that a cloud-based platform be set up to share information, including community outreach strategies and relevant data
Next Meeting Date
• October 22, 2020 from 1pm to 3:30pm
Adjourn
• Motion to close made by Lisa Hulette, seconded by Shari Meads • Approved at 2:37pm
3 Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee
Meeting #3
Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday, October 22, 2020
Location: Digital
Subject: Steering Committee Meeting No. 3
Project Name: Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update In Attendance Attendees: Primaries – Gary Helfrich, Shelley Bianchi-Williamson, Richard Diaz, Hunter McLaughlin, Shari Meads, Katherine Duran, Mollie Asay, Marshall Turbeville, Scott Westrope, Ben Nicholls, Lisa Michelli; Alternates – Caerleon Safford, Adrianne Garayalde, Mickie Tagle, Mark Chandler, Kate Piontek; Public/Other – Amy Lyle, Dave Schiltgen, Eduardo Hernandez Planning Team: Lisa Hulette, Bart Spencer, Rob Flaner, Carol Baumann, Des Alexander
Not Present: The Nature Conservancy, Western Builders
Summary Prepared by: Des Alexander
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Welcome and Introductions
• Lisa gave the overview of the agenda and goals of the meeting • Des completed the roll call
• 20 steering committee members were present, with 4 members from Tetra Tech • A couple members of the public were on the call, including Dave Schiltgen (contributed on last HMP) and members from Graton Rancheria
Planning Process
• Lisa asked the committee to review the steering committee meeting minutes from the last minute
• When no corrections were offered, Shari Meads moved to approve the minutes which was seconded by Richard Diaz. The minutes were approved by the committee. • Lisa also asked for public comment, but none was offered at the time Old Business
• Rob and Bart clarified FEMA’s position on the term “equity” and why it would not be helpful to include in the HMP. FEMA currently has no official definition for “equity,” so they would have no accurate way to gauge whether it is included in the plan or not. However, FEMA has the BRIC (Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities) program which focuses on funding mitigation actions for the “whole community.” Lisa explained that “whole community” would be the term used for the HMP and that the later discussion regarding community lifelines can outline how that is covered.

Meeting Summary
• Lisa went through the SurveyMonkey results regarding the final mission statement and goals. Lisa Micheli moved to accept the mission statement as written, which was seconded by Shari Meads.

The committee voted and the mission statement was adopted. Steering committee members and general public members discussed redundancy in the goals as written and retooled the first five goals as a result.
• Those goals are now as follows: (1) protect people and minimize loss of life, injury and social impacts (2) minimize potential for loss of property, economic and social impacts, and displacement due to hazards (3) minimize potential for environmental impacts and consider a broad-range of mitigation solutions, including nature-based solutions where feasible (4) communicate natural hazard risk to the whole community within Sonoma County (5) support and inform the development of relevant mitigation policies and programs • The motion to accept the new goals was made by Lisa Micheli and seconded by Mark Chandler.

The new goals were then approved by the committee.
• Due to time constraints, the discussion on the remaining goals was postponed until the next meeting
New Business
• Since all the goals had not been finalized, Bart explained that objectives could not be discussed until that time.
• Bart went on to explain critical facilities and how it related to FEMA’s community lifelines concept. He and Rob asked members to identify critical structures in their jurisdictions that would be essential before, during, and after a disaster. These could be anything from the community general store or livestock veterinary offices. This list would not be public-facing and would be used by Tetra Tech to evaluate risk and vulnerability. • A motion to move forward with the community lifelines construct was made by Richard Diaz and seconded by Mickie Tagle. It was then approved by the committee.

Jurisdictional Annex Process
• Bart updated committee members with annex participant statistics. As of the meeting time, about 60-70% of participating jurisdictions had turned in their phase 1 annexes. He then reminded people of the deadlines for each of the annexes and that it is important to the process to return the annexes ASAP. He said that the preview of phase 2 will go out in the next few weeks.

Public Involvement Strategy
• Rob and Bart discussed the sample survey that Tetra Tech had created that would be used to engage the public about their perceived hazard risk.

Action Items and Next Steps
• All phase 1 annexes completed and submitted by next meeting • Survey will be sent out
• Committee members should look ahead to phase 2 timeline

Meeting Summary
Adjourn
• Approved at 2:28pm

Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee Meeting #4
Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday, November 19, 2020
Location: Digital
Subject: Steering Committee Meeting No. 4
Project Name: Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update In Attendance Attendees: County of Sonoma, Permit Sonoma (Planning), Permit Sonoma (GIS), Sonoma County Fire Prevention, Sonoma County PIO, Town of Windsor, City of Santa Rosa, SC Ag + Open Space, Sonoma Water, Santa Rosa City Fire, Cal Fire, The Nature Conservancy, Community Development Commission, Sonoma County Winegrowers Public/Other – Graton Rancheria
Planning Team: Lisa Hulette, Bart Spencer, Rob Flaner, Carol Baumann, Des Alexander
Not Present: City of Cotati, Pepperwood Preserve, Western Builders Summary Prepared by: Des Alexander
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Welcome and Introductions
• Lisa gave the overview of the agenda and goals of the meeting • Des completed the roll call
• 14 member organizations were present, along with Tetra Tech team • Graton Rancheria was also present
Planning Process
• Steering Committee asked to review and confirm minutes from meeting 3 • Moved by Shari Meads and Seconded by Gary Helfrich
• Approved by committee
Old Business
• Finalize the goals as discussed at the previous meeting • With no further discussion on the remaining goals, Lisa Hulette moved, and Kim Jordan seconded approving all goals as written
• This motion was approved by the committee
New Business
• Objectives
o Bart and Rob discussed how objectives will provide greater flexibility in the plan so that a greater number of actions can fall under each objective – improves the chance of obtaining mitigation grant funds

Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee Meeting #4
o Much of the remaining discussion was around the need to change passive language in a few of the objectives. The word “mitigate” was added to the third objective and “increase resilience and capabilities” was added to the sixth objective o After discussion was complete, it was moved by Gary Helfrich and seconded by James Williams to approve the objectives as edited
o This was approved by the committee
Public Involvement Strategy
• Survey Review
o Bart discussed survey that had been developed by Tetra Tech o In the discussion, concerns about addressing renters prompted the reworking of questions to ask for more details about residency type, hazard considerations and their effect on choice of residency, and renter’s insurance
• Public Engagement
o County website for MJHMP is now live. Individual jurisdictions can write descriptions of their involvement with the plan or they can include a link to the county’s website on their site. Lisa or Domenica should be contacted for more information. Since this is part of FEMA’s requirements for public engagement, screenshots of each jurisdiction’s MJHMP description should be sent to Des or Bart.
o Additional information on public engagement strategies will be sent to the committee by Domenica
Action Items and Next Steps
• Provide feedback on survey
o Scheduled to be sent out the first week of December
• Phase 2 annexes due by December 18
o If organizations have any questions, they are asked to contact Tetra Tech for guidance Adjourn
• Approved at 2:16pm

Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee Meeting #5
Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday, December 17, 2020
Location: Digital
Subject: Steering Committee Meeting No. 5
Project Name: Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update In Attendance Attendees: County of Sonoma, Permit Sonoma (Planning), Permit Sonoma (GIS), Sonoma County Emergency Management, Sonoma County PIO, Town of Windsor, City of Santa Rosa, City of Cotati, SC Ag + Open Space, Cal Fire, The Nature Conservancy, Pepperwood Preserve, Community Development Commission, Sonoma County Winegrowers Public/Other – Graton Rancheria, Greenbelt Alliance
Planning Team: Lisa Hulette, Bart Spencer, Rob Flaner, Carol Baumann, Des Alexander
Not Present: County of Sonoma Fire Prevention, Sonoma Water, Western Builders, Sonoma County Winegrowers
Summary Prepared by: Des Alexander
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Welcome and Introductions
• Lisa gave the overview of the agenda and goals of the meeting • Des completed the roll call
• 13 member organizations were present, along with Tetra Tech team • Graton Rancheria and Greenbelt Alliance were also present Planning Process
• Steering Committee asked to review and confirm minutes from meeting 4 • Moved by Shari Meads and Seconded by Gary Helfrich
• Approved by committee
Old Business
• Discuss confirmation of mission statement, goals, and objectives o No commentary by the committee, all accepted as written • Update on Phase 2 statuses
o Bart has received all except one, despite several attempts at communication o Bart and Lisa will continue to follow up with organization • Additional committee comments
o One of the guest organizations asked about the formation of the steering committee and the public outreach strategies used
o Another asked for clarification on why all the county’s cities are not participating in the plan – some have their own LHMPs

Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee Meeting #5
o A third question asked about project scope limitations, specifically around natural hazards. Rob explained the difference between threat and risk to clarify.

New Business
• Overview of Phase 3
o Will involve 3 different workshops
 Each geared towards fire agents, municipalities, and special districts respectively  Will allow for project outlines and contextualization  Each group will think about the kinds of mitigation projects they would want to work on over the next five years
o Bart will set up times in the new year to speed up process Public Involvement Strategy
• Survey Status
o Responses as of 12/17/2020 were in 200s
o Need at least 1000 responses to feel comfortable
o Domenica sent social media package to committee members o Suggestions
 Reach out to Brant Arthur (SCTA/RCPA) for partner outreach organization list  Rob – plan maintenance component can be used for further public engagement after plan approval
• Public Engagement
o Recommendation – use NextDoor to promote survey
Action Items and Next Steps
• Continue to promote survey link
Adjourn
• Approved at 1:54 PM

Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee Meeting #6
Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday, January 28, 2021
Location: Digital
Subject: Steering Committee Meeting No. 6
Project Name: Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update In Attendance Attendees: Permit Sonoma, Sonoma County GIS, Sonoma County Fire, Sonoma County Emergency Management (alternate) Sonoma County Public Works, Sonoma County PIO, City of Santa Rosa, City of Cotati, SC Ag + Open Space, Sonoma Water, Geyserville Fire District (alternate), The Nature Conservancy, Pepperwood Preserve, Community Development Commission, Sonoma County Winegrowers
Planning Team: Lisa Hulette, Domenica Giovannini, Bart Spencer, Rob Flaner, Carol Baumann, Des Alexander
Members of the Public: Keri Svanstrom (Sebastopol), Teri Shore (Greenbelt Alliance), Amy Lyle (City of Santa Rosa)
Not Present: Town of Windsor, Geyserville Fire District, CAL Fire, Western Builders Summary Prepared by: Des Alexander
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Welcome and Introductions
• The meeting started at 1:01 PM.
• Lisa Hulette welcomed the committee and Des Alexander took the roll call.

Public Comment
• Lisa opened the meeting up to public comment. She asked that each comment be limited to 2-3 minutes.
• Teri Shore from the Greenbelt Alliance commented about participating in 3-day workshop on climate change with the City of Santa Rosa. While there they went through exercises regarding hazards facing the county hazards and produced solutions and ideas that may be helpful for the plan process. She also stated the steering committee should also consider using this model for public outreach regarding the MJHMP. Amy Lyle from Santa Rosa stated this workshop was related to the Eco-Adapt/Virginia Tech workshop on climate adaption in support of Santa Rosa’s Climate Adaptation Plan & General Plan updates. They are coordinating with County staff, but Lyle was willing to provide a broader update at this or a future meeting. The reports will be shared with the group as they are produced.
• Sonia Taylor stated that there needs to be a more robust public engagement process. She asked that the committee remain aware of concurrent county initiatives (strategic plan w/ climate change & resiliency goals). Santa Rosa is currently developing their WUI which has evacuation plans included. She thinks there should be a place in the plan for how to develop evacuation plans for single family communities. In response, Bart explains that CalOES and FEMA asks that

Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee Meeting #6
other plans be examined and that the MJHMP meant to complement plans and integrate with them. Tetra Tech is currently working with the county to learn what plans are out there for integration.
• Following the end of the comment period, Lisa commented that public comments could also be submitted through email.

Planning Process
• Lisa Hulette asked the committee to review and accept the minutes from the last steering committee. After hearing no discussion, Shari Meads motioned to accept the minutes which was seconded by Lisa Micheli. The minutes were then approved by the committee.

Old Business
• Bart gave a brief overview of the status of Phase 2 of the plan and the general progress of the plan. He explained that the hazard profiles are still in development, most of the data has been compiled, and that the next steps will involve looking at jurisdiction-specific hazards.

New Business
• Bart and Rob launched into the discussion of Phase 3 of the MJHMP process. The next step of the project will involve three separate workshops. Fire districts, special districts, and municipalities will each have their own workshop, during which each jurisdiction will be shown a breakdown of their own hazard risk and exposure. They will then be asked to develop action plans and projects that address each of those hazards.
• Projects can be as varied as plans, road improvements, grid improvements, and other tasks that would be useful and grant-eligible under BRIC. These annexes will be incorporated into the draft plan, which will then be opened for public comment. After the public comment period, the plan draft will then be sent to CalOES and FEMA for approval. This process averages 45 to 90 days. • Rob explains the importance of risk ranking to the Phase 3 workshops. FEMA requires that all action items have a quantifiable impact, so each jurisdiction needs to think about what projects and actions they can take on to mitigate hazards.
• Tetra Tech is still finalizing the risk assessments and analysis, and they want to have results to show the public before hosting public meetings. They will be launching the StoryMap with the risk analysis information once analysis is complete.
• In the comment period, it was asked if there are any additional GIS meetings planned to review the risk indices and scenarios. Lisa Hulette explained there are not currently any meetings planned, but she expects technology-related meetings to occur in the future. There were no public comments on this process.

Public Involvement
• Jeana provided an update on the public involvement strategy. She said that the survey is still open and will remain open until 1st public meeting. It has been linked to social media and the steering committee is asked to assist in the final push. There is an email list for this process and updated information will be pushed out through this list; Domenica will load the information once the meeting is complete. Information on the workshop date will be posted on the website once that date is chosen.

Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee Meeting #6
• Much of the committee discussion focused on community outreach beyond digital mediums.

Amy Lyle asked if it would helpful to have a 3-week lead time to honor current city engagement methodology. She also asked if translation support was needed; Lisa Hulette informed her the county are currently doing Spanish outreach. It was suggested that the County also reach out to each community's Chamber of Commerce, as well as the Spanish community through the Corazon Healdsburg, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, etc. WhatsApp was also discussed as having been successful for Spanish community; Domenica will reach out to county to see if this app could be used for outreach. She said she will also look into Spanish translation for public meetings.
• Rob said that the continuing public involvement phase occurs after plan is submitted for approval, so this will be an opportunity to engage in greater public outreach. If plan is not approved, then there is no opportunity for grant funding. Since FEMA wants dynamic plans there needs to be development of continuing public involvement strategies (ex. StoryMap). He asked the committee to be mindful of the plan reapproval timeline, while also respecting the desire for greater public outreach. Progress reporting is part of 5-year update process, so building components of continual outreach into the plan will be crucial to its success. This year’s BRIC allotment from FEMA is estimated at $3.7 billion, so there is a lot of potential funding on the table.
• Chris Godley also commented that DEM is also going to be actively engaging the community later this year as they develop the county's new Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which guides emergency response. This will include cultural competence and teaming with the Office of Equity for community engagement.
• The only public comment came from Teri Shore of Greenbelt Alliance. She thanked the committee for discussing public engagement strategies. She also wanted to confirm if comments could be sent to Lisa Hulette, Tetra Tech, the Steering Committee, and/or Domenica. She explained that she has been involved in Napa’s LHMP process and wanted to be able to share best practices she gained from those meetings. Lisa said that she can be used as a POC and that she will direct the comments to the appropriate channels.

Adjourn
• Occurred at 1:47 PM

Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee Meeting #7
Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday, February 25, 2021
Location: Digital
Subject: Steering Committee Meeting No. 7
Project Name: Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update In Attendance Attendees: County of Sonoma, Sonoma County PIO, City of Santa Rosa, City of Cotati, Sonoma Water, Sonoma County Emergency Management (Chris Godley for Ben Nichols), Cal Fire, Geyserville Fire District, CAL FIRE, The Nature Conservancy, Pepperwood Preserve, Community Development Commission, Sonoma County Winegrowers
Planning Team: Lisa Hulette, Bart Spencer, Rob Flaner, Carol Baumann, Des Alexander
Public/Other: None
Not Present: Permit Sonoma (Planning), Permit Sonoma (GIS), County of Sonoma Fire Prevention, SC Ag + Open Space, Town of Windsor, Santa Rosa City Fire, Western Builders
Summary Prepared by: Des Alexander
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Welcome and Introductions
• Lisa gave the overview of the agenda and goals of the meeting • Des completed the roll call
• 13 member organizations were present, along with Tetra Tech team • No members of the public announced themselves during the roll call.

Public Comment
• No comments from the public were made.

Planning Process
• Steering Committee asked to review and confirm minutes from meeting 6 • Moved by Chris Godley and seconded by Shari Meads
• Approved by committee
Old Business
• Bart says the plan progress is currently on track
• Committee Questions and Comments
o When are we submitting?
 Targeting June 30th for submission of the plan; everything needs to be done by June 15th. Bart goes through timeline of the plan from now until submittal to CalOES and FEMA. Bart talks to the group briefly about plan maintenance

Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee Meeting #7
strategy and how the StoryMap will be a Sonoma County-based tool for them to use on continued public engagement.
• Tetra Tech previews the StoryMap with the Steering Committee. This can be used as a holistic public engagement tool, with links to public meetings, steering committee minutes, FEMA grant information, hazard mitigation in Sonoma County, etc. Hazard tab page describes results of hazard analyses. Tetra Tech is working with Esri to get raster format of wildfire data. • Rob informed community that we are using the FIRM data, but the PFIRM data can be analyzed by the county at a later day.

New Business
• Overview of Phase 3
o Workshops

Upcoming dates for workshops will be in March and April  Working with fire districts, municipalities, and special districts  Risk rankings will be completed for each jurisdiction. They will be used to develop specific action items related to the hazards unique to your area  FEMA’s BRIC funding will be 6% of the total of last year's disasters, presenting lots of opportunity for project funding
 The goal is for the internal review draft of the plan complete by mid to late May
o Discussion
 The committee asks about lengthening the public comment period. Rob says that since this is a categorical exemption project, the public comment period does not need to be longer. He asks the group to investigate if we need to do a CEQA exemption for the plan.
• Plan Maintenance Strategy
o Rob recommends an annual progress review format to assess progress on the MJHMP.

Public Involvement Strategy
• Lisa says that the public meeting for the plan is today from 3:30 PM – 5:00 PM. The steering committee is encouraged to attend, but there is no opportunity to participate in the presentation.

Other Discussion Items
• Since Tetra Tech will not have data to present to the group, there is no need to have a steering committee meeting in March. The next meeting will be in April.

Adjourn
• Motion to adjourn by Mark Chandler and seconded by Adrianne Garayalde • Adjourned at 1:55 PM

Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee Meeting #8
Date/Time of Meeting: Thursday, April 22, 2021
Location: Digital
Subject: Steering Committee Meeting No. 8
Project Name: Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update In Attendance Attendees: County of Sonoma Fire Prevention, County of Sonoma Public Works, Sonoma County PIO, Town of Windsor, City of Santa Rosa, City of Cotati, Sonoma Water, Sonoma County Ag + Open Space, Geyserville Fire District, Santa Rosa City Fire, The Nature Conservancy, Pepperwood Preserve, Community Development Commission, Sonoma County Winegrowers
Planning Team: Lisa Hulette, Bart Spencer, Rob Flaner, Carol Baumann, Des Alexander
Public/Other: Yanin Kramsky, PhD.

Not Present: Permit Sonoma (Planning), Permit Sonoma (GIS), County of Sonoma Emergency Management, Cal Fire, Western Builders
Summary Prepared by: Des Alexander
Quorum – Yes or No Yes
Welcome and Introductions
• Lisa gave the overview of the agenda and goals of the meeting • Des completed the roll call. Kent Gylfe was present for Sonoma Water and Steve Suter was present for Santa Rosa City Fire. Karen Gaffney of SC Ag + Open Space and Kirsten Larsen of Community Development Commission have both retired and will be replaced by their alternates. o 14 member organizations were present, along with Tetra Tech team. o Yanin Kramsky, a PhD and local Bay Area resident, announced himself as a member of the public.
• Steering Committee asked to review and confirm minutes from meeting 7. Hearing no comments or revisions, it was moved by Shari Meads and seconded by Lisa Michelli to accept the minutes as written. This was approved by the steering committee.

Public Comment
• No comments from the public were made.

Planning Process
• Plan Progress
o Bart stated that the last steps of the plan are in progress. Action items (grant-eligible and actionable) are being developed by each jurisdiction during the Phase 3 meetings.

Given the current digital divide, Tetra Tech wants all jurisdictions to get as much assistance as possible. He explained that Tetra Tech is also hosting Q & A sessions to help jurisdictions with completing their annexes.
• Next Steps

Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee Meeting #8
o Bart explained that Phase 3 annexes are due on May 12th and will be reviewed by three Tetra Tech staff. Once reviewed, they will be added to the draft plan. The Core Planning Team and the Steering Committee will both review the draft plan internally and the final edit will commence once all comments have been given.
o The public comment period will ideally start in mid-June. A public meeting will be held during this time to provide further opportunity for comments on the plan. The StoryMap will live on the county website and will be a continually changing resource available to the residents of County.
o The plan is scheduled for concurrent review with CalOES/FEMA. This is due to grants pending in certain Sonoma County jurisdictions and will make sure the county is up to speed by the time the BRIC funding series starts in September. o Once approved by CalOES/FEMA, the plan will need to be adopted by each jurisdiction by resolution. All adoptions should be sent to Lisa who will forward them to FEMA. o Annual maintenance of the plan will start after the plan is approved. Permit Sonoma will be responsible for maintaining the plan through progress reporting. Every jurisdiction would send an annual progress report on their action items to an online platform set up by Tetra Tech. Lisa will use those reports to generate a county report that will be submitted to CalOES. This is considered a best practice but is not a requirement. The only requirement is continual public outreach, which will be done with the StoryMap, hazard awareness campaigns, etc.
• Committee Comments
o Kent Gylfe asked for clarification on the draft plan review timeframe. Lisa said that they want to have a draft plan available by June 15
th to discuss at the next steering
committee. Bart said that was possible if all Phase 3 annexes are submitted by the due date. Bart also advises that if the public comment period produces any substantive criticisms, those edits would need to be made and a second public comment period would need to be scheduled. This would push back the final submittal date. o Kim Jordan asked about the length of the public comment period and her goal date for the Town of Windsor’s plan approval. Bart said that the Town of Windsor will have the draft plan in early June, but the Board of Supervisors will not be able to make substantive changes until the plan has been officially adopted. If they did, this would result in the earlier mentioned second public comment period. • Actions
o A motion to move forward with annual plan maintenance strategy was made by Shari Meads and seconded by Shelly Bianchi-Williamson. The motion was approved by the committee.

Public Outreach
• Public Meeting
o Primary public outreach will be the scheduled webinar, which will provide public comments. The public comments can also be obtained through the StoryMap and email. o This webinar will be held around the public draft upload date; information on the meeting will be shared through County social media channels. • Committee Comments
o No comments from the committee
Other Discussion Items/Comments

Sonoma County MJHMP Steering Committee Meeting #8
• None from the committee or the public
• Lisa reminded the committee of the ongoing phase 3 meetings and Q & A forums with Tetra Tech; their purpose is to assist jurisdictions with developing action items.

Final Steering Committee Meeting
• Thursday, June 21, 2021 from 1pm to 2pm.

Adjourn
• 1:42 PM

SURVEY

RESULTS

Sonoma
Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q1 Where in Sonoma County do you live or generally stay? Answered: 691 Skipped: 0
Petaluma
Cotati
Healdsburg
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Cloverdale
Sebastopol
Windsor
unincorporated
a
rea of the...

I don't live
i
n Sonoma...

Other (please
s
pecify)
0% 1 0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Sonoma 9.26% 64
Petaluma 3.33% 23
Cotati 2.32% 16
Healdsburg 3.18% 22
Rohnert Park 1.59% 11
Santa Rosa 22.87% 158
Cloverdale 1.59% 11
Sebastopol 3.04% 21
Windsor 29.81% 206
unincorporated area of the County 15.77% 109
I don't live in Sonoma County 1.01% 7
Other (please specify) 6.22% 43
TOTAL 691
2 / 68

5 10
15 20
25 30
35 Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Cazadero 2/25/2021 8:50 PM
2 Jenner 2/9/2021 6:40 PM
3 Sonoma Coast north of Jenner 2/9/2021 5:40 PM
4 Muniz Ranches 2/9/2021 5:18 PM
Jenner 2/9/2021 4:10 PM
6 Jenner 2/9/2021 3:32 PM
7 Jenner 2/9/2021 6:39 AM
8 unincorporated west sebastopol 2/1/2021 3:31 PM
9 Occidental 1/26/2021 10:31 AM
Why isn't Guerneville listed separately? 1/8/2021 2:27 PM 11 Geyserville 1/8/2021 12:08 AM
12 Unincorporated area too Close to Santa Rosa & Windsor 1/7/2021 2:43 PM 13 Forestville 1/4/2021 12:09 PM
14 Bodega Bay 1/4/2021 12:06 PM
outside of Windsor Town limits 1/4/2021 11:43 AM
16 Glen Ellen 12/30/2020 12:26 PM
17 Glen Ellen 12/30/2020 12:02 PM
18 Glen Ellen 12/30/2020 11:57 AM
19 Glen Ellen 12/30/2020 12:01 AM
Boyes Hot Springs 12/29/2020 9:53 PM
21 Springs area of Sonoma Valley 12/29/2020 7:32 PM
22 Oakmont 12/28/2020 9:03 AM
23 Bodega Bay 12/24/2020 6:15 PM
24 Larkfield Wikiup area 12/23/2020 5:34 PM
Bodega Bay 12/22/2020 1:02 PM
26 Glen ellen/mayacamas mtns 12/22/2020 10:47 AM
27 Bodega Bay 12/22/2020 2:34 AM
28 Bodega Bay 12/21/2020 8:58 PM
29 Bodega Bay 12/21/2020 8:48 PM
Bodega Bay 12/21/2020 8:39 PM
31 Bodega Bay 12/21/2020 12:03 PM
32 Glen Ellen 12/21/2020 10:08 AM
33 Larkfield/Wikiup area 12/18/2020 2:23 PM
34 Sonoma Valley - Boyes Hot Springs (you probably should add that or 1st District supervisor 12/18/2020 12:36 PM may be peeved.)
Penngrove 12/18/2020 11:03 AM
36 Bodega Bay 12/18/2020 2:34 AM
37 Bodega Bay 12/17/2020 8:41 AM
3 / 68

38 39
40 41
42 43
Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Bodega Bay 12/16/2020 5:55 PM
Bodega B ay 12/16/2020 2 :23 PM
Bodega B ay 12/16/2020 1 :23 PM
The S ea Ranch 12/8/2020 5 :08 PM
Glen E llen 12/8/2020 5 :01 PM
asd 11/17/2020 4 :00 PM
4 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q2 Do you work in Sonoma County?
Answered: 688 Skipped: 3
Yes
No
Retired
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Retired
TOTAL

RESPONSES

61.19%

10.03%

28.78%
421
69 198
688
5 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q3 Do you own or operate a business in Sonoma County?
Answered: 683 Skipped: 8
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
TOTAL

RESPONSES

20.50%

79.50%
140
543
683
6 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q4 Which of the following hazard events have you or anyone in your household experienced in the past 20 years within Sonoma County? (Check all that apply)
Answered: 682 Skipped: 9
Dam/Levee
Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Flood
Hazardous
M
aterials...

Landslide
Severe Weather
(
wind,...

Wildland Fire
Evacuation
Sustained or
p
rolonged po...

Public Health
(
COVID-19,...

Human Caused
(
terrorism,...

Transportation
(
railroad,...

None
Other (please
s
pecify)
0% 1 0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
7 / 68
5 Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

0.73% Dam/Levee F ailure

70.09% 478 Drought

44.87% 3 06 Earthquake

32.99% 2 25 Flood

3.08% 2 1 Hazardous M aterials Release

5.43% 3 7 Landslide

52.93% 3 61 Severe W eather (wind, lightning, snow accumulation, etc.)

76.39% 5 21 Wildland F ire

81.52% 5 56 Evacuation

67.16% 4 58 Sustained o r prolonged power outage

65.10% 4 44 Public H ealth (COVID-19, West-Nile, SARS, etc)

4.55% 3 1 Human C aused (terrorism, Active Shooter, etc)

7.04% 4 8 Transportation ( railroad, airport, interstate, etc.)

2.05% 1 4 None

4.11% 2 8 Other ( please specify)
Total Respondents: 682
8 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Loma Prieta earthquake prior to 20 years 2/27/2021 5:34 PM 2 Narrow country roads. Can't evacuate and fire trucks coming but can't the 2/25/2021 8:14 PM 3 Neighbors having tree work done but leaving fire fuel on the ground as well as thrown onto my 2/21/2021 8:33 AM property. Spoke with one tree cutter who felt it was okay to leave large piles of dead branches in the ground to "masticate" at the hight of the 2020 fire season on a steep hillside rural residential area with poor fire service access.
4 Fires the past four years 2/19/2021 11:37 AM
5 non-local smoke (air quality issues) 2/9/2021 5:10 PM 6 erosion 2/9/2021 4:10 PM
7 sustained smoke and smoke damage to crops 2/1/2021 3:31 PM 8 Death 1/25/2021 12:33 AM
9 I am not sure what you mean by "experienced": directly or indirectly affected? 1/23/2021 12:35 PM 10 Threat of fire; threat of evacuation; smoke and bad air quality due to smoke from fires 1/12/2021 3:43 PM 11 6 PPL in 2019, several in 2020. No power = no water 1/9/2021 9:38 AM 12 Unhealthy air quality 1/9/2021 9:04 AM
13 sustained natural gas outage, due to wildfires. 1/8/2021 6:07 PM 14 GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY 1/7/2021 2:43 PM
15 Civil unrest, police brutality and militarism 1/5/2021 2:00 PM 16 Tazed by police, malicious counselors at rehab centers, constant exposure to opioid addicts 12/30/2020 5:51 PM and pushers, biohazard trash left in overflowing garbage cans in front of businesses and wherever the street people have been, dangerous bike lane for bicycle riding and incompetent personnel in the professional field everything from medical to administration. The list goes on and on. There is a level of incompetency and greed in this county that defies definition 17 County-sanctioned construction built to flood my home 12/30/2020 12:26 PM 18 propane supplier 12/29/2020 8:02 PM
19 Ineffectual and inept Supervisor representing Sonoma Valley 12/29/2020 3:18 PM 20 Heavy ash and smoke that Acacia apartments still has not cleaned (ashes still collected in the 12/21/2020 11:22 AM hallways)
21 I’ve been hit by motorists multiple times while I was cycling. I regularly have to take evasive 12/19/2020 7:58 AM action to avoid being hit by motorists.
22 Smoke from Wildlands fire, did not lose home 12/19/2020 6:44 AM 23 Have not had Covid but am experiencing the effects on the community as is everyone else. 12/18/2020 10:47 AM 24 Were in an evacuation zone but did not evacuate as we have a ranch that 1 Has short grass 12/17/2020 8:29 PM and seems safer than going anywhere and 2. Animals need care and fear if we left we would be stopped from.coming back.for days.
25 Neighbors on Shaw Ct setting off aerial fireworks 12/16/2020 5:55 PM 26 Threat of power outage, loss of internet access 12/15/2020 8:15 AM 27 PG&E PSPS; heat events; CAOSI power rolling outages. 11/17/2020 2:46 PM 28 I think extreme heat should be included here 11/12/2020 9:39 PM 9 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q5 Do you own or rent your place of residence?
Answered: 684 Skipped: 7
Own
Rent
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Own
Rent
TOTAL

RESPONSES

82.46%

17.54%
564
120
684
10 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q6 If your household were impacted/isolated due to a hazard event, how many days could your household survive because of your preparedness? Answered: 633 Skipped: 58
Check one:
0 days
1 to 3 days
4 to 7 days
8 to 15 days
16 days or more
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Check o ne: 0.00% 0
0 days 0.95% 6
1 to 3 days 19.43% 123
4 to 7 days 39.81% 252
8 to 15 days 24.01% 152
16 days or more 15.80% 100
TOTAL 633
11 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q7 Which of the following have provided you with useful information to help you be prepared for a hazard event? (Check all that apply) Answered: 634 Skipped: 57
Emergency
preparedness...

Personal
experience w...

Attended
m
eetings/com...

Social Media
(
examples: N...

Community
N
ewsletter
Church /
T
emple /...

Newspaper
Informational
B
rochures
Schools/
A
cademic...

News media
Internet
Utilities
(
water, gas,...

Fire Department
Chamber of
C
ommerce
Public Library
Red Cross
Word of Mouth
/
Neighbor
Text messages
12 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
None
Other (please
specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Emergency p reparedness information from a government source (e.g., federal, state, or local emergency management) 75.39% 478 Personal experience with one or more natural hazards/disasters 75.71% 480 Attended meetings/community events or workshops that have dealt with disaster preparedness 29.50% 187 Social Media (examples: Next Door, Facebook, Twitter) 46.85% 297 Community Newsletter 13.41% 85
Church / Temple / Worship Center 5.21% 33
Newspaper 38.33% 243
Informational Brochures 20.19% 128
Schools/ Academic Institutions 8.20% 52
News media 45.11% 286
Internet 65.77% 417
Utilities (water, gas, electric, etc.) 39.27% 249
Fire Department 37.07% 235
Chamber of Commerce 3.31% 21
Public Library 5.21% 33
Red Cross 8.04% 51
Word of Mouth / Neighbor 42.90% 272
Text messages 36.91% 234
None 0.63% 4
Other (please specify) 7.10% 45
Total R espondents: 634
13 / 68

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
“Sonoma County Fire Updates” and “Caz Hills - Fire/emergency” pages on Facebook 2/25/2021 7:27 PM “Sonoma county Fire Updates” and “Caz Hills - Fire/ emergency” page on Facebook 2/25/2021 7:17 PM COPE and CERT 2/25/2021 4:29 PM
professional societies 2/12/2021 12:23 PM
local community organizations 2/9/2021 5:15 PM
ham radio 2/9/2021 4:14 PM
fire alerts on text when power is on 2/9/2021 3:35 PM
888-777 1/27/2021 3:05 PM
Internet Research 1/27/2021 12:51 PM
Self taught. 1/25/2021 12:41 AM
Kaiser - employer 1/18/2021 5:05 PM
My dad 1/13/2021 7:32 AM
workplace trainings 1/12/2021 3:20 PM
Senator Mike McGuire 1/8/2021 8:11 PM
County of Sonoma leaders 1/8/2021 3:37 PM
Boy Scouts 1/8/2021 7:02 AM
AARP magazine articles (how to pack a "go bag") 1/7/2021 5:27 PM Nixil local maps & some local government is a Partly helpful 1/7/2021 2:57 PM Common sense 1/6/2021 9:42 AM
I am part of the EOC for the City of Santa Rosa 1/5/2021 6:02 PM KSRO 1/5/2021 10:40 AM
Active Fire maps and air quality websites 1/5/2021 10:34 AM nixle 1/4/2021 2:03 PM
I'm a FEMA trained emergency preparedness educator 1/1/2021 6:31 PM KSRO 12/31/2020 7:49 AM
Instinct 12/30/2020 5:54 PM
Common sense; figured it out. 12/30/2020 5:54 PM
CERT Training 12/24/2020 12:43 PM
map your neighborhood 12/23/2020 11:47 PM
I am trained in disaster response and volunteer in the SF EOC 12/22/2020 12:12 PM CERT meetings 12/22/2020 2:36 AM
Fire Safe Sonoma 12/21/2020 9:44 AM
Employer News Letters 12/21/2020 9:18 AM
Neighborfest 12/19/2020 4:45 PM
Girl Scouts 12/19/2020 2:34 PM
newspaper online; academic inst. only because i work at one 12/18/2020 8:52 PM work experience (fire department job) 12/18/2020 10:00 AM 14 / 68

38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Fire Safe Council 12/18/2020 7:45 AM
Bodega B ay CERT 12/18/2020 2 :37 AM
Those i n agriculture are used to being prepared, improvising, and running multiple generators. 12/17/2020 8 :42 PM local g overnment information releases 12/17/2020 2 :14 PM Bodega B ay CERT 12/16/2020 1 :31 PM
Podcasts 12/16/2020 1 :26 PM
COPE a nd CERT 12/16/2020 1 2:42 PM
Neighborhood g ang 12/16/2020 1 1:49 AM
15 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q8 Which of the following steps has your household taken to prepare for a hazard event? (Check all that apply)
Answered: 636 Skipped: 55
16 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Received first
aid/CPR...

Made an escape
plan
Designated a
m
eeting place
Identified
u
tility...

Sand bags
Prepared a
d
isaster sup...

Installed
s
moke detect...

Stored food
a
nd water
Stored
fl
ashlights ...

Stored a
b
attery-powe...

Stored a fire
extinguisher
Stored medical
s
upplies (fi...

Natural hazard
i
nsurance...

Developed a
C
ommunicatio...

Joined a
c
ommunity gr...

None
Other (please
s
pecify)
0% 1 0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
17 / 68
Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

42.45% 2 70 Received f irst aid/CPR training

50.94% 324 Made a n escape plan

34.59% 2 20 Designated a meeting place

62.11% 3 95 Identified u tility shutoffs

3.62% 2 3 Sand b ags

61.01% 3 88 Prepared a disaster supply kit

80.82% 5 14 Installed s moke detectors on each level of the house

76.73% 4 88 Stored f ood and water

88.05% 5 60 Stored f lashlights and batteries

58.81% 3 74 Stored a battery-powered radio

68.24% 4 34 Stored a fire extinguisher

73.58% 4 68 Stored m edical supplies (first aid kit, medications)

37.26% 2 37 Natural h azard insurance (Flood, Earthquake, Wildfire)

21.07% 1 34 Developed a Communication Plan

19.97% 1 27 Joined a community group (CERT, Firewise, neighborhood preparedness, etc.)

0.79% None

6.92% 4 4 Other ( please specify)
Total Respondents: 636
18 / 68
5 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Generator, solar powered lights 2/25/2021 7:27 PM
2 Generator, solar lights, propane back up fridge 2/25/2021 7:17 PM 3 joined the fire department 2/25/2021 4:24 PM
4 propane generator with 2 - 5gal backup tanks. On going fire fuel clearance. 2/21/2021 8:42 AM Off-grid cooking. Home food production. 2/11/2021 9:36 AM 6 meeting places and escape plans are extremely situation-specific 2/9/2021 5:15 PM 7 water system for fire 2/9/2021 3:35 PM
8 Alternative Living Place 2/9/2021 9:28 AM
9 battery for charging phones 2/9/2021 8:15 AM
Cut back most shrubs and trees around our house 2/8/2021 10:23 PM 11 Fire hardened landscape 1/23/2021 12:39 PM
12 bought a generator 1/23/2021 11:36 AM
13 stored masks for smoke AND covid 1/12/2021 3:20 PM
14 Solar and home battery backups 1/10/2021 12:39 PM
Solar and Test Powerwall 1/9/2021 11:19 AM
16 Our Gehricke Road community has developed an emergency phone tree in case of evacuation 1/9/2021 9:45 AM 17 Back up power for house 1/9/2021 9:13 AM
18 Evacuation list posted near door 1/8/2021 2:31 PM
19 back up battery 1/8/2021 10:06 AM
Prepared bug-out bags and waterbobs 1/5/2021 2:01 PM
21 Driving partner, because I cant. 1/5/2021 11:37 AM
22 Cleared leaves/brush, fireproofed some outside areas of house, installed filters on windows, 1/5/2021 10:34 AM bought air purifier
23 Completed CERT from Los Angeles Fire Department staff. 1/5/2021 9:40 AM 24 Purchased a generator 1/4/2021 12:48 PM
Fear is not an option 12/30/2020 5:54 PM
26 Back up power supply (battery) to last 3 days 12/30/2020 12:19 PM 27 installed battery storage system for solar 12/28/2020 3:58 PM 28 Started the Mayacamas Fire Safe Council, and husband is volunteer Firefighter 12/22/2020 10:50 AM 29 Prepared to abandon the state entirely. 12/21/2020 11:26 AM COAD 12/21/2020 9:28 AM
31 Bought a generator 12/19/2020 4:45 PM
32 Stored food and supplies elsewhere 12/19/2020 12:28 PM 33 Wood fired stove and wood. 12/19/2020 8:04 AM
34 Organized neighborhood COPE 12/19/2020 6:49 AM
what does communication plan mean? that's too vague for me 12/18/2020 8:52 PM 36 Created defensible space and hardened buildings 12/18/2020 7:45 AM 37 own a type 2 fire engine with enough hose to reach any home in the neighborhood 12/17/2020 12:25 AM 19 / 68

38 39
40 41
42 43
44 Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Purchased a gas generator 12/16/2020 1:31 PM
PV a nd battery backup power and generator 12/16/2020 1 :16 PM Stored f uel and PV electric charger (1440 wh) 12/16/2020 1 1:49 AM Always h ave a 'go bag' even when at work/Never let a vehicle go below 1/2 tank of gas 12/15/2020 2 :46 PM Signed u p for all the alerts on phone 12/15/2020 2 :44 PM Not a formal community group but local family and a few neighbors 12/8/2020 5 :44 PM Purchased T wo Generators for Home and Water 12/8/2020 5 :03 PM 20 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q9 How concerned are you about the following hazards in Sonoma County? (Check one response for each hazard)
Answered: 641 Skipped: 50
Climate Change
Sea level rise
Dam/Levee
Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Flood
21 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Hazardous
Materials
Landslide
Severe Weather
Wildland Fire
Transportation
(railroad,...

Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned
22 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey

NOT CONCERNED VERY TOTAL WEIGHTED

CONCERNED CONCERNED AVERAGE
Climate Change 12.16%
77 28.75%
182

59.08%
374 633 2.47
Sea level rise 39.87%
242

43.16%
262

16.97%
103 607 1.77
Dam/Levee Failure 71.65%
422

23.77%
140

4.58%
27 589 1.33
Drought 6.19%
39 36.98%
233

56.83%
358 630 2.51
Earthquake 6.01%
38 49.53%
313

44.46%
281 632 2.38
Flood 35.32%
213

50.08%
302

14.59%
88 603 1.79
Hazardous Materials 51.76%
308

40.84%
243

7.39%
44 595 1.56
Landslide 63.56%
375

30.85%
182

5.59%
33 590 1.42
Severe Weather 18.43%
113

49.76%
305

31.81%
195 613 2.13
Wildland Fire 0.79%
5 13.74%
87 85.47%
541 633 2.85
Transportation (railroad, airport, highway,
etc.)

45.87%
272

41.15%
244

12.98%
77 593 1.67
Other 67.11%
100

12.08%
18 20.81%
31 149 1.54
23 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
# (PLEASE SPECIFY OTHER HAZARD) DATE
1 Bureaucracy 2/25/2021 8:22 PM
2 Landslide after flood has taken out Moscow Road, a critical escape route. Let’s get one lane 2/25/2021 7:27 PM (only) restored, please.
3 Our “escape route” in Monte Rio had a slide 2 years ago - Moscow Road needs to return to at 2/25/2021 7:17 PM least one lane open!
4 ininformed community in emergency 2/22/2021 10:52 AM
5 Sheriffs not helping with aggressive, gun totting, neighbors. 2/21/2021 8:42 AM 6 loss of species because of development and vineyard expansions 2/12/2021 12:23 PM 7 Social cohesion / strife 2/11/2021 9:36 AM
8 Deforestation as a response to fires. Reduce fire risk by decentralizing our energy systems 2/11/2021 6:08 AM using solar-based microgrids and community power. Make homes safe in vulnerable locations with sprinklers (these cost $200) and metal roofs (more expensive so rebates should be offered for that). Create no-build zones in fire prone areas. Live in balance with nature and be smart instead of making fear-based decisions that harm the ecosystem. 9 indefinitely extended PG&E planned outages 2/9/2021 5:15 PM 10 Road closures from due to natural disasters including downed trees. 2/9/2021 3:26 PM 11 Land use and other policy that can effect events. 2/9/2021 9:28 AM 12 evacuation routes in case of fire 2/9/2021 8:15 AM
13 hazardous at SDC not cleaned up by stae; hwy 37 2/8/2021 6:05 PM 14 hwy 37. hazardous--everything at SDC that the state has not cleaned up 2/8/2021 6:01 PM 15 Power outages and their disruptions 1/26/2021 3:46 PM 16 One way road leading in and out of property with inadequate pull outs 1/9/2021 11:19 AM 17 Power grid integrity and PG&E's incompetence 1/9/2021 11:17 AM 18 Lack of potable water; our seniors complex depends on well water! 1/9/2021 11:13 AM 19 Terrorism 1/9/2021 9:13 AM
20 Public health hazards, such as COVID 1/8/2021 6:12 PM 21 Asphalt plant proposed in Windsor 1/8/2021 3:37 PM
22 Poor Roads 1/8/2021 2:07 PM
23 Civil unrest, unlawful protesting 1/8/2021 12:20 PM
24 Democrats 1/8/2021 10:19 AM
25 ongoing power outage 1/8/2021 10:06 AM
26 pandemic response 1/8/2021 7:18 AM
27 crime driven by economic circumstances/rioting due to political unrest 1/7/2021 11:06 PM 28 The #1 problem has been the making of proper thinning, cleaning and maintaining of Public 1/7/2021 2:57 PM land and private property a Crime. has over the last 20 to 30 years built up a Huge Fire & flood hazard and made much of our wild land "forest" diseased, weak & exponentially more susceptible to disease,, pests, and fire & flood! !
29 famine due to drought and exploited natural resources 1/7/2021 8:58 AM 30 Worst Roads in the State, possibly the Country 1/6/2021 5:16 PM 31 PG& E-caused fires, primarily due to crumbling infrastructure 1/5/2021 3:40 PM 32 Civil unrest, police brutality and militarism 1/5/2021 2:01 PM 24 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
33 Still traffic during evacuations 1/5/2021 1 2:25 PM
34 Covid a nd lack of enforcement on your end 1/5/2021 1 2:03 PM 35 Too m any cars trying to evacuate at once, noise and air pollution from overhead jets 1/5/2021 1 0:34 AM 36 Blocked a nd limited egress on Hembree in Windsor. 1/5/2021 9 :40 AM 37 compromised d rinking water (salt water intrusion, pollution, etc) 1/5/2021 8 :17 AM 38 Earthquake, I nfrastructure Failure, Poorly Trained Responders, Misogyny within Responder 1/1/2021 6 :31 PM Units
39 Incompetent m anagement and authority on most levels 12/30/2020 5 :54 PM 40 Note t raffic concern is relative neighborhood evacuation bottlenecks 12/29/2020 7 :36 PM 41 Blocked h wy 12 escape route 12/28/2020 9 :07 AM
42 Filthy p ublic water 12/22/2020 8 :46 AM
43 Openly r acist county officials (Sheriff, ALL supervisors failing to uphold their duties to non- 12/21/2020 1 1:26 AM English s peaking residents)
44 PG&E s hutoffs. Home is all electric. No hot water, fridge, heat or fans. 12/20/2020 1 2:22 PM 45 COVID 12/19/2020 4 :45 PM
46 Don't u nderstand how Transportation is a hazard. 12/19/2020 1 2:28 PM 47 Do y ou mean those transportation system ARE hazards (that’s why I checked it) or that I’m 12/19/2020 8 :04 AM worried I won’t be able to use them in an emergency?
48 Pandemic, t here will be others 12/19/2020 6 :49 AM
49 smoke f rom wildland fires for weeks at a time 12/18/2020 1 1:04 PM 50 Widespread l ack of earthquake insurance 12/18/2020 9 :59 PM 51 Climate c hange/global warming 12/18/2020 9 :35 PM
52 what' d o you mean transportation related to hazard; Am i afraid the airport won't work? am I 12/18/2020 8 :52 PM worried t he train won't work that we can't rely on much anyway? what if hwy 101 is unavailable? s omeone messed up the SMART train so we don't have that going much anymore. S ome wealthy privileged people in the county didn't want it. 53 Slightly c oncerned: civil unrest 12/18/2020 1 :42 PM 54 Being r egulated in a one size fits all manner that makes my life more hazardous. The rules 12/17/2020 8 :42 PM make i t difficult or impossible to keep fire safe by preventing preemptive burning for decades.

Construction r ules that mean a new house is nearer flammable trees because the road improvements t hat would be required for a permit are unaffordable for me. Government should stop d ictating private road construction, especially when county roads are so poorly maintained.
55 Widespread l ack of earthquake insurance 12/17/2020 6 :20 PM 56 neighbor p lanting 21 redwood trees 8 ft from property line and 22 ft from our house 12/16/2020 8 :30 PM 57 PG&E l ack of maintenance causing fires 12/16/2020 1 :31 PM 58 food a nd fuel supply 12/16/2020 1 2:59 PM
59 Pandemic 12/16/2020 1 2:42 PM
60 Bio, C hem or Cyber-terrorism (esp. rightwing lone-wolf incels) 12/16/2020 1 1:49 AM 25 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q10 If you are a renter, do you have renters insurance? Answered: 514 Skipped: 177
Yes
No
N/A
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
N/A
TOTAL

RESPONSES

12.45%

7.98%

79.57%
64 41
409
514
26 / 68

Yes
No
Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q11 Is your property or rental located in or near a designated floodplain? Answered: 627 Skipped: 64
Not Sure
/don't know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Sure /don't know
TOTAL

RESPONSES

10.69%

75.28%

14.04%
67 472
88 627
27 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q12 Do you have flood insurance?
Answered: 634 Skipped: 57
Yes
No
Not Sure /
don't know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Sure / don't know
TOTAL

RESPONSES

7.73%

81.55%

10.73%
49 517
68 634
28 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q13 Is your property or rental located near an earthquake fault? Answered: 636 Skipped: 55
Yes
No
Not Sure /
don't know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Sure / don't know
TOTAL

RESPONSES

55.66%

17.61%

26.73%
354
112
170
636
29 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q14 Do you have earthquake insurance?
Answered: 632 Skipped: 59
Yes
No
Not Sure /
don't know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Sure / don't know
TOTAL

RESPONSES

25.95%

69.15%

4.91%
164
437
31 632
30 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q15 Is your property or rental located in an area at risk for wildfires? Answered: 634 Skipped: 57
Yes
No
Not Sure /
don't know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Sure / don't know
TOTAL

RESPONSES

73.50%

15.93%

10.57%
466
101
67 634
31 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q16 Have you ever had problems getting homeowners or renters insurance due to risks from hazards?
Answered: 632 Skipped: 59
Yes
No
Not Sure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Sure
TOTAL

RESPONSES

12.50%

79.91%

7.59%
79 505
48 632
32 / 68

5 10
15 20
25 30
35 Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
# IF "YES," WHICH NATURAL HAZARD WAS INVOLVED? DATE
1 recent wildfires in the county in 2017 and 2020 2/25/2021 8:55 PM 2 Fire 2/25/2021 8:22 PM
3 Fire 2/25/2021 7:27 PM
4 Fire 2/25/2021 7:17 PM
Wildfire 2/25/2021 4:29 PM
6 Can't afford more than basic home owner's insurance. 2/21/2021 8:42 AM 7 wildfire 2/16/2021 7:54 AM
8 Wildfires 2/9/2021 7:26 PM
9 fire 2/9/2021 4:14 PM
fire 2/9/2021 3:35 PM
11 Fire 2/9/2021 3:26 PM
12 Fire 2/9/2021 2:55 PM
13 Earthquake it is too expensive for us 2/3/2021 12:15 PM 14 Fire 2/1/2021 3:35 PM
Since NorthBay Fires, hard to get homeowners insurance and price significantly went up. 1/28/2021 11:39 AM 16 fire 1/23/2021 11:36 AM
17 Wildfires 1/9/2021 12:57 PM
18 Water 1/9/2021 10:20 AM
19 Insurance in the Sonoma hills is definately a concern. We were told by our agency that they 1/9/2021 9:45 AM would not insure us if they were not already. We are several fire danger levels above what they now accept.

PG&E caused fire 1/8/2021 7:47 AM
21 Because of government stupidity mentioned before ALL of Sonoma county is now a fire hazard 1/7/2021 2:57 PM zone!
22 kincade, geyserville fires 1/6/2021 1:16 PM
23 Kincade Fire, Walbridge Fire (LNU) 1/6/2021 8:44 AM
24 Earthquake insurance is not affordable. 1/6/2021 7:52 AM Fire 1/6/2021 4:58 AM
26 wild fire 1/5/2021 9:04 PM
27 wildfires 1/5/2021 5:26 PM
28 Wildfire 1/5/2021 4:55 PM
29 Fire 1/5/2021 2:01 PM
Fire 1/5/2021 1:30 PM
31 I anticipate the advent of insurance "red lining" due to wildfires. 1/5/2021 9:40 AM 32 Tubbs Fire, Coffey Park. I'm not sure any area is not at risk of wildfre! 1/5/2021 8:17 AM 33 Wildfire 12/31/2020 7:18 AM
34 Wildfire 12/30/2020 11:09 PM
2017 wildfire 12/30/2020 6:55 PM
33 / 68

40 45
50 55
60 65
70 Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
36 wikd fires 12/30/2020 1 2:39 PM
37 fire 12/30/2020 1 2:19 PM
38 fire 12/30/2020 1 0:53 AM
39 wildfire ( on another property) 12/29/2020 9 :58 PM
Fire 12/29/2020 7 :48 AM
41 Nuns f ire, homeowners insurance canceled at renewal period 12/28/2020 3 :58 PM 42 Wildfire, s ome insurance companies have left this marketplace 12/23/2020 5 :41 PM 43 fire, e arthquake, flood 12/22/2020 1 0:50 AM
44 Farmers i nsurance has been great and hasn’t denied us insurance due to living in the WUI 12/22/2020 1 0:50 AM Our f ire insurance premiums Md homeowners insurance premiums have gone up 12/22/2020 9 :34 AM 46 High w inds destroyed a fence 12/21/2020 1 0:42 PM
47 Fire 12/21/2020 2 :01 PM
48 Earthquake, F lood, Fire, distance from fire station 12/21/2020 1 2:05 PM 49 wildfire 12/21/2020 9 :28 AM
fire 12/21/2020 8 :52 AM
51 Eathquake f ault 1 mile away, insurance company tried to cancel us last year 12/20/2020 1 0:25 AM 52 Wildfire 12/19/2020 7 :05 PM
53 Did a n energy and seismic retrofit 10 yes ago 12/19/2020 6 :49 AM 54 Earthquake i nsurance is expensive and the deductible is insane typically about 10%of property 12/18/2020 1 0:51 AM value
fire 12/18/2020 9 :27 AM
56 Fire 12/18/2020 8 :12 AM
57 Wildfire 12/18/2020 7 :45 AM
58 Fire 12/17/2020 8 :42 PM
59 tubbs n unn glass lnu wildfires 12/17/2020 5 :09 PM
fire i nsurance 12/17/2020 1 2:25 AM
61 When l ocated to the North Bay in 2012 from WA State, existing home insurer did not provide 12/16/2020 5 :24 PM homeowner i nsurance for Marin/Sonoma County.
62 Fire i nsurance difficult in 2017 12/16/2020 1 :25 PM 63 Wildfire 12/16/2020 1 2:42 PM
64 wildfire 12/16/2020 1 2:29 PM
Not u s, but nearby neighbors just had policy cancelled for wildfire risk 12/16/2020 1 1:49 AM 66 fire 12/15/2020 3 :07 PM
67 wildfire 12/15/2020 1 0:47 AM
68 Fire, b ut we were able to get coverage after cancellation 12/14/2020 3 :05 PM 69 wildfires 12/9/2020 8 :57 PM
Wildfire 12/9/2020 8 :35 AM
71 had t o cut down trees 12/8/2020 7 :55 PM
72 Wildfire 12/8/2020 5 :10 PM
34 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
73 Wildfire 12/8/2020 5 :03 PM
74 You c an't get Earthquake Insurance rates are over the top, Fire is becoming a real challenge 12/8/2020 5 :03 PM and e xpected to become unobtainable
75 Fire 11/19/2020 1 0:19 AM
35 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q17 When you moved into your residence, did you consider the impact a disaster could have?
Answered: 616 Skipped: 75
Yes
No
Not Sure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Sure
TOTAL

RESPONSES

37.66%

57.95%

4.38%
232
357
27 616
36 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q18 Was the presence of a hazard risk zone (e.g., dam failure zone, flood zone, landslide hazard area, high fire risk area) disclosed to you by a real estate agent, seller, or landlord before you purchased or moved into your residence?
Answered: 617 Skipped: 74
Yes
No
Not Sure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Sure
TOTAL

RESPONSES

25.77%

59.97%

14.26%
159
370
88 617
37 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q19 Would the disclosure of this type of hazard risk information influence your decision to buy or rent a residence?
Answered: 616 Skipped: 75
Yes
No
Not Sure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Sure
TOTAL

RESPONSES

58.93%

17.53%

23.54%
363
108
145
616
38 / 68

$10,000 or
above
Nothing
Not Sure
Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q20 If you were eligible for funding assistance that required a local contribution, how much money would you be willing to spend to retrofit your home to reduce risks associated with disasters? (for example, by elevating a home above the flood level, performing seismic upgrades, or replacing a combustible roof with non-combustible roofing) Answered: 611 Skipped: 80
$5,000 to
$9,999
$1,000 to
$4,999
Less than
$
1,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
$10,000 o r above 19.80% 121
$5,000 to $9,999 19.64% 120
$1,000 to $4,999 18.33% 112
Less than $1,000 5.07% 31
Nothing 7.69% 47
Not Sure 29.46% 180
TOTAL 611
39 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q21 Which of the following incentives for property owners would encourage you to spend money to retrofit your home to protect against disasters? (Check all that apply). Please note that your answers to this question does not obligate any of the planning partners to implement the incentives.

Answered: 600 Skipped: 91
Building
permit fee...

Insurance
premium...

Mortgage
d
iscount
Property tax
b
reak or...

Low interest
r
ate loan
Grant funding
None
Other (please
s
pecify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Building p ermit fee waiver 58.83% 353
Insurance premium discount 77.50% 465
Mortgage discount 41.17% 247
Property tax break or incentive 81.00% 486
Low interest rate loan 41.33% 248
Grant funding 63.00% 378
None 7.00% 42
Other (please specify) 5.67% 34
Total R espondents: 600
40 / 68

5 10
15 20
25 30
Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Please! 2/25/2021 7:18 PM
2 Would love to spend money upgrading our home if we weren't far blow the poverty level. 2/21/2021 8:50 AM 3 If there were programs available to my landlord that I would benefit from I would discuss them 2/11/2021 6:12 AM with her and try to convince her to make these kinds of improvements to the property. 4 our home is up to code on all these risks 2/8/2021 9:54 PM I live in a multi-family HOA property. Any assistance would go through them. 1/27/2021 5:37 PM 6 my home is new construction so doesn't need retrofitting 1/12/2021 3:21 PM 7 My modular home is equipped with $5,000 worth of bracing which was provided free for low 1/10/2021 2:57 PM income people.
8 Not sure any retrofit would protect against wildfire 1/9/2021 2:45 PM 9 Help with fire prevention in the way of brush removal on Gehricke Road would be a high 1/9/2021 9:48 AM priority.
availability of reliable/unbiased resources to assess specific recommended improvements. 1/8/2021 6:15 PM 11 guarantee that PGE won't turn off my power and gas 1/8/2021 2:43 PM 12 Getting ALL Government out of the way! Eliminate ALL Property Tax for ever! 1/7/2021 3:02 PM 13 My house is relatively new and up to code. 1/5/2021 6:04 PM 14 We're in a condo association so the question doesn't apply 1/5/2021 12:14 PM I am a renter 1/5/2021 9:17 AM
16 Elected 12/30/2020 5:56 PM
17 Insurance coverage 12/23/2020 5:43 PM
18 I'm a renter; I don't care what happens to this building 12/21/2020 11:28 AM 19 N/A 12/19/2020 4:47 PM
I don’t own. 12/19/2020 8:06 AM
21 If there was financial help available I would encourage my landlord to make use of it and would 12/19/2020 1:28 AM help make it happen.
22 the landlord would probably be interested 12/18/2020 8:33 PM 23 I rent. 12/18/2020 9:53 AM
24 n/a 12/18/2020 8:21 AM
Government should not be so involved in trying to be alk things to all people. I is not financially 12/17/2020 8:52 PM sustainable.. Hazard reduction should be between insurance companies and insurers. Having a program to pay for Vulcan vent materials purchase seems like it would be a goid investment. I feel that some building code regs, such as old venting requirements, were responsible for many ember infiltration fires. M
26 income tax break 12/17/2020 5:21 PM
27 Not a property owner 12/16/2020 1:02 PM
28 Technical assistance, bulk procurement, enforcement 12/16/2020 11:53 AM 29 I rent, are you daft? 12/16/2020 8:31 AM
Unable to afford to buy home in this county 12/15/2020 3:22 PM 31 I'm a renter, I'm not putting any money into this house 12/15/2020 3:18 PM 32 I rent an apartment, so I'm not in a position to retrofit anything, hence my answers to questions 12/15/2020 2:58 PM 20 and 21. I don't have earthquake insurance because the premiums would cost me more than 41 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
the value of my belongs.
33 Please expand flood elevation program, grants! 12/10/2020 8:41 PM 34 Assistance with installing rain catchment, rain gardens, soil improvements to keep rain water on the property and out of the Russian River.
12/8/2020 10:43 PM
42 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q22 If you own/owned property located in a designated “high hazard” area or had received repetitive damages from a hazard event, would you consider a ”buyout” offered by a Federal agency?
Answered: 598 Skipped: 93
Yes
No
Not Sure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Sure
TOTAL

RESPONSES

43.31%

12.37%

44.31%
259
74 265
598
43 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q23 Please indicate how you feel about the following
statement:Information about the risks associated with hazards is readily available and easy to locate.

Answered: 615 Skipped: 76
Choose one:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%
Strongly Disagree Neither A gree nor Disagree Strongly A gree

STRONGLY NEITHER AGREE NOR STRONGLY TOTAL WEIGHTED

DISAGREE DISAGREE AGREE AVERAGE
Choose 16.91% 58.70% 24.39%
one: 104 361 150 615 2.07
44 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q24 Please indicate your age range:

Answered: 612 Skipped: 79
Under 18
18 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 to 60
61 or older
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

0.00% 0Under 18

4.08% 25 18 to 30

12.58% 77 31 to 40

14.22% 87 41 to 50

21.41% 131 51 to 60

47.71% 292 61 or older
TOTAL 612
45 / 68

English
Spanish
Indo-European
Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q25 Please indicate the primary language spoken in your household.

Answered: 608 Skipped: 83
Languages (n...

Asian Languages
Pacific Island
l
anguages
Other (please
s
pecify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
English
Spanish
Indo-European Languages (not including English or Spanish) Asian Languages
Pacific Island languages
Other (please specify)
TOTAL

RESPONSES

98.36%

0.99%

0.00%

0.33%

0.16%

0.16%
598
6 0
2 1
1 608
#
1 OTHER ( PLEASE SPECIFY)
French
DATE
1 2/19/2020 11:10 AM
46 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q26 Please indicate your gender:

Answered: 605 Skipped: 86
Male
Female
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Male
Female
Other
TOTAL

RESPONSES

30.91%

67.93%

1.16%
187
411
7 605
47 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q27 Please indicate your highest level of education.

Answered: 610 Skipped: 81
Grade
school/No...

Some high
school
High school
g
raduate/GED
Some
c
ollege/Trad...

College degree
Graduate
d
egree
Other (please
s
pecify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Grade school/No schooling
Some high school
High school graduate/GED
Some college/Trade school
College degree
Graduate degree
Other (please specify)
TOTAL

RESPONSES

0.16%

0.16%

2.79%

21.31%

40.98%

33.93%

0.66%
1 1
17 130
250
207
4 610
#
1 2
3 4

OTHER (

PLEASE SPECIFY)
Law degree
None of your business
AA Degree
Law degree
DATE
1 /23/2021 10:15 AM
1/10/2021 4:25 PM
1/10/2021 2:58 PM
12/21/2020 11:29 AM
48 / 68

Less than 1
year
1 to 5 years
Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q28 How long have you lived in Sonoma County?
Answered: 610 Skipped: 81
6 to 10 years
11 to 20 years
More than 20
y
ears
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
Less than 1 year
1 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 20 years
More than 20 years
TOTAL

RESPONSES

0.98%

10.49%

9.51%

16.89%

62.13%
6 64
58 103
379
610
49 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q29 What is your gross household income?
Answered: 580 Skipped: 111
$20,000 or less
$20,001 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$
74,999
$75,000 to
$
99,999
$100,000 or
m
ore
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%

ANSWER CHOICES
$20,000 or less
$20,001 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more
TOTAL

RESPONSES

3.10%

9.66%

15.69%

19.83%

51.72%
18 56
91 115
300
580
50 / 68

Sonoma County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
Q30 Comments
Answered: 173 Skipped: 518

COMMENTS AVAILABLE

BY REQUEST TO

PERMIT SONOMA
51 / 68

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021 Appendix B. Summary of Federal and State
Agencies, Programs and Regulations

B. SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES,

PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
Existing laws, ordinances, plans and programs at the federal and state level can support or impact hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan. Hazard mitigation plans are required to include a review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information as part of the planning process (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). The following federal and state programs have been identified as programs that may interface with the actions identified in this plan. Each program enhances capabilities to implement mitigation actions or has a nexus with a mitigation action in this plan. Information presented in this section can be used to review local capabilities to implement the actions found in the jurisdictional annexes of Volume 2. Each planning partner has individually reviewed existing local plans, studies, reports, and technical information in its jurisdictional annex, presented in Volume 2.

FEDERAL
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeks to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and government activities. Title II of the ADA deals with compliance with the Act in emergency management and disaster-related programs, services, and activities. It applies to state and local governments as well as third parties, including religious entities and private nonprofit organizations.

The ADA has implications for sheltering requirements and public notifications. During an emergency alert, officials must use a combination of warning methods to ensure that all residents have all necessary information.

Those with hearing impairments may not hear radio, television, sirens, or other audible alerts, while those with visual impairments may not see flashing lights or other visual alerts. Two technical documents for shelter operators address physical accessibility needs of people with disabilities, as well as medical needs and service animals.

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

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

B-1

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Bureau of Land Management
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) funds and coordinates wildfire management programs and structural fire management and prevention on BLM lands. BLM works closely with the Forest Service and state and local governments to coordinate fire safety activities. The Interagency Fire Coordination Center in Boise, Idaho serves as the center for this effort.

Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or nation origin and requires equal access to public places and employment. The Act is relevant to emergency management and hazard mitigation in that it prohibits local governments from favoring the needs of one population group over another.

Local government and emergency response must ensure the continued safety and well-being of all residents equally, to the extent possible. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.

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

The CWA is important to hazard mitigation in several ways. There are often permitting requirements for any construction within 200 feet of water of the United States, which may have implications for mitigation projects identified by a local jurisdiction. Additionally, CWA requirements apply to wetlands, which serve important functions related to preserving and protecting the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains and are linked with a community’s floodplain management program. Finally, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is part of the CWA and addresses local stormwater management programs. Stormwater management plays a critical role in hazard mitigation by addressing urban drainage or localized flooding issues within jurisdictions.

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

Community Development Block Grant Disaster Resilience Program In response to disasters, Congress may appropriate additional funding for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant programs to be distributed as Disaster Recovery B-2

B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations grants (CDBG-DR). These grants can be used to rebuild affected areas and provide seed money to start the recovery process. CDBG-DR assistance may fund a broad range of recovery activities, helping communities and neighborhoods that otherwise might not recover due to limited resources. CDBG-DR grants often supplement disaster programs of FEMA, the Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Housing and Urban Development generally awards noncompetitive, nonrecurring CDBG-DR grants by a formula that considers disaster recovery needs unmet by other federal disaster assistance programs. To be eligible for CDBG- DR funds, projects must meet the following criteria:
• Address a disaster-related impact (direct or indirect) in a presidentially declared county for the covered disaster
• Be a CDBG-eligible activity (according to regulations and waivers) • Meet a national objective.

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

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

For participating communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted in increments of 5 percent. For example, a Class 1 community would receive a 45 percent premium discount, and a Class 9 community would receive a 5 percent discount. (Class 10 communities are those that do not participate in the CRS; they receive no discount.) The discount partially depends on location of the property. Properties outside the special flood hazard area receive smaller discounts: a 10-percent discount if the community is at Class 1 to 6 and a 5-percent discount if the community is at Class 7 to 9. The CRS classes for local communities are based on 18 creditable activities in the following categories:
• Public information
• Mapping and regulations
• Flood damage reduction
• Flood preparedness.

CRS activities can help to save lives and reduce property damage. Communities participating in the CRS represent a significant portion of the nation’s flood risk; over 66 percent of the NFIP’s policy base is located in these communities. Communities receiving premium discounts through the CRS range from small to large and represent a broad mixture of flood risks, including both coastal and riverine flood risks.

B-3

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Disaster Mitigation Act
The DMA is the current federal legislation addressing hazard mitigation planning. It emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. It specifically addresses planning at the local level, requiring plans to be in place before Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant funds are available to communities. This plan is designed to meet the requirements of DMA, improving eligibility for future hazard mitigation funds.

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

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

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

Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1973 to conserve species facing depletion or extinction and the ecosystems that support them. The act sets forth a process for determining which species are threatened and endangered and requires the conservation of the critical habitat in which those species live. The ESA provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered. Provisions are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species. The ESA outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may jeopardize listed species and contains exceptions and exemptions. It is the enabling legislation for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA and the Convention.

B-4

B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations Federal agencies must seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and use their authorities in furtherance of the ESA’s purposes. The ESA defines three fundamental terms:
• Endangered means that a species of fish, animal or plant is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” (For salmon and other vertebrate species, this may include subspecies and distinct population segments.)
• Threatened means that a species “is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” Regulations may be less restrictive for threatened species than for endangered species. • Critical habitat means “specific geographical areas that are…essential for the conservation and management of a listed species, whether occupied by the species or not.” Five sections of the ESA are of critical importance to understanding it:
• Section 4: Listing of a Species—The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for listing marine species; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for listing terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species. The agencies may initiate reviews for listings, or citizens may petition for them. A listing must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” After a listing has been proposed, agencies receive comment and conduct further scientific reviews for 12 to 18 months, after which they must decide if the listing is warranted. Economic impacts cannot be considered in this decision, but it may include an evaluation of the adequacy of local and state protections. Critical habitat for the species may be designated at the time of listing.
• Section 7: Consultation—Federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed or proposed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. This includes private and public actions that require a federal permit. Once a final listing is made, non-federal actions are subject to the same review, termed a “consultation.” If the listing agency finds that an action will “take” a species, it must propose mitigations or “reasonable and prudent” alternatives to the action; if the proponent rejects these, the action cannot proceed. • Section 9: Prohibition of Take—It is unlawful to “take” an endangered species, including killing or injuring it or modifying its habitat in a way that interferes with essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
• Section 10: Permitted Take—Through voluntary agreements with the federal government that provide protections to an endangered species, a non-federal applicant may commit a take that would otherwise be prohibited as long as it is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity (such as developing land or building a road). These agreements often take the form of a “Habitat Conservation Plan.” • Section 11: Citizen Lawsuits—Civil actions initiated by any citizen can require the listing agency to enforce the ESA’s prohibition of taking or to meet the requirements of the consultation process.

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

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to ensure and promote dam safety. More than 3,000 dams are part of regulated hydroelectric projects in the FERC program. Two-thirds of these are more than 50 years old. As dams age, concern about their safety and integrity B-5

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements grows, so oversight and regular inspection are important. FERC inspects hydroelectric projects on an unscheduled basis to investigate the following:
• Potential dam safety problems
• Complaints about constructing and operating a project • Safety concerns related to natural disasters
• Issues concerning compliance with the terms and conditions of a license.

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

FERC monitors seismic research and applies it in performing structural analyses of hydroelectric projects. FERC also evaluates the effects of potential and actual large floods on the safety of dams. During and following floods, FERC visits dams and licensed projects, determines the extent of damage, if any, and directs any necessary studies or remedial measures the licensee must undertake. The FERC publication Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects guides the FERC engineering staff and licensees in evaluating dam safety.

The publication is frequently revised to reflect current information and methodologies.

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

Federal Wildfire Management Policy and Healthy Forests Restoration Act Federal Wildfire Management Policy and Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003). These documents call for a single comprehensive federal fire policy for the Interior and Agriculture Departments (the agencies using federal fire management resources). They mandate community-based collaboration to reduce risks from wildfire.

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

The goal of this FEMA-monitored effort is to identify and mitigate the risk of dam failure so as to protect lives and property of the public. The National Dam Safety Program is a partnership among the states, federal agencies, and other stakeholders that encourages individual and community responsibility for dam safety. Under FEMA’s B-6

B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations leadership, state assistance funds have allowed all participating states to improve their programs through increased inspections, emergency action planning, and purchases of needed equipment. FEMA has also expanded existing and initiated new training programs. Grant assistance from FEMA provides support for improvement of dam safety programs that regulate most of the dams in the United States.

National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions, alongside technical and economic considerations.

The National Environmental Policy Act established the Council on Environmental Quality, whose regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) set standards for compliance. Consideration and decision-making regarding environmental impacts must be documented in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. Environmental impact assessment requires the evaluation of reasonable alternatives to a proposed action, solicitation of input from organizations and individuals that could be affected, and an unbiased presentation of direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts. FEMA hazard mitigation project grant applications require full compliance with applicable federal acts. Any action identified in this plan that falls within the scope of this act will need to meet its requirements.

National Fire Plan (2001)
The 2001 National Fire Plan was developed based on the National Fire Policy. A major aspect of the National Fire Plan is joint risk reduction planning and implementation carried out by federal, state and local agencies and communities. The National Fire Plan presented a comprehensive strategy in five key initiatives:
• Firefighting—Be adequately prepared to fight fires each fire season. • Rehabilitation and Restoration—Restore landscapes and rebuild communities damaged by wildfires. • Hazardous Fuel Reduction—Invest in projects to reduce fire risk. • Community Assistance—Work directly with communities to ensure adequate protection. • Accountability—Be accountable and establish adequate oversight, coordination, program development, and monitoring for performance.

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

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

0.2-percent-annual-chance flood. Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the flood hazard areas are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. Flood Insurance Rate Maps are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under the local floodplain management program. In recent years, Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been digitized as Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are more accessible to residents, local governments and stakeholders.

B-7

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements NFIP participants must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria.

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

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

National Incident Management System
The National Incident Management System (NIMS) is a systematic approach for government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together to manage incidents involving hazards. The NIMS provides a flexible but standardized set of incident management practices. Incidents typically begin and end locally, and they are managed at the lowest possible geographical, organizational, and jurisdictional level. In some cases, success depends on the involvement of multiple jurisdictions, levels of government, functional agencies, and emergency responder disciplines. These cases necessitate coordination across a spectrum of organizations.

Communities using NIMS follow a comprehensive national approach that improves the effectiveness of emergency management and response personnel across the full spectrum of potential hazards (including natural hazards, technological hazards, and human-caused hazards) regardless of size or complexity.

Although participation is voluntary, federal departments and agencies are required to make adoption of NIMS by local and state jurisdictions a condition to receive federal preparedness grants and awards. The content of this plan is considered to be a viable support tool for any phase of emergency management. The NIMS program is considered as a response function, and information in this hazard mitigation plan can support the implementation and update of all NIMS-compliant plans within the planning area.

Presidential Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. It requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of floodplains. The requirements apply to the following activities:
• Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities • Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements • Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing.

B-8

B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations Presidential Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. The requirements apply to the following activities:
• Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities • Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements • Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing.

All actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with all applicable presidential executive orders.

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

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Hazard Management
The following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorities and programs related to flood hazard management:
• The Floodplain Management Services program offers 100-percent federally funded technical services such as development and interpretation of site-specific data related to the extent, duration and frequency of flooding. Special studies may be conducted to help a community understand and respond to flood risk.

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

B-9

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements • The Corps of Engineers provides emergency response assistance during and following natural disasters.

Public Law 84-99 enables the Corps to assist state and local authorities in flood fight activities and cost share in the repair of flood protective structures. Assistance is provided in the flowing categories:
 Preparedness—The Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act establishes an emergency fund for preparedness for emergency response to natural disasters; for flood fighting and rescue operations; for rehabilitation of flood control and hurricane protection structures. Funding for Corps of Engineers emergency response under this authority is provided by Congress through the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act. Disaster preparedness activities include coordination, planning, training and conduct of response exercises with local, state and federal agencies.  Response Activities—Public Law 84-99 allows the Corps of Engineers to supplement state and local entities in flood fighting urban and other non-agricultural areas under certain conditions (Engineering Regulation 500-1-1 provides specific details). All flood fight efforts require a project cooperation agreement signed by the public sponsor and the sponsor must remove all flood fight material after the flood has receded. Public Law 84-99 also authorizes emergency water support and drought assistance in certain situations and allows for “advance measures” assistance to prevent or reduce flood damage conditions of imminent threat of unusual flooding.
 Rehabilitation—Under Public Law 84-99, an eligible flood protection system can be rehabilitated if damaged by a flood event. The flood system would be restored to its pre-disaster status at no cost to the federal system owner, and at 20-percent cost to the eligible non-federal system owner. All systems considered eligible for Public Law 84-99 rehabilitation assistance have to be in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program prior to the flood event. Acceptable operation and maintenance by the public levee sponsor are verified by levee inspections conducted by the Corps on a regular basis. The Corps has the responsibility to coordinate levee repair issues with interested federal, state, and local agencies following natural disaster events where flood control works are damaged.

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

U.S. Fire Administration
There are federal agencies that provide technical support to fire agencies/organizations. For example, the U.S.

Fire Administration, which is a part of FEMA, provides leadership, advocacy, coordination, and support for fire agencies and organizations.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fire management strategy uses prescribed fire to maintain early successional fire-adapted grasslands and other ecological communities throughout the National Wildlife Refuge system.

STATE
AB 9: Fire safety: wildfires: fire adapted communities.

Establishes the Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program to support regional leadership, build local and regional capacity, and develop, prioritize, and implement strategies and projects that create fire-adapted communities by improving watershed health, forest health, community wildfire preparedness, and fire resilience.

B-10

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

The Air Resources Board has adopted a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit and an emissions inventory, along with requirements to measure, track, and report greenhouse gas emissions by the industries it determined to be significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

AB 38: Fire safety: Low-Cost Retrofits: Regional Capacity Review: Wildfire Mitigation
Requires the seller of any real property located in a high or very fire hazard severity zone to provide a disclosure notice, as specified, to the buyer with information relating to fire hardening improvements on the property.

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

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

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

B-11

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements AB 162: Flood Planning
This California State Assembly Bill passed in 2007 requires cities and counties to address flood-related matters in the land use, conservation, and safety and housing elements of their general plans. The land use element must identify and annually review the areas covered by the general plan that are subject to flooding as identified in floodplain mapping by either FEMA or the state Department of Water Resources (DWR). During the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, the conservation element of the general plan must identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitat, and land that may accommodate floodwater for the purpose of groundwater recharge and stormwater management. The safety element must identify information regarding flood hazards, including:
• Flood hazard zones
• Maps published by FEMA, DWR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) • Historical data on flooding
• Existing and planned development in flood hazard zones.

The general plan must establish goals, policies and objectives related to flooding risks, including:
• Avoiding or minimizing the risks of flooding new development • Evaluating whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones • Identifying construction methods to minimize damage.

AB 162 establishes goals, policies and objectives related to flooding risks. It establishes procedures for the determination of available land suitable for urban development, which may exclude lands where FEMA or DWR has concluded that the flood management infrastructure is not adequate to avoid the risk of flooding.

AB 267: California Environmental Quality Act: Exemption: Prescribed Fire, Thinning, and Fuel Reduction Projects
Current law, until January 1, 2023, exempts from the requirements of CEQA prescribed fire, thinning, or fuel reduction projects undertaken on federal lands to reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire that have been reviewed under the federal National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Current law requires the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, beginning December 31, 2019, and annually thereafter until January 1, 2023, to report to the relevant policy committees of the Legislature the number of times the exemption was used. This extends the exemption from CEQA and the requirement on the department to report to the relevant policy committees of the Legislature to January 1, 2026.

AB 380: Forestry: Priority Fuel Reduction Projects
On March 22, 2019, the Governor issued a proclamation of a state of emergency directing the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to implement fuel reduction projects for communities at greatest risk of wildfire to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The proclamation of a state of emergency exempts the identified fuel reduction projects from various legal requirements, including, among others, requirements regarding public contracting for those projects, requirements for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act for those projects, and licensure requirements for individuals conducting certain activities for those projects.

B-12

B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations This bill requires the department, before December 31, 2022, and before December 31 of each year thereafter, to identify priority fuel reduction projects, as provided. The bill exempts the identified priority fuel reduction projects from legal requirements in a similar manner as provided in the proclamation of a state of emergency described above.

AB 431: Forestry: Timber Harvesting Plans: Defensible Space: Exemptions The Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 prohibits a person from conducting timber operations, as defined, unless a timber harvesting plan prepared by a registered professional forester has been submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The act authorizes the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to exempt from some or all of those provisions of the act a person engaging in specified forest management activities, as prescribed, including, only until January 1, 2022, the cutting or removal of trees on the person’s property in compliance with specified defensible space requirements. This bill extends to January 1, 2026, the board’s authorization to exempt a person engaging in the cutting or removal of trees on the person’s property in compliance with the specified defensible space requirements.

AB 497: Forestry and Fire Protection: Local Assistance Grant Program: Fire Prevention Activities: Street and Road Vegetation Management Under existing law, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is required to develop, implement, and administer forest improvement and fire prevention programs in the state. Existing law requires the department to establish a local assistance grant program for fire prevention activities in California. Existing law requires the department to prioritize, to the extent feasible, projects that are multiyear efforts and to prioritize grant applications from specified local agencies.

This bill appropriated $25,000,000 to provide the local assistance grants. It requires the department to prioritize projects that manage vegetation along streets and roads to prevent the ignition of wildfire and that require the funds for purposes of purchasing equipment necessary for the project.

AB 575: Civil Liability: Prescribed Burning Activities: Gross Negligence This bill provides that a private entity engaging in a prescribed burning activity that is supervised by a person certified as burn boss is liable for damages to a third party only if the prescribed burning activity was carried out in a grossly negligent manner.

AB 642: Wildfires
This omnibus fire prevention bill makes changes to support cultural and prescribed fire, including the creation of a Cultural Burning Liaison at the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and requires a proposal for creating a prescribed fire training center in California. The Act requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas in the state as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones and to classify areas into fire hazard severity zones based on additional factors including possible lightning caused ignition. The bill requires a local agency, within 30 days of receiving a transmittal from the director that identifies fire hazard severity zones, to make the information available for public comment.

B-13

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements AB 747: Required Information for General Plan Safety Elements This bill requires California communities with general plans to address evacuation routes in the safety element of the general plan. Information on the evacuation routes and their capacity, safety and viability under a range of emergency scenarios must be provided. For communities that have not adopted a local hazard mitigation plan, the safety element must be updated with this information by January 1, 2022. For those with a local hazard mitigation plan, the requirement applies upon the next revision of the hazard mitigation plan on or after January 1, 2022.

Communities that have adopted a local hazard mitigation plan, emergency operations plan, or other document that fulfills the goals and objectives of this law may comply with this requirement by summarizing and incorporating by reference the other plan or document in the safety element.

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

AB 800: Wildfires: Local General Plans: Safety Elements: Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Existing law requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas of the state as very high fire hazard severity zones, and requires each planning agency to prepare, and the legislative body of each county and city to adopt, a comprehensive, long-term general plan, including a safety element, for the physical development of the county or city. Existing law requires each city or county that contains a very high fire hazard severity zone to submit the draft element of, or draft amendment to the safety element its general plan to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and to every local agency that provides fire protection to territory in the city or county at least 90 days before adoption or amendment.

This requires the director to also identify areas of the state as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones. It requires the draft element of, or draft amendment to, the safety element of a county or city’s general plan to be submitted to the state board and to every local agency that provides fire protection to territory in the city or county at least 90 days before the adoption or amendment to the safety element of its general plan for each city or county that contains a moderate or high fire hazard severity zone.

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

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

The existing Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency, and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval, or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the B-14

B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations modification thereof. The act generally requires a subdivider to file a tentative map or vesting tentative map with the local agency, and requires the local agency to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within a specified time period. Before approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for an area located in a state responsibility area or a very high fire hazard severity zone, existing law requires a legislative body of a county to make specified findings. Existing law requires a legislative body of a county to transmit these findings to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

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

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

AB 1255: Fire Prevention: Fire Risk Reduction Guidance: Local Assistance Grants
This bill requires the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, in coordination with the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, to facilitate regional, habitat-specific, and area-specific approaches to fire risk reduction, prevention, and restoration of projects that improve community safety, protect sites and structures, restore burned habitat, reduce catastrophic wildfires, and protect natural resources. It requires the department to develop policies, funding programs for which the funding shall be contingent upon subsequent appropriation in the annual Budget Act or a similar statute for this purpose, and relevant program guidelines that promote specified objectives. The bill requires various state entities to establish grant programs, for which funding shall be contingent upon subsequent appropriation, to fulfill the specified objectives.

AB 1295: Residential Development Agreements: Very High Fire Risk Areas Current law requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas in the state as very high fire hazard severity zones based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas and requires each local agency to designate, by ordinance, the very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction. Current law additionally requires the director to classify lands within state responsibility areas into fire hazard severity zones. This bill, prohibits the legislative body of a city or county from entering into a residential development agreement for property in a very high fire risk area. The bill defines “very high fire risk area” for these purposes to mean a very high fire hazard severity zone designated by a local agency or a fire hazard severity zone classified by the director.

AB 1439: Property Insurance Discounts
This bill requires a residential property insurance policy to include a discount if a local government of the jurisdiction where the insured property is located funds a local wildfire protection or mitigation program. Because the bill mandates discounts for specified residential property insurance policies, thus affecting the Insurance Commissioner’s consideration of a rate, the bill would amend Proposition 103.

B-15

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements AB 1500: Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparation, Flood Protection, Extreme Heat Mitigation, and Workforce Development Bond Act of 2022
If approved by the voters, this bill would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $6,700,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, drought preparation, flood protection, extreme heat mitigation, and workforce development programs.

AB 2140: General Plans—Safety Element
This bill provides that the state may allow for more than 75 percent of public assistance funding under the California Disaster Assistance Act only if the local agency is in a jurisdiction that has adopted a local hazard mitigation plan as part of the safety element of its general plan. The local hazard mitigation plan needs to include elements specified in this legislation. In addition, this bill requires Cal OES to give preference for federal mitigation funding to cities and counties that have adopted local hazard mitigation plans. The intent of the bill is to encourage cities and counties to create and adopt hazard mitigation plans.

AB 2800: Climate Change—Infrastructure Planning
This California State Assembly bill passed in 2016 and until July 1, 2020, requires state agencies to take into account the current and future impacts of climate change when planning, designing, building, operating, maintaining, and investing in state infrastructure. The bill, by July 1, 2017, and until July 1, 2020, requires an agency to establish a Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group to examine how to integrate scientific data concerning projected climate change impacts into state infrastructure engineering.

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was enacted in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act’s main purpose is to prevent construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. Before a new project is permitted, cities and counties require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be constructed on active faults. The act addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards, such as liquefaction or seismically induced landslides. The law requires the State of California Geologist to establish regulatory zones around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy. All seismic hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan will seek full compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Safe Regulations California’s Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is authorized to adopt regulations to implement specified programs. To become effective, the Office of Administrative Law must approve these regulations. Once adopted, Board regulations are placed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection then implements the regulations.

B-16

B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations Since 1991, the Board’s Fire Safe Regulations have set the floor for fire safety standards for perimeters and access to all residential, commercial, and industrial building construction in state responsibility areas. They address road standards for fire equipment access, standards for road and building signs, minimum private water supplies for emergency fire use, and fuel breaks and greenbelts. Starting on July 1, 2021, these requirements will also apply in the local responsibility areas and will address construction on ridgelines.

California Coastal Management Program
The California Coastal Management Program under the California Coastal Act requires each city or county lying wholly or partly within the coastal zone to prepare a local coastal plan. The specific contents of such plans are not specified by state law, but they must be certified by the Coastal Commission as consistent with policies of the Coastal Act (Public Resources Code, Division 20). The Coastal Act has provisions relating to geologic hazards, but does not mention tsunamis specifically. Section 30253(1) of the Coastal Act states that new development shall minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. Development should be prevented or limited in high hazard areas whenever possible. However, where development cannot be prevented or limited, land use density, building value, and occupancy should be kept at a minimum. Any mitigation project identified in this plan that intersects the mapped coastal zone will be consistent with the recommendations of the local coastal plan.

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

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

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

California Division of Safety of Dams
California’s Division of Safety of Dams (a division of the DWR) monitors the dam safety program at the state level and maintains a working list of dams in the state. When a new dam is proposed, Division engineers and geologists inspect the site and the subsurface. Upon submittal of an application, the Division reviews the plans B-17

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements and specifications prepared by the owner to ensure that the dam is designed to meet minimum requirements and that the design is appropriate for the known geologic conditions. After approval of the application, the Division inspects all aspects of the construction to ensure that the work is done in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. After construction, the Division inspects each dam to ensure that it is performing as intended and is not developing problems. The Division periodically reviews the stability of dams and their major appurtenances in light of improved design approaches and requirements, as well as new findings regarding earthquake hazards and hydrologic estimates in California. Over 1,200 dams are inspected by Division engineers on a yearly schedule to ensure performance and maintenance of dams.

California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was passed in 1970, shortly after the federal government enacted the National Environmental Policy Act, to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA requires state and local agencies in California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of development projects. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California state and local agency’s decision-making process.

CEQA establishes a statewide environmental policy and mandates actions all state and local agencies must take to advance the policy. Jurisdictions conduct analysis of the project to determine if there are potentially significant environmental impacts, identify mitigation measures, and possible project alternatives by preparing environmental reports for projects that requires CEQA review. This environmental review is required before an agency takes action on any policy, program, or project. Any project action identified in this plan will seek full CEQA compliance upon implementation.

California Fire Alliance
The California Fire Alliance (CFA) was established in response to directives from the 2001 National Fire Plan.

The CFA pursues four strategies to deal with the National Fire Plan’s community assistance initiative:
• Work with communities at risk from wildfires to develop community-based planning leadership and facilitate the development of community fire loss mitigation plans, which transcend jurisdiction and ownership boundaries.
• Assist communities in development of fire loss mitigation planning, education and projects to reduce the threat of wildfire losses on public and private lands.
• Develop an information and education outreach plan to increase awareness of wildfire protection program opportunities available to communities at risk.
• Work collaboratively to develop, modify and maintain a comprehensive list of communities at risk.

California Fire Plan
The State Board of Forestry and CAL FIRE have prepared a comprehensive update of the California Fire Plan for wildfire protection. The planning process included defining a level of service measurement; considering assets at risk; incorporating the cooperative interdependent relationships of wildfire protection providers; providing for public stakeholder involvement; and creating a fiscal framework for policy analysis. The California Fire Plan’s overall goal is to reduce costs and losses from wildfire in the state by protecting assets at risk through pre-fire management and by reducing the spread of fire through more successful initial response.

B-18

B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations California Fire Safe Council
In 1993, the statewide Fire Safe Council, consisting of private and public membership, was formed to educate and encourage Californians to plan and prepare for wildfires by reducing the risk of fire to property, communities, and natural/structural resources. In 2002, this group created a nonprofit organization and board of directors, called the California Fire Safe Council. The Council works with the California Fire Alliance to facilitate the distribution of National Fire Plan grants for wildfire risk reduction and education (www.grants.firesafecouncil.org). The Council also provides assistance to local Fire Safe Councils through its website (www.firesafecouncil.org), the distribution of educational materials, and technical assistance, primarily through regional representatives. More than 130 local Fire Safe Councils have formed in California to plan, coordinate, and implement fire prevention activities.

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

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

The plan must consist of an integrated, internally consistent set of goals, policies, and implementation measures.

In addition, the plan must focus on issues of the greatest concern to the community and be written in a clear and concise manner. City and county actions, such as those relating to land use allocations, annexations, zoning, subdivision and design review, redevelopment, and capital improvements, must be consistent with the plan.

California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Under the DMA, California must adopt a federally approved state multi-hazard mitigation plan to be eligible for certain disaster assistance and mitigation funding. The intent of the State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is to reduce or prevent injury and damage from hazards in the state through the following:
• Documenting statewide hazard mitigation planning in California • Describing strategies and priorities for future mitigation activities • Facilitating the integration of local and tribal hazard mitigation planning activities into statewide efforts • Meeting state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements.

The plan is an annex to the State Emergency Plan, and it identifies past and present mitigation activities, current policies and programs, and mitigation strategies for the future. It also establishes hazard mitigation goals and objectives. The plan will be reviewed and updated annually to reflect changing conditions and new information, especially information on local planning activities. Under 44 CFR Section 201.6, local hazard mitigation plans must be consistent with their state’s hazard mitigation plan.

B-19

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements California Residential Mitigation Program
The California Residential Mitigation Program was established in 2011 to help Californians strengthen their homes against damage from earthquakes. The program is a joint powers authority created by Cal OES and the California Earthquake Authority, which is a not-for-profit, publicly managed, privately funded provider of home earthquake insurance to California homeowners and renters.

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

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

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

On January 1, 2014, California Building Code Accessibility Standards found in Chapter 11B incorporated the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards as the model accessibility code for California. The purpose was to ensure consistency with federal guidelines. As a result of this incorporation, the California standards will fully implement and include 2010 ADA Standards within the California Building Code while maintaining enhanced levels of accessibility already provided by existing California accessibility regulations. All planning partners that have building code and permit authority have adopted building codes that are in full compliance with the California State Building Code.

Disadvantaged and Low-income Communities Investments
Senate Bill (SB) 535 directs state and local agencies to make investments that benefit California’s disadvantaged communities. It also directs the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify disadvantaged B-20

B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations communities for the purposes of these investments based on geographic, socio-economic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria. Assembly Bill (AB) 1550 increased the percent of funds for projects located in disadvantaged communities from 10 to 25 percent and added a focus on investments in low-income communities and households. This program is a potential alternative source of funding for actions identified in this plan.

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

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

Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08
Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08 enhances the state’s management of climate impacts from sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation and extreme weather events. There are four key actions in the executive order:
• Initiate California’s first statewide climate change adaptation strategy to assess expected climate change impacts, identify where California is most vulnerable, and recommend adaptation policies. This effort will improve coordination within state government so that better planning can more effectively address climate impacts on human health, the environment, the state’s water supply and the economy. • Request that the National Academy of Science establish an expert panel to report on sea level rise impacts in California, to inform state planning and development efforts. • Issue interim guidance to state agencies for how to plan for sea level rise in designated coastal and floodplain areas for new projects.
• Initiate a report on critical infrastructure projects vulnerable to sea level rise.

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

Senate Bill 12: Local government: planning and zoning: wildfires.

This bill imposes new planning requirements on local governments, as follows:
• Defines “very high fire risk areas” to be the VHFHSZ in both the SRA and the Local Responsibility Area.

B-21

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements • Requires each city or county, upon the next revision of the housing element or local hazard mitigation plan on or after July 1, 2024, whichever occurs first, to review and update its safety element to include a comprehensive retrofit strategy that includes specified contents. • Requires a city or county with VHFHSZ within its jurisdiction to amend the land use element of its general plan upon the next revision of the housing element on or after July 1, 2024. This amendment of the land use element must include the locations of all VHFHSZ within the city or county, the data and analysis described in the Office of Planning and Research’s publication Fire Hazard Planning–General Plan Technical Advice Series, and other specified goals, objectives, and implementation measures. • Requires, after the initial amendment to the land use element, that a city or county review upon each revision of the housing element the implementation of the wildfire risk reduction standards within the jurisdiction and the designation of VHFHSZ.
• Provides for review and comment on draft findings by the Board and local fire agencies on whether the city or county has implemented the standards or made adequate progress, as defined. • Requires, on or before January 1, 2023, to develop and post on its web site a clearinghouse of local ordinances, policies, and best practices relating to land use planning in VHFHSZ, wildfire risk reduction, and wildfire preparedness. The Office of Planning and Research must also regularly update the clearinghouse.

Senate Bill 92: Dam Emergency Action Plans; Public Resources Portion of Biennial Budget Bill
The State of California updated its requirements regarding emergency action plans (EAPs) via Senate Bill 92, which became effective in June 2017 as part of the state Legislature’s biennial budget process. The bill required dam owners to submit EAPs to Cal OES and the Department of Water Resources for approval by January 1, 2018 (for extremely high hazard dams), January 1, 2019 (for high-hazard dams), and January 1, 2021 (for significant hazard dams). The EAPs were to include the following:
• Emergency notification flow charts
• Information on a four-step response process
• Description of agencies’ roles and actions in response to an emergency incident • Description of actions to be taken in advance of an emergency • Inundation maps
• Additional information such as revision records and distribution lists.

After the EAPs are approved by the state, the law requires dam owners to send the approved EAPs to relevant stakeholders. Local public agencies can then adopt emergency procedures that incorporate the information in the EAP in a manner that conforms to local needs and includes methods and procedures for alerting and warning the public and other response and preparedness related items.

SB 92 also requires dams other than low-risk dams to have current inundation mapping, which must be updated every 10 years, or sooner if specific circumstances change. EAPs also must be updated every 10 years. It provides DWR with enforcement tools, including fines and operational restrictions for failure to comply. Cal OES is required by the law to work with state and federal agencies, dam owners, planners, and the public to make dam inundation maps available to citizens interested in learning their dam failure inundation risk.

B-22

B. Summary of Federal and State Agencies, Programs and Regulations Senate Bill 97: Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Senate Bill 97, enacted in 2007, amends CEQA to clearly establish that greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. It directs the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop draft CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or their effects by July 1, 2009 and directs the California Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt the CEQA Guidelines by January 1, 2010.

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

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

Senate Bill 379: General Plans: Safety Element—Climate Adaptation Senate Bill 379 builds upon the flood planning inclusions into the safety and housing elements and the hazard mitigation planning safety element inclusions in general plans outlined in AB 162 and AB 2140, respectively.

SB 379 focuses on a new requirement that cities and counties include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the safety element of their general plans beginning January 1, 2017. In addition, this bill requires general plans to include a set of goals, policies and objectives, and specified implementation measures based on the conclusions drawn from climate adaptation research and recommendations.

B-23

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Senate Bill 1000: General Plan Amendments—Safety and Environmental Justice Elements
In 2016, Senate Bill 1000 amended California’s Planning and Zoning Law in two ways:
• The original law established requirements for initial revisions of general plan safety elements to address flooding, fire, and climate adaptation and resilience. It also required subsequent review and revision as necessary based on new information. Senate Bill 1000 specifies that the subsequent reviews and revision based on new information are required to address only flooding and fires (not climate adaptation and resilience).
• Senate Bill 1000 adds a requirement that, upon adoption or revision of any two other general plan elements on or after January 1, 2018, an environmental justice element be adopted for the general plan or environmental justice goals, policies and objectives be incorporated into other elements of the plan.

Senate Bill 1241: General Plans: Safety Element—Fire Hazard Impacts In 2012, Senate Bill 1241 passed requiring that the safety elements of all future general plans address fire risk in state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones. The bill requires cities and counties to make findings regarding available fire protection and suppression services before approving a tentative map or parcel map.

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

Western Governors Association Ten-Year Comprehensive Strategy The Western Governors Association Ten-Year Comprehensive Strategy: A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildfire Risks to Communities and the Environment (August 2001) is strategy implementation plan prepared by federal and Western state agencies that outlines measures to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and reduce hazardous fuels.

B-24

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021 Appendix C. Mapping Methods and Data
Sources

C. MAPPING METHODS AND DATA SOURCES

DAM FAILURE INUNDATION MAPPING
Dam breach inundation maps, including inundation boundaries and depth grids, were downloaded from the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) website - https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/. As required by California Water Code section 6161, the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) at DWR reviews and approves inundation maps prepared by licensed civil engineers and submitted by dam owners for extremely high, high, and significant hazard dams and their critical appurtenant structures. Inundation maps are based on a hypothetical failure of a dam or critical appurtenant structure and the information depicted on the maps is approximate. The dams and failure scenarios are as follows:
• Annadel No. 1 (National Dam ID CA00056) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 11/15/2018. • Cook No. 2 (NID CA01056) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam.

File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 7/30/2020. • Delta Pond (NID CA01272) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam.

File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 3/13/2019. • Dutcher Creek (NID CA01362) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 7/14/2020. • Fern Lake (NID CA00007) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam.

File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 3/7/2019. • Foothill Regulating Park (NID CA01057) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 2/4/2019. • Foss Creek North Area (NID CA01431) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 3/19/2020. • Lagunita (NID CA00992) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam.

File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 3/6/2019. • Lake Helen (NID CA01060) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam.

File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 10/1/2020. • Lytton (NID CA01042) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 3/22/2019.
• Lytton (NID CA01042) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Northern (Auxiliary) Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 3/22/2019.

C-1

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements • Mallacomes (NID CA00591) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam.

File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 1/11/2019. • Matanzas Creek (NID CA00794) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 8/19/2020. • Merlo (NID CA01313) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 12/5/2019.
• Middle Fork Brush Creek (NID CA00793) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 12/24/2020. • Piner Creek (NID CA00792) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam.

File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 12/24/2020. • Piner Creek (NID CA00792) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Saddle Dam 1. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 12/24/2020. • Santa Rosa Creek Reservoir (NID CA00795) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 8/18/2020. • Suttenfield (NID CA00010) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Main Dam.

File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 4/29/2019. • Suttenfield (NID CA00010) - Scenario shows an inundation extent for a sunny day failure of Saddle Dam

1. File downloaded from DSOD website generated on 4/29/2019.

Additional dam inundation areas data for Azalea, Fountaingrove, Lake Ralphine, and Warm Springs Dam was provided by Sonoma County. This data was originally used in the County’s 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan.

EARTHQUAKE MAPPING
Liquefaction Susceptibility
The Liquefaction dataset provided by the County presents a map and database of Quaternary deposits and liquefaction susceptibility areas the urban core of the San Francisco Bay region within the County of Sonoma. It supersedes the equivalent area of U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-444 (Knudsen and others, 2000), which covers the larger 9-county San Francisco Bay region. The report consists of (1) a spatial database, (2) two small-scale colored maps (Quaternary deposits and liquefaction susceptibility), (3) a text describing the Quaternary map and liquefaction interpretation (part 3), and (4) a text introducing the report and describing the database (part 1).

The nine counties surrounding San Francisco Bay straddle the San Andreas fault system, which exposes the region to serious earthquake hazard (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1999). Much of the land adjacent to the Bay and the major rivers and streams is underlain by unconsolidated deposits that are particularly vulnerable to earthquake shaking and liquefaction of water-saturated granular sediment. This new map provides a consistent detailed treatment of the central part of the 9-county region in which much of the mapping of Open-File Report 00-444 was either at smaller (less detailed) scale or represented only preliminary revision of earlier work.

Like Open-File Report 00-444, the current mapping uses geomorphic expression, pedogenic soils, inferred depositional environments, and geologic age to define and distinguish the map units. Further scrutiny of the C-2

C. Mapping Methods and Data Sources
factors controlling liquefaction susceptibility has led to some changes relative to Open-File Report 00-444:
particularly the reclassification of San Francisco Bay mud (Qhbm) to have only MODERATE susceptibility and the rating of artificial fills according to the Quaternary map units inferred to underlie them.

The report is the product of cooperative work by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program of the U.S. Geological Survey, William Lettis and & Associates, Inc. (WLA), and the California Geological Survey. An earlier version was submitted to the U.S.

Geological Survey by WLA as a final report for a NEHRP grant (Witter and others, 2005). The mapping has been carried out by WLA geologists under contract to the NEHRP Earthquake Program (Grant 99-HQ-GR-0095) and by the California Geological Survey. For detailed information about the map the USGS has an open report, “Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California. U.S.

Geological Survey Open File Report 2006-1037 Version 1.1. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1037/ National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soils NEHRP soils information is derived from a shear wave velocity (Vs30) data produced by the California Geological Survey in 2015. The Vs30 data represents simplified geologic units that have been correlated to the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 meters of the earth’s surface. The geologic units were compiled from published maps that range in scale from 1:250,000 to 1:24,000. (Wills, et. al., 2015) Probabilistic Peak Ground Acceleration Maps
Probabilistic peak ground acceleration data, by Census tract, are generated by Hazus 4.2 SP03. In Hazus’ probabilistic analysis procedure, the ground shaking demand is characterized by spectral contour maps developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as part of a 2018 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps. USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps are revised about every six years to reflect newly published or thoroughly reviewed earthquake science and to keep pace with regular updates of the building code. Hazus includes maps for eight probabilistic hazard levels: ranging from ground shaking with a 39 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (100-year return period) to the ground shaking with a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (2,500-year return period).

Shake Maps
A shake map is designed as a rapid response tool to portray the extent and variation of ground shaking throughout the affected region immediately following significant earthquakes. Ground motion and intensity maps are derived from peak ground motion amplitudes recorded on seismic sensors (accelerometers), with interpolation based on estimated amplitudes where data are lacking, and site amplification corrections. Color-coded instrumental intensity maps are derived from empirical relations between peak ground motions and Modified Mercalli intensity. For this plan, shake maps were prepared by the USGS for four earthquake scenarios:
• An earthquake on the Hayward fault with the following characteristics:
 Magnitude: 7.57
 Epicenter: N 38.08 W 122.41
 Depth: 7.1 km
• An earthquake on the Maacama fault with the following characteristics:
 Magnitude: 7.55
C-3

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements  Epicenter: N 39.18 W 123.14
 Depth: 7.2 km
• An earthquake on the Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg fault with the following characteristics:
 Magnitude: 7.19
 Epicenter: N 38.48 W 122.69
 Depth: 8.4 km
• An earthquake on the San Andreas fault with the following characteristics:
 Magnitude: 8.04
 Epicenter: N 38.4 W 123.11
 Depth: 6.6 km

FLOOD MAPPING
Flood hazard areas are a combination of areas from the countywide effective FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM), the Preliminary FIRM (PFIRM), and the County’s Russian River Flood Modeling. The DFIRM is dated March 7,2017 with latest incorporated LOMR effective June 19, 2020. The PFIRM is dated May 15, 2020.

The Russian River Flood Modeling data, produced by Sonoma County and QSI, includes polygon features and water depth rasters for each flood stage. The following metadata was provided by the County:
• The polygon features within this dataset represent the extent of modeled water surfaces within the Russian River Modeling and Buildings study area. The water surface extents were estimated using HEC RAS 5.0.1 hydrologic modeling software. The projection is CASP 2 with horizontal datum NAD83(2011), vertical datum NAVD88 (Geoid 12A), and the units are US Survey Feet. • The water depth digital elevation model (DEM) represents the difference between water surface elevation models and bare earth (all vegetation and man-made structures removed) digital elevation models. The water surface elevations were estimated using HEC RAS 5.0.1 hydrologic modeling software. Each pixel is three feet by three feet and represents an average height above ground for that area. QSI collected the LiDAR and created this data set for the Russian River Modeling and Buildings study area. The projection is CASP 2 with horizontal datum NAD83(2011), vertical datum NAVD88 (Geoid 12A), and the units are US Survey Feet. See Process Steps for derivation of raster datasets.

LANDSLIDE MAPPING
Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides data provided by the California Geological Survey. The map, and associated data, show the relative likelihood of deep-seated landsliding based on regional estimates of rock strength and steepness of slopes. On the most basic level, weak rocks and steep slopes are most likely to generate landslides. The map uses detailed information on the location of past landslides, the location and relative strength of rock units, and steepness of slope to estimate susceptibility to deep-seated landsliding (0 to X, low to high).

The USGS 2009 National Elevation Dataset (NED) with 10-m grid size was used as the base map. This landslide susceptibility map is intended to provide infrastructure owners, emergency planners and the public with a general overview of where landslides are more likely to occur. (Wills, et. al., 2011) C-4

C. Mapping Methods and Data Sources

SEA LEVEL RISE MAPPING
Projected sea level rise data are from the USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS), accessed via the Our Coast Our Future web platform (Point Blue Conservation Science and USGS). The data for Sonoma County is a seamless mashup of v2.1 (inner bay), and v2.0 and v2.2 for different stretches of the outer coast. The projections were generated using the latest downscaled climate projections and calibrated hydrodynamic models by the CoSMoS project team led by Patrick Barnard, at the USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center.

TSUNAMI MAPPING
Initial tsunami modeling was performed by the University of Southern California Tsunami Research Center funded through the California Emergency Management Agency by the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. The tsunami modeling process utilized the MOST (Method of Splitting Tsunamis) computational program (Version 0), which allows for wave evolution over a variable bathymetry and topography used for the inundation mapping (Titov and Gonzalez, 1997; Titov and Synolakis, 1998). The bathymetric/topographic data that were used in the tsunami models consist of a series of nested grids. Near-shore grids with a 3 arc-second (75- to 90-meters) resolution or higher, were adjusted to “Mean High Water” sea-level conditions, representing a conservative sea level for the intended use of the tsunami modeling and mapping. A suite of tsunami source events was selected for modeling, representing realistic local and distant earthquakes and hypothetical extreme undersea, near-shore landslides.

Local tsunami sources that were considered include offshore reverse-thrust faults, restraining bends on strike-slip fault zones and large submarine landslides capable of significant seafloor displacement and tsunami generation.

Distant tsunami sources that were considered include great subduction zone events that are known to have occurred historically (1960 Chile and 1964 Alaska earthquakes) and others which can occur around the Pacific Ocean “Ring of Fire.” In order to enhance the result from the 75- to 90-meter inundation grid data, a method was developed utilizing higher-resolution digital topographic data (3- to 10-meters resolution) that better defines the location of the maximum inundation line (U.S. Geological Survey, 1993; Intermap, 2003; NOAA, 2004). The location of the enhanced inundation line was determined by using digital imagery and terrain data on a GIS platform with consideration given to historic inundation information (Lander, et al., 1993). This information was verified, where possible, by field work coordinated with local county personnel.

The accuracy of the inundation line shown on these maps is subject to limitations in the accuracy and completeness of available terrain and tsunami source information, and the current understanding of tsunami generation and propagation phenomena as expressed in the models. Thus, although an attempt has been made to identify a credible upper bound to inundation at any location along the coastline, it remains possible that actual inundation could be greater in a major tsunami event. This map does not represent inundation from a single scenario event. It was created by combining inundation results for an ensemble of source events affecting a given region. For this reason, all of the inundation region in a particular area will not likely be inundated during a single tsunami event. (State of California, 2009)

WILDFIRE MAPPING
Sonoma County Wildfire Hazard Index data developed by Sonoma County PRMD, Sonoma County, FireSAFE Sonoma, Tukman Geospatial, Digital Mapping Solutions, and Wildland Resource Management. The Sonoma County Wildfire Hazard Index is a model that predicts relative wildfire hazard on the landscape. Higher index values represent a higher relative hazard. The index is based on inputs that inform potential fire behavior, inputs C-5

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements that represent fire probability occurrence in any 1 pixel, and a model of wildfire suppression difficulty. For a full description of input and methods, go to the story map:
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/a64d596a8be941c8b28263718880e433. The hazard index reflects landscape conditions through the 2018 fire season.

REFERENCES
Barnard, P.L., Erikson, L.H., Foxgrover, A.C., Finzi Hart, J.A., Limber, P., O’Neill, A.C., van Ormondt, M., Vitousek, S., Wood, N., Hayden, M.K., and Jones, J.M., 2019. Dynamic flood modeling essential to assess the coastal impacts of climate change. Scientific Reports, Volume 9, Article #4309, 13 pp., http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40742-z.

Intermap Technologies, Inc., 2003, Intermap product handbook and quick start guide: Intermap NEXTmap document on 5-meter resolution data, 112 p.

Lander, J.F., Lockridge, P.A., and Kozuch, M.J., 1993, Tsunamis Affecting the West Coast of the United States 1806-1992: National Geophysical Data Center Key to Geophysical Record Documentation No. 29, NOAA, NESDIS, NGDC, 242 p.

State of California. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning; produced by California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California – Tsunami Research Center; dated December 9, 2009.

Titov, V.V., and Gonzalez, F.I., 1997, Implementation and Testing of the Method of Tsunami Splitting (MOST):

NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL PMEL –112, 11 p.

Titov, V.V., and Synolakis, C.E., 1998, Numerical modeling of tidal wave runup: Journal of Waterways, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, ASCE, 124 (4), pp 157-171.

USGS. 2006. Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California. Open-File Report 2006-1037. Version 1.1. U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the California Geological Survey.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1993, Digital Elevation Models: National Mapping Program, Technical Instructions, Data Users Guide 5, 48 p.

Wills, C.J., Gutierrez, C.I., Perez, F.G., and Branum, D.B., 2015, A next-generation Vs30 map for California based on geology and topography: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

Wills C.J., Perez, F., Gutierrez, C. 2011. Susceptibility to deep-seated landslides in California: California Geological Survey Map Sheet 58.

C-6

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021 Appendix D. Risk Assessment Results

EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY

RESULTS BY JURISDICTION

Dam Failure Combined
Jurisdiction (7) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents in
$) (2)
Es
Buildings Exposed (2) Population Exposed (3) % of Population Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 0 0 0.0%
Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 26 3 0.0%
Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 4,035 10,607 87.7% Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 0 0 0.0%
Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 118 95 0.2% Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 10,157 30,660 17.7% Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 324 445 5.7% Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 0 0 0.0%
Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 4,791 15,958 56.5% 1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 147 392 1.1% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 426 846 4.3% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 27 58 0.8% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 2,057 3,939 16.1% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 5,956 9,949 22.9% Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 $218,574,570,981 28,064 72,953 15.0% (1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document.
(2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5)
Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated population.
(6) Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (7) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

Dam Failure Combined
Jurisdiction (7)
stimated Building Exposure
Value Structure in $
Exposed
(2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed
(2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed
(2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Cloverdale $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Cotati $67,316,628 $75,119,715 $142,436,343 6.6%
Healdsburg $2,384,958,969 $1,950,444,290 $4,335,403,259 90.3% Petaluma $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Rohnert Park $566,943,053 $482,141,386 $1,049,084,440 10.8% Santa Rosa $6,608,317,015 $5,508,762,434 $12,117,079,448 27.5% Sebastopol $391,640,260 $374,628,175 $766,268,434 28.6% Sonoma $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Windsor $1,764,292,857 $1,088,437,382 $2,852,730,239 44.5% 1st Supervisorial District $105,242,814 $109,419,221 $214,662,035 0.9% 2nd Supervisorial District $854,366,563 $809,580,795 $1,663,947,359 10.1% 3rd Supervisorial District $63,394,977 $60,627,642 $124,022,619 6.1% 4th Supervisorial District $2,880,316,002 $2,784,308,444 $5,664,624,445 19.1% 5th Supervisorial District $4,436,214,711 $3,874,980,907 $8,311,195,618 16.4% Total $20,123,003,848 $17,118,450,390 $37,241,454,238 17.0%

Dam Failure Combined
Jurisdiction (7)
Cloverdale
Economic Impact
Structure Debris
(Tons) (4)
Displaced
Population (5)
People Requiring
Short-Term
Shelter (5)
Buildings
Impacted (6)
Value Structure in $
Damaged
(6)
Value Contents in $
Damaged
(6)
Total Value (Structure and
Contents in $) Damaged
(6)
% of Total Value
Damaged
0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Cotati 80 1 0 8 $729,043 $3,082,717 $3,811,760 0.2%
Healdsburg 730,525 9,668 741 3,997 $1,769,745,504 $1,612,943,535 $3,382,689,039 70.4% Petaluma 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Rohnert Park 27,620 81 8 63 $31,870,674 $44,588,987 $76,459,662 0.8% Santa Rosa 284,716 14,149 1,049 9,452 $638,136,928 $1,011,352,894 $1,649,489,822 3.7% Sebastopol 120,496 189 8 320 $198,847,307 $285,004,542 $483,851,850 18.1% Sonoma 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Windsor 101,363 12,679 869 3,828 $402,022,974 $364,962,991 $766,985,965 12.0% 1st Supervisorial District 4,597 55 2 147 $9,396,528 $18,089,301 $27,485,829 0.1% 2nd Supervisorial District 118,237 381 17 337 $98,517,852 $311,915,643 $410,433,494 2.5% 3rd Supervisorial District 115 7 0 19 $1,204,506 $5,172,321 $6,376,826 0.3% 4th Supervisorial District 580,308 1,897 90 1,937 $2,079,433,982 $1,966,748,294 $4,046,182,276 13.6% 5th Supervisorial District 755,141 5,253 373 5,294 $2,316,307,472 $2,299,577,011 $4,615,884,483 9.1% Total 2,723,197 44,359 3,157 25,402 $7,546,212,770 $7,923,438,235 $15,469,651,005 7.1%

Dam Failure Combined
Jurisdiction (7) Acres of
Inundation Area
Number of Structures in Inundation Area (2)
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Cloverdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cotati 93 1 14 6 0 0 5 0 26
Healdsburg 4,041 3,551 341 45 37 15 30 16 4035
Petaluma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rohnert Park 720 25 69 11 6 0 6 1 118
Santa Rosa 9,343 8,895 969 47 25 21 156 44 10157
Sebastopol 600 143 166 6 0 0 7 2 324
Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Windsor 5,159 4,529 192 9 19 5 30 7 4791
1st Supervisorial District 1,008 135 3 0 2 0 6 1 147
2nd Supervisorial District 4,822 245 15 0 136 1 29 0 426 3rd Supervisorial District 234 6 13 2 3 0 3 0 27
4th Supervisorial District 58,513 1,061 41 24 890 2 37 2 2057 5th Supervisorial District 35,104 4,973 231 8 592 11 131 10 5956 Total 119,638 23,564 2054 158 1710 55 440 83 28064

Earthquake Hayward M7.57
Jurisdiction (5)
Estimated Exposure
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 100% 3,158 $2,499,664,593 100%
Cotati 7,533 100% 2,682 $2,163,132,258 100%
Healdsburg 12,089 100% 4,552 $4,803,401,892 100%
Petaluma 61,873 100% 19,609 $18,679,915,783 100%
Rohnert Park 43,069 100% 11,790 $9,749,459,659 100%
Santa Rosa 173,628 100% 53,547 $44,098,486,212 100%
Sebastopol 7,745 100% 2,832 $2,676,395,901 100%
Sonoma 11,050 100% 4,605 $3,658,235,342 100%
Windsor 28,248 100% 8,444 $6,407,101,168 100%
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 100% 15,141 $24,979,542,737 100% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 100% 7,529 $16,492,697,080 100% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 100% 986 $2,021,097,760 100% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 100% 11,044 $29,660,322,569 100% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 100% 27,565 $50,685,118,028 100% TOTAL 485,459 100% 173,484 $218,574,570,981 100%
(1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document.
(2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

Earthquake Hayward M7.57
Jurisdiction (5)
Cloverdale
Economic Impact
Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged

48.24 32 24 $379,953,882 $164,329,166 $544,283,048 21.8% Cotati 46.08 35 22 $210,003,336 $87,341,089 $297,344,425 13.7% Healdsburg 197.37 59 39 $757,507,578 $344,109,215 $1,101,616,793 22.9% Petaluma 559.20 553 331 $2,128,763,746 $905,475,398 $3,034,239,144 16.2% Rohnert Park 278.68 836 526 $1,200,251,226 $459,829,300 $1,660,080,526 17.0% Santa Rosa 1,686.90 2,771 1,845 $6,668,591,060 $2,725,718,264 $9,394,309,324 21.3% Sebastopol 29.02 8 4 $120,890,370 $50,789,629 $171,680,000 6.4% Sonoma 56.43 34 17 $321,664,974 $128,590,609 $450,255,582 12.3% Windsor 155.53 177 112 $662,620,937 $273,811,705 $936,432,643 14.6% 1st Supervisorial District 255.26 231 139 $2,241,550,989 $1,130,182,247 $3,371,733,236 13.5% 2nd Supervisorial District 224.52 69 40 $1,136,565,223 $588,891,469 $1,725,456,692 10.5% 3rd Supervisorial District 94.28 62 46 $285,956,617 $124,733,871 $410,690,488 20.3% 4th Supervisorial District 318.72 115 76 $2,743,432,262 $1,555,375,845 $4,298,808,107 14.5% 5th Supervisorial District 166.92 37 27 $2,510,707,319 $1,367,391,987 $3,878,099,306 7.7% TOTAL 4,117.15 5,020 3,250 $21,368,459,518 $9,906,569,794 31,275,029,312 14.3%

Earthquake Maacama M7.55
Jurisdiction (5)
Estimated Exposure
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 100% 3,158 $2,499,664,593 100%
Cotati 7,533 100% 2,682 $2,163,132,258 100%
Healdsburg 12,089 100% 4,552 $4,803,401,892 100%
Petaluma 61,873 100% 19,609 $18,679,915,783 100%
Rohnert Park 43,069 100% 11,790 $9,749,459,659 100%
Santa Rosa 173,628 100% 53,547 $44,098,486,212 100%
Sebastopol 7,745 100% 2,832 $2,676,395,901 100%
Sonoma 11,050 100% 4,605 $3,658,235,342 100%
Windsor 28,248 100% 8,444 $6,407,101,168 100%
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 100% 15,141 $24,979,542,737 100% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 100% 7,529 $16,492,697,080 100% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 100% 986 $2,021,097,760 100% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 100% 11,044 $29,660,322,569 100% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 100% 27,565 $50,685,118,028 100% TOTAL 485,459 100% 173,484 $218,574,570,981 100%
(1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document.
(2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

Earthquake Maacama M7.55
Jurisdiction (5)
Cloverdale
Economic Impact
Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged

33.96 27 20 $303,669,156 $127,819,155 $431,488,311 17.3% Cotati 11.11 3 2 $86,385,552 $40,070,307 $126,455,859 5.8% Healdsburg 123.31 16 11 $481,613,664 $218,865,334 $700,478,997 14.6% Petaluma 69.00 18 11 $649,619,149 $282,985,000 $932,604,149 5.0% Rohnert Park 76.21 124 78 $727,546,422 $282,803,295 $1,010,349,717 10.4% Santa Rosa 1,028.84 1,290 830 $4,527,180,892 $1,824,513,863 $6,351,694,755 14.4% Sebastopol 12.61 1 1 $60,084,422 $28,375,434 $88,459,856 3.3% Sonoma 4.80 0 0 $41,668,458 $18,231,869 $59,900,327 1.6% Windsor 76.64 78 49 $438,866,780 $182,696,198 $621,562,978 9.7% 1st Supervisorial District 48.12 20 11 $1,066,302,825 $561,187,897 $1,627,490,722 6.5% 2nd Supervisorial District 47.00 5 3 $349,900,334 $185,464,936 $535,365,270 3.2% 3rd Supervisorial District 36.55 10 8 $125,305,537 $56,089,889 $181,395,425 9.0% 4th Supervisorial District 222.47 64 43 $2,283,462,553 $1,311,514,078 $3,594,976,631 12.1% 5th Supervisorial District 72.30 9 7 $1,470,937,624 $802,319,064 $2,273,256,688 4.5% TOTAL 1,862.92 1,663 1,072 $12,612,543,369 $5,922,936,318 18,535,479,687 8.5%

Earthquake Rodgers Cr M7.19
Jurisdiction (5)
Estimated Exposure
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 100% 3,158 $2,499,664,593 100%
Cotati 7,533 100% 2,682 $2,163,132,258 100%
Healdsburg 12,089 100% 4,552 $4,803,401,892 100%
Petaluma 61,873 100% 19,609 $18,679,915,783 100%
Rohnert Park 43,069 100% 11,790 $9,749,459,659 100%
Santa Rosa 173,628 100% 53,547 $44,098,486,212 100%
Sebastopol 7,745 100% 2,832 $2,676,395,901 100%
Sonoma 11,050 100% 4,605 $3,658,235,342 100%
Windsor 28,248 100% 8,444 $6,407,101,168 100%
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 100% 15,141 $24,979,542,737 100% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 100% 7,529 $16,492,697,080 100% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 100% 986 $2,021,097,760 100% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 100% 11,044 $29,660,322,569 100% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 100% 27,565 $50,685,118,028 100% TOTAL 485,459 100% 173,484 $218,574,570,981 100%
(1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document.
(2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

Earthquake Rodgers Cr M7.19
Jurisdiction (5)
Cloverdale
Economic Impact
Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged

24.98 22 17 $263,351,591 $111,201,703 $374,553,293 15.0% Cotati 24.74 23 15 $146,672,788 $66,051,524 $212,724,312 9.8% Healdsburg 141.62 37 25 $564,188,183 $261,333,291 $825,521,474 17.2% Petaluma 291.98 376 225 $1,636,528,478 $720,663,646 $2,357,192,124 12.6% Rohnert Park 167.82 630 397 $966,776,257 $384,337,784 $1,351,114,041 13.9% Santa Rosa 1,197.51 2,177 1,454 $5,188,940,590 $2,155,812,203 $7,344,752,794 16.7% Sebastopol 11.33 3 2 $72,511,103 $36,385,476 $108,896,580 4.1% Sonoma 32.60 22 11 $233,961,487 $96,983,376 $330,944,863 9.0% Windsor 95.01 143 90 $516,202,150 $220,446,027 $736,648,177 11.5% 1st Supervisorial District 161.98 169 103 $1,877,310,021 $981,229,178 $2,858,539,199 11.4% 2nd Supervisorial District 115.10 47 28 $820,452,854 $446,960,813 $1,267,413,667 7.7% 3rd Supervisorial District 61.24 42 31 $191,366,765 $88,078,652 $279,445,417 13.8% 4th Supervisorial District 183.34 76 51 $2,297,201,865 $1,340,567,134 $3,637,769,000 12.3% 5th Supervisorial District 83.36 24 18 $1,775,846,039 $987,177,663 $2,763,023,702 5.5% TOTAL 2,592.60 3,792 2,466 $16,551,310,172 $7,897,228,469 24,448,538,642 11.2%

Earthquake San Andreas M8.04
Jurisdiction (5)
Estimated Exposure
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 100% 3,158 $2,499,664,593 100%
Cotati 7,533 100% 2,682 $2,163,132,258 100%
Healdsburg 12,089 100% 4,552 $4,803,401,892 100%
Petaluma 61,873 100% 19,609 $18,679,915,783 100%
Rohnert Park 43,069 100% 11,790 $9,749,459,659 100%
Santa Rosa 173,628 100% 53,547 $44,098,486,212 100%
Sebastopol 7,745 100% 2,832 $2,676,395,901 100%
Sonoma 11,050 100% 4,605 $3,658,235,342 100%
Windsor 28,248 100% 8,444 $6,407,101,168 100%
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 100% 15,141 $24,979,542,737 100% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 100% 7,529 $16,492,697,080 100% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 100% 986 $2,021,097,760 100% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 100% 11,044 $29,660,322,569 100% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 100% 27,565 $50,685,118,028 100% TOTAL 485,459 100% 173,484 $218,574,570,981 100%
(1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document.
(2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

Earthquake San Andreas M8.04
Jurisdiction (5)
Cloverdale
Economic Impact
Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged

5.57 1 1 $65,279,411 $28,257,026 $93,536,437 3.7%
Cotati 14.26 6 4 $94,867,644 $43,138,923 $138,006,567 6.4% Healdsburg 28.92 0 0 $154,671,237 $71,743,254 $226,414,491 4.7% Petaluma 189.42 152 90 $1,282,511,409 $556,790,333 $1,839,301,742 9.8% Rohnert Park 70.73 172 109 $694,526,564 $273,145,514 $967,672,078 9.9% Santa Rosa 290.68 202 136 $1,686,884,763 $700,219,007 $2,387,103,769 5.4% Sebastopol 19.14 5 2 $80,605,692 $35,024,707 $115,630,399 4.3% Sonoma 4.92 0 0 $45,567,141 $19,876,361 $65,443,501 1.8% Windsor 16.20 8 5 $170,326,379 $68,042,999 $238,369,378 3.7% 1st Supervisorial District 27.58 4 3 $509,543,680 $258,475,943 $768,019,623 3.1% 2nd Supervisorial District 87.26 11 7 $592,919,793 $317,021,981 $909,941,774 5.5% 3rd Supervisorial District 14.02 3 2 $65,443,357 $30,983,244 $96,426,601 4.8% 4th Supervisorial District 38.57 4 3 $944,402,725 $540,751,038 $1,485,153,763 5.0% 5th Supervisorial District 188.45 15 8 $3,353,192,426 $1,820,447,851 $5,173,640,277 10.2% TOTAL 995.71 584 370 $9,740,742,221 $4,763,918,178 14,504,660,400 6.6%

Earthquake 100-yr Probabilistic
Jurisdiction (5)
Estimated Exposure
Estimated
Population (1)
% Population
Exposed
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents
in $) (2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 100% 3,158 $2,499,664,593 100%
Cotati 7,533 100% 2,682 $2,163,132,258 100%
Healdsburg 12,089 100% 4,552 $4,803,401,892 100%
Petaluma 61,873 100% 19,609 $18,679,915,783 100%
Rohnert Park 43,069 100% 11,790 $9,749,459,659 100%
Santa Rosa 173,628 100% 53,547 $44,098,486,212 100%
Sebastopol 7,745 100% 2,832 $2,676,395,901 100%
Sonoma 11,050 100% 4,605 $3,658,235,342 100%
Windsor 28,248 100% 8,444 $6,407,101,168 100%
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 100% 15,141 $24,979,542,737 100% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 100% 7,529 $16,492,697,080 100% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 100% 986 $2,021,097,760 100% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 100% 11,044 $29,660,322,569 100% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 100% 27,565 $50,685,118,028 100% TOTAL 485,459 100% 173,484 $218,574,570,981 100%
(1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document.
(2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Calculated using a Census tract level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (4) Calculated using an Advanced Engineering Building Model (AEBM) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (5) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

Earthquake 100-yr Probabilistic
Jurisdiction (5)
Cloverdale
Economic Impact
Structure Debris
(x 1,000 Tons) (3)
Number of
Displaced
Households (3)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(3)
Value Structure in $
Damaged (4)
Value Contents in $
Damaged (4)
Total Value
(Structure and
Contents in $)
Damaged (4)
% of Total Value
Damaged

8.54 4 3 $82,168,859 $38,644,277 $120,813,136 4.8%
Cotati 7.11 6 4 $91,248,116 $45,142,948 $136,391,064 6.3% Healdsburg 26.61 5 3 $189,182,234 $95,827,814 $285,010,048 5.9% Petaluma 142.04 127 74 $1,068,192,713 $484,594,569 $1,552,787,282 8.3% Rohnert Park 50.74 155 98 $727,049,946 $292,241,881 $1,019,291,826 10.5% Santa Rosa 305.91 445 294 $2,396,675,918 $1,043,144,948 $3,439,820,866 7.8% Sebastopol 7.68 3 1 $55,563,516 $28,953,291 $84,516,807 3.2% Sonoma 10.05 7 4 $76,876,369 $37,655,594 $114,531,963 3.1% Windsor 20.66 24 15 $251,310,398 $104,378,205 $355,688,603 5.6% 1st Supervisorial District 65.17 47 28 $1,075,922,602 $569,144,411 $1,645,067,014 6.6% 2nd Supervisorial District 50.67 13 8 $436,893,194 $252,553,641 $689,446,835 4.2% 3rd Supervisorial District 15.57 8 6 $62,336,473 $34,041,626 $96,378,099 4.8% 4th Supervisorial District 60.55 17 11 $1,314,042,352 $771,444,751 $2,085,487,103 7.0% 5th Supervisorial District 65.51 12 7 $1,768,679,534 $998,200,432 $2,766,879,966 5.5% TOTAL 836.82 874 558 $9,596,142,225 $4,795,968,387 14,392,110,613 6.6%

Flood 100-yr
Jurisdiction (7) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number
of Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents in
$) (2)
Est
Buildings Exposed (2) Population Exposed (3) % of Population Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 44 133 1.4% Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 219 615 8.2%
Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 14 3 0.0%
Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 261 271 0.4% Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 54 137 0.3% Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 130 283 0.2% Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 116 171 2.2% Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 43 86 0.8%
Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 73 215 0.8%
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 251 421 1.2% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 268 242 1.2% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 95 502 7.0% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 285 197 0.8% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 2,717 4,493 10.3% Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 $218,574,570,981 4,570 7,768 1.6% (1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E- 4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document. (2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus

4.2 SP03.
(5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus

4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated population. (6) Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (7) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

Flood 100-yr
Jurisdiction (7)
timated Building Exposure
Value Structure in $
Exposed
(2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed
(2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed
(2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Cloverdale $14,305,167 $8,934,309 $23,239,476 0.9%
Cotati $96,111,845 $65,510,668 $161,622,513 7.5%
Healdsburg $65,936,658 $76,125,566 $142,062,224 3.0%
Petaluma $883,955,331 $903,787,136 $1,787,742,467 9.6%
Rohnert Park $150,734,068 $115,987,059 $266,721,127 2.7% Santa Rosa $290,176,657 $282,998,998 $573,175,655 1.3%
Sebastopol $167,918,615 $166,382,980 $334,301,595 12.5% Sonoma $29,772,068 $27,833,996 $57,606,064 1.6%
Windsor $42,129,955 $35,300,010 $77,429,966 1.2%
1st Supervisorial District $489,557,483 $474,268,685 $963,826,168 3.9% 2nd Supervisorial District $742,027,242 $730,983,665 $1,473,010,906 8.9% 3rd Supervisorial District $122,603,934 $125,770,271 $248,374,205 12.3% 4th Supervisorial District $1,059,823,134 $1,140,175,496 $2,199,998,629 7.4% 5th Supervisorial District $2,127,094,669 $1,908,290,329 $4,035,384,998 8.0% Total $6,282,146,827 $6,062,349,168 $12,344,495,994 5.6%

Flood 100-yr
Jurisdiction (7)
Cloverdale
Economic Impact
Structure
Debris (Tons)
(4)
Displaced
Population (5)
People
Requiring Short-
Term Shelter
(5)
Buildings
Impacted (6)
Value Structure in $
Damaged
(6)
Value Contents in $
Damaged
(6)
Total Value (Structure and
Contents in $) Damaged
(6)
% of Total Value
Damaged
829 25 1 37 $2,183,139 $3,527,398 $5,710,537 0.2%
Cotati 246 146 9 21 $1,142,660 $1,387,160 $2,529,820 0.1% Healdsburg 6,244 0 0 13 $27,737,548 $30,582,300 $58,319,848 1.2% Petaluma 23,517 44 3 164 $31,818,052 $58,452,775 $90,270,827 0.5% Rohnert Park 1,169 12 1 47 $8,453,640 $5,553,814 $14,007,453 0.1% Santa Rosa 21,055 24 1 56 $81,255,363 $108,516,153 $189,771,516 0.4% Sebastopol 1,309 51 2 60 $12,747,300 $21,149,410 $33,896,710 1.3% Sonoma 122 10 1 11 $741,842 $3,391,473 $4,133,315 0.1%
Windsor 28 16 0 7 $401,507 $2,388,267 $2,789,774 0.0%
1st Supervisorial District 51,261 41 1 152 $106,166,900 $183,478,274 $289,645,175 1.2% 2nd Supervisorial District 88,833 22 0 193 $93,382,312 $234,797,588 $328,179,899 2.0% 3rd Supervisorial District 1,367 78 3 67 $2,551,228 $12,228,816 $14,780,044 0.7% 4th Supervisorial District 173,781 28 1 248 $381,467,683 $570,212,620 $951,680,303 3.2% 5th Supervisorial District 287,351 1,188 61 2,518 $845,480,010 $1,059,721,759 $1,905,201,769 3.8% Total 657,111 1,684 85 3,594 $1,595,529,184 $2,295,387,807 $3,890,916,991 1.8%

Flood 100-yr
Jurisdiction (7) Acres of
Floodplain
Number of Structures in Floodplain (2)
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Cloverdale 128 42 2 0 0 0 0 0 44
Cotati 59 200 4 0 0 1 14 0 219
Healdsburg 113 1 2 5 5 0 0 1 14
Petaluma 1,604 80 121 29 6 1 24 0 261
Rohnert Park 105 36 11 0 4 0 3 0 54
Santa Rosa 1,241 82 19 0 3 0 26 0 130
Sebastopol 198 55 52 6 0 0 3 0 116
Sonoma 46 32 2 0 0 0 9 0 43
Windsor 394 61 4 0 3 0 5 0 73
1st Supervisorial District 18,343 145 20 3 75 0 8 0 251 2nd Supervisorial District 13,674 70 33 6 129 0 28 2 268 3rd Supervisorial District 299 52 17 5 11 1 8 1 95
4th Supervisorial District 12,322 53 13 20 180 0 19 0 285 5th Supervisorial District 9,969 2,246 136 5 221 9 93 7 2717 Total 58,495 3,155 436 79 637 12 240 11 4570

Flood 500-yr
Jurisdiction (7) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building Value
(Structure and contents in
$) (2)
Est
Buildings Exposed (2) Population Exposed (3) % of Population Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 46 133 1.4% Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 533 1,516 20.1% Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 15 3 0.0%
Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 912 2,082 3.4% Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 169 573 1.3% Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 544 1,541 0.9% Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 151 212 2.7% Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 945 2,232 20.2% Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 574 1,941 6.9% 1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 331 630 1.7% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 357 370 1.9% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 175 869 12.1% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 525 598 2.4% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 3,139 5,163 11.9% Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 $218,574,570,981 8,416 17,861 3.7% (1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document. (2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (4) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03.
(5) Calculated using a Census block level, general building stock (GBS) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03, and adjusted to reflect the estimated population. (6)
Calculated using a user-defined (UDF) analysis in Hazus 4.2 SP03. (7) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

Flood 500-yr
Jurisdiction (7)
timated Building Exposure
Value Structure in $
Exposed
(2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed
(2)
Value (Structure and
contents in $) Exposed
(2)
% of Total Value
Exposed
Cloverdale $31,211,515 $25,840,656 $57,052,171 2.3%
Cotati $246,335,257 $177,345,038 $423,680,294 19.6%
Healdsburg $71,171,118 $83,977,256 $155,148,374 3.2%
Petaluma $1,528,830,217 $1,510,084,804 $3,038,915,021 16.3% Rohnert Park $197,329,821 $140,324,347 $337,654,168 3.5% Santa Rosa $538,423,205 $473,713,335 $1,012,136,540 2.3% Sebastopol $214,806,323 $206,577,958 $421,384,281 15.7% Sonoma $363,120,342 $232,546,848 $595,667,190 16.3%
Windsor $260,084,153 $214,682,138 $474,766,291 7.4%
1st Supervisorial District $536,904,811 $508,213,331 $1,045,118,142 4.2% 2nd Supervisorial District $917,141,038 $898,006,387 $1,815,147,425 11.0% 3rd Supervisorial District $262,764,367 $257,433,437 $520,197,804 25.7% 4th Supervisorial District $1,505,058,283 $1,602,649,884 $3,107,708,167 10.5% 5th Supervisorial District $2,421,241,484 $2,161,731,965 $4,582,973,449 9.0% Total $9,094,421,934 $8,493,127,383 $17,587,549,317 8.0%

Flood 500-yr
Jurisdiction (7)
Cloverdale
Economic Impact
Structure
Debris (Tons)
(4)
Displaced
Population (5)
People Requiring
Short-Term Shelter
(5)
Buildings
Impacted (6)
Value Structure in $
Damaged
(6)
Value Contents in $
Damaged
(6)
Total Value (Structure and
Contents in $) Damaged
(6)
% of Total Value
Damaged
838 25 1 38 $2,445,691 $3,660,429 $6,106,119 0.2%
Cotati 665 537 32 83 $4,448,746 $8,025,539 $12,474,285 0.6% Healdsburg 6,253 1 0 13 $28,995,807 $32,558,522 $61,554,330 1.3% Petaluma 47,789 558 40 531 $61,219,393 $98,592,564 $159,811,956 0.9% Rohnert Park 130 74 4 45 $8,752,491 $5,235,926 $13,988,417 0.1% Santa Rosa 23,685 245 12 222 $88,354,715 $127,155,086 $215,509,801 0.5% Sebastopol 1,859 68 2 83 $15,895,806 $29,022,401 $44,918,207 1.7% Sonoma 952 890 50 406 $9,269,943 $14,921,178 $24,191,121 0.7% Windsor 1,322 379 24 29 $3,076,215 $5,812,157 $8,888,372 0.1% 1st Supervisorial District 56,210 69 2 199 $109,777,687 $189,954,156 $299,731,843 1.2% 2nd Supervisorial District 100,788 40 0 254 $97,942,466 $252,978,633 $350,921,099 2.1% 3rd Supervisorial District 9,491 238 11 106 $7,651,725 $22,717,225 $30,368,950 1.5% 4th Supervisorial District 200,230 147 9 329 $429,116,682 $642,570,725 $1,071,687,408 3.6% 5th Supervisorial District 334,045 1,532 83 2,926 $979,240,050 $1,200,989,375 $2,180,229,425 4.3% Total 784,257 4,802 273 5,264 $1,846,187,418 $2,634,193,916 $4,480,381,334 2.0%

Flood 500-yr
Jurisdiction (7) Acres of
Floodplain
Number of Structures in Floodplain (2)
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Cloverdale 145 42 3 0 1 0 0 0 46
Cotati 245 493 24 0 1 1 14 0 533
Healdsburg 127 1 2 6 5 0 0 1 15
Petaluma 2,041 615 208 48 9 1 31 0 912
Rohnert Park 138 150 11 0 4 0 4 0 169
Santa Rosa 1,701 447 55 3 6 1 31 1 544
Sebastopol 225 68 73 6 0 0 4 0 151
Sonoma 329 830 93 1 1 5 13 2 945
Windsor 647 551 12 3 3 0 5 0 574
1st Supervisorial District 18,731 217 22 3 81 0 8 0 331 2nd Supervisorial District 14,274 107 41 6 167 1 33 2 357 3rd Supervisorial District 528 90 49 9 16 1 9 1 175
4th Supervisorial District 14,526 161 64 56 223 0 21 0 525 5th Supervisorial District 10,884 2,581 177 7 246 10 110 8 3139 Total 64,542 6,353 834 148 763 20 283 15 8416

Flood Awareness Areas
Jurisdiction (5) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number
of Buildings
(2)
Total Number
of Residential
Buildings (2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Flood Awareness Areas (3)
Estimated Exposure
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 39 82 0.89% 64,655,538 64,446,989 129,102,528 5.16% Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 11 6 0.05% 33,523,012 33,279,221 66,802,232 1.39% Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 45 95 0.15% 121,387,057 100,303,862 221,690,919 1.19% Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 17 10 0.01% 179,815,607 179,330,010 359,145,616 0.81% Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 79 81 1.04% 131,553,171 134,005,763 265,558,934 9.92% Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 4 11 0.10% 792,271 396,136 1,188,407 0.03% Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 9 14 0.05% 13,364,204 12,419,696 25,783,901 0.40% 1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 255 560 1.55% 303,157,456 274,465,264 577,622,720 2.31% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 136 111 0.56% 374,115,679 367,668,573 741,784,252 4.50% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 683 1,028 4.20% 1,383,540,358 1,439,075,604 2,822,615,961 9.52% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 3,376 5,526 12.71% 2,636,044,983 2,372,651,833 5,008,696,816 9.88% Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 218,574,570,981 4,654 7,524 1.55% 5,241,949,336 4,978,042,951 10,219,992,287 4.68% (1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document.
(2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County.
(3) Hazard data provided by Sonoma County
(4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population.
(5) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

Flood Awareness Areas
Jurisdiction (5)
Number of Structures in Hazard Area (2)
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Cloverdale 26 8 1 2 0 2 0 39
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 2 1 0 7 0 1 0 11
Petaluma 28 11 2 2 0 2 0 45
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 3 12 0 1 0 1 0 17
Sebastopol 26 45 6 0 0 2 0 79
Sonoma 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Windsor 4 2 0 2 0 1 0 9
1st Supervisorial District 193 12 2 41 1 6 0 255
2nd Supervisorial District 32 17 4 63 0 20 0 136
3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4th Supervisorial District 277 17 22 341 0 25 1 683
5th Supervisorial District 2,762 188 9 300 12 97 8 3,376 Total 3,357 313 46 759 13 157 9 4,654

Landslide
Jurisdiction (5) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Lands
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 2 6 0.1%
Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 0 0 0.0%
Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 0 0 0.0%
Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 954 3,193 5.2% Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 0 0 0.0% Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 56 172 0.1% Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 0 0 0.0%
Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 0 0 0.0%
Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 0 0 0.0%
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 404 879 2.4% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 210 421 2.1% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 0 0 0.0% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 199 282 1.2% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 1,348 1,965 4.5% Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 218,574,570,981 3,173 6,919 1.4%

Landslide
Jurisdiction (5)
slide Susceptibility Category Very High (3)
Estimated Exposure
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
Cloverdale $675,200 $337,600 $1,012,800 0.0%
Cotati $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Healdsburg $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Petaluma $429,487,331 $237,680,735 $667,168,067 3.6%
Rohnert Park $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Santa Rosa $47,360,237 $35,776,504 $83,136,741 0.2%
Sebastopol $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Sonoma $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Windsor $0 $0 $0 0.0%
1st Supervisorial District $462,624,881 $389,394,708 $852,019,589 3.4% 2nd Supervisorial District $396,620,127 $374,865,087 $771,485,214 4.7% 3rd Supervisorial District $0 $0 $0 0.0%
4th Supervisorial District $391,387,867 $382,058,026 $773,445,893 2.6% 5th Supervisorial District $1,633,370,547 $1,516,697,051 $3,150,067,598 6.2% Total $3,361,526,190 $2,936,809,711 $6,298,335,902 2.9% Landslide
Jurisdiction (5)
Number of Structures in Category Very High (2)
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Cloverdale 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Petaluma 943 4 0 4 1 0 2 954
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 50 2 0 1 0 3 0 56
Sebastopol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Windsor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Supervisorial District 303 17 0 83 0 1 0 404
2nd Supervisorial District 122 3 2 79 0 4 0 210
3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4th Supervisorial District 76 6 0 114 0 3 0 199
5th Supervisorial District 982 31 1 301 3 29 1 1,348
Total 2,478 63 3 582 4 40 3 3,173

Landslide
Jurisdiction (5) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Lan
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 615 1,853 20.1% Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 66 194 2.6%
Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 477 1,326 11.0% Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 1,370 4,405 7.1% Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 16 61 0.1% Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 3,688 12,123 7.0% Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 118 342 4.4% Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 139 325 2.9%
Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 214 722 2.6%
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 3,332 7,176 19.8% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 522 1,074 5.5% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 74 608 8.5% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 2,976 5,554 22.7% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 10,676 16,032 36.9% Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 218,574,570,981 24,283 51,796 10.7%

Landslide
Jurisdiction (5)
ndslide Susceptibility Category High (3)
Estimated Exposure
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
Cloverdale $268,731,497 $174,912,491 $443,643,988 17.7% Cotati $54,467,843 $42,948,389 $97,416,231 4.5%
Healdsburg $248,728,578 $165,791,305 $414,519,884 8.6%
Petaluma $697,146,436 $498,183,462 $1,195,329,898 6.4%
Rohnert Park $5,015,639 $2,507,820 $7,523,459 0.1%
Santa Rosa $2,134,356,419 $1,383,144,613 $3,517,501,032 8.0% Sebastopol $68,969,229 $50,557,468 $119,526,696 4.5%
Sonoma $100,337,689 $69,925,487 $170,263,176 4.7%
Windsor $84,796,379 $46,998,001 $131,794,380 2.1%
1st Supervisorial District $4,364,597,074 $3,873,843,493 $8,238,440,567 33.0% 2nd Supervisorial District $888,658,247 $830,322,637 $1,718,980,884 10.4% 3rd Supervisorial District $51,850,883 $38,131,243 $89,982,126 4.5% 4th Supervisorial District $5,670,078,536 $5,406,470,795 $11,076,549,330 37.3% 5th Supervisorial District $12,869,009,143 $11,962,682,210 $24,831,691,353 49.0% Total $27,506,743,592 $24,546,419,412 $52,053,163,004 23.8% Landslide
Jurisdiction (5)
Number of Structures in Category High (2)
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Cloverdale 586 14 0 10 1 4 0 615
Cotati 63 0 0 1 0 0 2 66
Healdsburg 444 18 4 8 2 1 0 477
Petaluma 1,301 48 1 6 1 8 5 1,370
Rohnert Park 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
Santa Rosa 3,517 92 2 30 6 37 4 3,688
Sebastopol 110 6 0 1 0 1 0 118
Sonoma 121 6 0 6 1 5 0 139
Windsor 205 3 0 0 1 5 0 214
1st Supervisorial District 2,473 101 4 723 4 25 2 3,332 2nd Supervisorial District 311 32 5 168 1 5 0 522
3rd Supervisorial District 63 0 0 11 0 0 0 74
4th Supervisorial District 1,496 48 11 1,388 3 27 3 2,976 5th Supervisorial District 8,014 281 13 2,178 27 149 14 10,676 Total 18,720 649 40 4,530 47 267 30 24,283

Landslide
Jurisdiction (5) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Lands
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 111 310 3.4% Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 309 925 12.3%
Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 331 908 7.5% Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 1,312 4,344 7.0% Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 0 0 0.0% Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 4,793 16,183 9.3% Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 1,308 3,834 49.5% Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 21 40 0.4%
Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 38 127 0.4%
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 2,704 6,204 17.1% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 2,814 7,637 38.9% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 75 656 9.1% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 1,274 2,714 11.1% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 6,383 10,357 23.8% Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 218,574,570,981 21,473 54,240 11.2% (1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E- 4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document. (2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides data provided by CA Geological Survey. (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (5) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

Landslide
Jurisdiction (5)
slide Susceptibility Category Moderate (3)
Estimated Exposure
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
Cloverdale $107,364,685 $96,528,716 $203,893,401 8.2%
Cotati $131,305,826 $79,109,383 $210,415,209 9.7%
Healdsburg $183,723,320 $128,760,564 $312,483,884 6.5%
Petaluma $475,720,807 $266,193,571 $741,914,379 4.0%
Rohnert Park $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Santa Rosa $2,574,738,315 $1,667,322,998 $4,242,061,313 9.6% Sebastopol $581,882,733 $396,902,197 $978,784,931 36.6% Sonoma $21,933,349 $17,987,842 $39,921,191 1.1%
Windsor $20,264,070 $11,523,628 $31,787,697 0.5%
1st Supervisorial District $2,735,776,944 $2,243,707,099 $4,979,484,043 19.9% 2nd Supervisorial District $2,870,876,060 $2,372,423,299 $5,243,299,360 31.8% 3rd Supervisorial District $46,423,068 $32,789,226 $79,212,294 3.9% 4th Supervisorial District $1,385,620,571 $1,208,647,192 $2,594,267,764 8.7% 5th Supervisorial District $4,964,110,406 $4,070,074,016 $9,034,184,422 17.8% Total $16,099,740,155 $12,591,969,732 $28,691,709,887 13.1% Landslide
Jurisdiction (5)
Number of Structures in Category Moderate (2)
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Cloverdale 98 8 1 3 0 1 0 111
Cotati 301 1 1 4 1 0 1 309
Healdsburg 304 8 1 12 4 2 0 331
Petaluma 1,283 18 0 4 1 6 0 1,312
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 4,695 46 3 25 8 13 3 4,793
Sebastopol 1,232 58 1 3 4 8 2 1,308
Sonoma 15 1 0 2 1 2 0 21
Windsor 36 1 0 0 0 1 0 38
1st Supervisorial District 2,138 60 1 491 2 11 1 2,704
2nd Supervisorial District 2,211 44 6 521 8 15 9 2,814
3rd Supervisorial District 68 0 0 6 0 1 0 75
4th Supervisorial District 731 22 3 507 2 8 1 1,274
5th Supervisorial District 5,177 150 5 970 19 48 14 6,383 Total 18,289 417 22 2,548 50 116 31 21,473

SLR 200cm No Storm
Jurisdiction (5) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 0 0 0.00%
Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 0 0 0.00%
Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 0 0 0.00%
Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 108 213 0.34% Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 0 0 0.00% Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 0 0 0.00% Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 0 0 0.00%
Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 0 0 0.00%
Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 0 0 0.00%
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 73 20 0.06% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 75 24 0.12% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 0 0 0.00% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 0 0 0.00% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 72 98 0.23% Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 218,574,570,981 328 356 0.07% (1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E- 4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document. (2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Sea level rise - 200cm (no storm) - data provided by Our Coast Our Future (OCOF). (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (5) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

SLR 200cm No Storm
Jurisdiction (5)
Sea Level Rise 200cm No Storm (3)
Estimated Exposure
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
Cloverdale 0 0 0 0.00%
Cotati 0 0 0 0.00%
Healdsburg 0 0 0 0.00%
Petaluma 264,005,056 232,490,418 496,495,474 2.66%
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0.00%
Santa Rosa 0 0 0 0.00%
Sebastopol 0 0 0 0.00%
Sonoma 0 0 0 0.00%
Windsor 0 0 0 0.00%
1st Supervisorial District 265,065,335 263,686,342 528,751,677 2.12% 2nd Supervisorial District 249,680,891 248,103,274 497,784,166 3.02% 3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0.00%
4th Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0.00%
5th Supervisorial District 92,881,743 88,206,768 181,088,511 0.36% Total 871,633,025 832,486,802 1,704,119,828 0.78%
SLR 200cm No Storm
Jurisdiction (5)
Number of Structures in Hazard Area (2)
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Cloverdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Petaluma 63 28 10 2 0 5 0 108
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sebastopol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Windsor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Supervisorial District 7 10 52 0 4 0 73
2nd Supervisorial District 7 8 2 57 0 1 0 75
3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4th Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5th Supervisorial District 49 7 1 11 0 4 0 72
Total 126 53 13 122 0 14 0 328

SLR 200cm 100-yr Storm
Jurisdiction (5) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Se
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 0 0 0.00%
Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 0 0 0.00%
Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 0 0 0.00%
Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 439 880 1.42% Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 0 0 0.00% Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 0 0 0.00% Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 0 0 0.00%
Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 0 0 0.00%
Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 0 0 0.00%
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 85 32 0.09% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 80 24 0.12% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 0 0 0.00% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 0 0 0.00% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 133 170 0.39% Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 218,574,570,981 737 1,106 0.23% (1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E- 4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document. (2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Sea level rise - 200cm with 100-year storm - data provided by Our Coast Our Future (OCOF).
(4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (5) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

SLR 200cm 100-yr Storm
Jurisdiction (5)
ea Level Rise 200cm 100-yr Storm (3)
Estimated Exposure
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
Cloverdale 0 0 0 0.00%
Cotati 0 0 0 0.00%
Healdsburg 0 0 0 0.00%
Petaluma 737,089,813 690,352,052 1,427,441,865 7.64%
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0.00%
Santa Rosa 0 0 0 0.00%
Sebastopol 0 0 0 0.00%
Sonoma 0 0 0 0.00%
Windsor 0 0 0 0.00%
1st Supervisorial District 317,287,920 314,809,434 632,097,354 2.53% 2nd Supervisorial District 279,608,743 278,031,126 557,639,870 3.38% 3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0.00%
4th Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0.00%
5th Supervisorial District 153,141,665 151,412,009 304,553,674 0.60% Total 1,487,128,142 1,434,604,620 2,921,732,763 1.34%
SLR 200cm 100-yr Storm
Jurisdiction (5)
Number of Structures in Hazard Area (2)
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Cloverdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Petaluma 260 129 29 4 0 13 4 439
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sebastopol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Windsor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Supervisorial District 11 14 0 56 0 4 0 85
2nd Supervisorial District 7 9 2 61 0 1 0 80
3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4th Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5th Supervisorial District 85 17 1 18 0 11 1 133
Total 363 169 32 139 0 29 5 737

Tsunami
Jurisdiction (5) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 0 0 0.00%
Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 0 0 0.00%
Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 0 0 0.00%
Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 0 0 0.00% Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 0 0 0.00% Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 0 0 0.00% Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 0 0 0.00%
Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 0 0 0.00%
Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 0 0 0.00%
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 0 0 0.00% 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 4 0 0.00% 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 0 0 0.00% 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 0 0 0.00% 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 73 102 0.23% Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 218,574,570,981 77 102 0.02% (1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E- 4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document. (2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Tsunami inundation zones data provided by CA Department of Conservation. (4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (5) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

Tsunami
Jurisdiction (5)
Tsunami Zone (3)
Estimated Exposure
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
Cloverdale 0 0 0 0.00%
Cotati 0 0 0 0.00%
Healdsburg 0 0 0 0.00%
Petaluma 0 0 0 0.00%
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0.00%
Santa Rosa 0 0 0 0.00%
Sebastopol 0 0 0 0.00%
Sonoma 0 0 0 0.00%
Windsor 0 0 0 0.00%
1st Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0.00%
2nd Supervisorial District 8,667,759 9,316,564 17,984,323 0.11% 3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0.00%
4th Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0.00%
5th Supervisorial District 33,226,385 35,393,712 68,620,097 0.14% Total 41,894,144 44,710,276 86,604,420 0.04%
Tsunami
Jurisdiction (5)
Number of Structures in Hazard Area (2)
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Cloverdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Petaluma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sebastopol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Windsor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2nd Supervisorial District 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 4
3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4th Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5th Supervisorial District 51 8 1 1 0 11 1 73
Total 51 9 2 2 0 12 1 77

Wildfire
Jurisdiction (5) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Wildfire - Very High Rela
Estimated Expo
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 0 0 0.0% $0 Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 1 3 0.0% $125,413 Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 0 0 0.0% $0 Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 0 0 0.0% $0 Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 0 0 0.0% $0 Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 18 41 0.0% $23,263,731 Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 0 0 0.0% $0 Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 3 3 0.0% $5,525,689 Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 0 0 0.0% $0
1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 504 635 1.8% $1,441,378,135 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 12 17 0.1% $28,536,793 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 0 0 0.0% $0 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 278 238 1.0% $1,012,231,311 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 359 220 0.5% $1,291,396,384 Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 218,574,570,981 1,175 1,158 0.2% $3,802,457,456

Wildfire
Jurisdiction (5)
ative Hazard (3)
osure Number of Structures in Very High Relative Hazard (2) Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Cloverdale $0 $0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cotati $62,706 $188,119 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg $0 $0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Petaluma $0 $0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rohnert Park $0 $0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa $21,684,903 $44,948,634 0.1% 12 1 0 3 0 2 0
Sebastopol $0 $0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sonoma $5,416,105 $10,941,794 0.3% 1 0 0 2 0 0 0
Windsor $0 $0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Supervisorial District $1,406,899,298 $2,848,277,432 11.4% 219 33 0 250 0 2 0 2nd Supervisorial District $27,682,883 $56,219,676 0.3% 5 1 0 6 0 0 0 3rd Supervisorial District $0 $0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4th Supervisorial District $999,841,184 $2,012,072,496 6.8% 64 5 0 205 2 2 0 5th Supervisorial District $1,285,285,169 $2,576,681,553 5.1% 110 11 2 229 1 5 1 Total $3,746,872,248 $7,549,329,704 3.5% 412 51 2 695 3 11 1 Wildfire
Jurisdiction (5)
Total
Cloverdale 0
Cotati 1
Healdsburg 0
Petaluma 0
Rohnert Park 0
Santa Rosa 18
Sebastopol 0
Sonoma 3
Windsor 0
1st Supervisorial District 504
2nd Supervisorial District 12
3rd Supervisorial District 0
4th Supervisorial District 278
5th Supervisorial District 359
Total 1,175

Wildfire
Jurisdiction (5) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Wildfire - High Relativ
Estimated Expo
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 26 66 0.7% $33,322,165 Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 8 22 0.3% $2,692,664 Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 20 48 0.4% $21,390,895 Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 28 68 0.1% $97,424,188 Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 0 0 0.0% $0 Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 354 1,106 0.6% $241,082,248 Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 13 40 0.5% $3,494,923 Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 54 126 1.1% $36,035,283 Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 11 32 0.1% $12,813,103 1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 1,666 3,520 9.7% $2,304,080,769 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 127 259 1.3% $218,852,782 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 16 106 1.5% $20,885,839 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 831 1,240 5.1% $2,219,788,994 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 1,644 1,734 4.0% $3,846,977,512 Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 218,574,570,981 4,798 8,368 1.7% $9,058,841,363

Wildfire
Jurisdiction (5)
ve Hazard (3)
osure Number of Structures in High Relative Hazard (2)
Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Cloverdale $31,013,567 $64,335,733 2.6% 21 2 0 2 0 1 0
Cotati $1,497,536 $4,190,200 0.2% 7 0 0 1 0 0 0
Healdsburg $18,588,752 $39,979,647 0.8% 16 0 0 4 0 0 0
Petaluma $94,268,053 $191,692,241 1.0% 20 2 0 1 0 3 2
Rohnert Park $0 $0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa $195,205,102 $436,287,350 1.0% 321 14 0 6 0 13 0 Sebastopol $1,747,461 $5,242,384 0.2% 13 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sonoma $29,126,092 $65,161,375 1.8% 47 0 0 3 1 3 0
Windsor $11,641,011 $24,454,114 0.4% 9 0 0 2 0 0 0
1st Supervisorial District $2,088,708,180 $4,392,788,949 17.6% 1,213 53 2 383 1 14 0 2nd Supervisorial District $205,505,416 $424,358,198 2.6% 75 1 0 46 1 4 0 3rd Supervisorial District $18,558,241 $39,444,080 2.0% 11 0 0 3 0 2 0 4th Supervisorial District $2,171,397,397 $4,391,186,391 14.8% 334 13 4 467 4 9 0 5th Supervisorial District $3,746,343,631 $7,593,321,142 15.0% 867 45 4 699 5 23 1 Total $8,613,600,440 $17,672,441,803 8.1% 2,954 130 10 1,617 12 72 3 Wildfire
Jurisdiction (5)
Total
Cloverdale 26
Cotati 8
Healdsburg 20
Petaluma 28
Rohnert Park 0
Santa Rosa 354
Sebastopol 13
Sonoma 54
Windsor 11
1st Supervisorial District 1,666
2nd Supervisorial District 127
3rd Supervisorial District 16
4th Supervisorial District 831
5th Supervisorial District 1,644
Total 4,798

Wildfire
Jurisdiction (5) Estimated
Population (1)
Total Number of
Buildings (2)
Total Number of
Residential Buildings
(2)
Total Building
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
(2)
Wildfire - Moderate Rela
Estimated Expo
Estimated
Buildings
Exposed (2)
Population
Exposed (4)
% of
Population
Exposed
Value Structure in $
Exposed (2)
Cloverdale 9,213 3,158 2,914 $2,499,664,593 117 338 3.7% $62,405,333 Cotati 7,533 2,682 2,450 $2,163,132,258 359 1,048 13.9% $137,063,621 Healdsburg 12,089 4,552 4,047 $4,803,401,892 264 696 5.8% $136,877,365 Petaluma 61,873 19,609 18,275 $18,679,915,783 1,396 4,506 7.3% $655,813,939 Rohnert Park 43,069 11,790 11,284 $9,749,459,659 433 1,622 3.8% $154,132,790 Santa Rosa 173,628 53,547 50,372 $44,098,486,212 6,624 21,960 12.6% $2,817,112,382 Sebastopol 7,745 2,832 2,489 $2,676,395,901 390 1,154 14.9% $171,287,057 Sonoma 11,050 4,605 4,109 $3,658,235,342 1,405 3,579 32.4% $474,702,889 Windsor 28,248 8,444 8,017 $6,407,101,168 743 2,509 8.9% $280,415,475 1st Supervisorial District 36,194 15,141 12,473 $24,979,542,737 5,668 14,100 39.0% $4,231,435,846 2nd Supervisorial District 19,634 7,529 5,684 $16,492,697,080 1,120 2,580 13.1% $1,670,041,905 3rd Supervisorial District 7,192 986 745 $2,021,097,760 109 772 10.7% $147,740,719 4th Supervisorial District 24,507 11,044 6,601 $29,660,322,569 2,394 5,829 23.8% $2,925,881,264 5th Supervisorial District 43,484 27,565 21,736 $50,685,118,028 5,223 7,670 17.6% $6,278,814,926 Total 485,459 173,484 151,196 218,574,570,981 26,245 68,365 14.1% $20,143,725,511 (1) Incorporated Areas: 2020 population from State of California, Department of Finance, E- 4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2020.

Supervisorial Districts: Growth rate of -4.7% applied to 2010 Census population for each district. Growth rate determined from change in population (in the unincorporated county) from 2010 to 2020 as indicated in E-4 Population Estimates document. (2) Values based off of 2020 tax assessor data provided by Sonoma County. (3) Wildfire hazard data provided by Sonoma County.
(4) Percent of residential buildings exposed multiplied by the Estimated Population. (5) Supervisorial Districts exclude the incorporated areas.

Wildfire
Jurisdiction (5)
ative Hazard (3)
osure Number of Structures in Moderate Relative Hazard (2) Value Contents in $
Exposed (2)
Value (Structure
and contents in $)
Exposed (2)
% of Total
Value
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Cloverdale $48,774,799 $111,180,132 4.4% 107 3 0 6 0 1 0 Cotati $93,336,857 $230,400,478 10.7% 341 6 0 3 0 8 1
Healdsburg $105,930,387 $242,807,753 5.1% 233 13 3 12 0 2 1 Petaluma $470,400,034 $1,126,213,972 6.0% 1,331 29 4 13 0 19 0 Rohnert Park $97,874,655 $252,007,446 2.6% 425 7 0 0 0 1 0 Santa Rosa $1,759,187,049 $4,576,299,431 10.4% 6,371 103 1 41 6 92 10 Sebastopol $109,507,390 $280,794,447 10.5% 371 14 0 2 0 3 0 Sonoma $277,313,129 $752,016,018 20.6% 1,331 42 1 4 6 20 1 Windsor $169,051,423 $449,466,898 7.0% 712 12 1 6 1 10 1 1st Supervisorial District $3,373,212,645 $7,604,648,491 30.4% 4,859 112 13 644 5 33 2 2nd Supervisorial District $1,516,171,162 $3,186,213,067 19.3% 747 34 5 319 3 11 1 3rd Supervisorial District $133,298,703 $281,039,422 13.9% 80 3 1 23 0 1 1 4th Supervisorial District $2,692,511,422 $5,618,392,686 18.9% 1,570 53 9 738 2 21 1 5th Supervisorial District $5,798,996,731 $12,077,811,657 23.8% 3,834 111 4 1,197 14 61 2 Total $16,645,566,386 $36,789,291,897 16.8% 22,312 542 42 3,008 37 283 21 Wildfire
Jurisdiction (5)
Total
Cloverdale 117
Cotati 359
Healdsburg 264
Petaluma 1,396
Rohnert Park 433
Santa Rosa 6,624
Sebastopol 390
Sonoma 1,405
Windsor 743
1st Supervisorial District 5,668
2nd Supervisorial District 1,120
3rd Supervisorial District 109
4th Supervisorial District 2,394
5th Supervisorial District 5,223
Total 26,245

RISK RATING RESULTS BY

JURISDICTION
Dam Failure Combined
RIS
Probability Impact on People
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability
Factor (3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High, Medium,
Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Cloverdale Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Cotati Medium 2 0.04% Low 1 3
Healdsburg Medium 2 87.74% High 3 9
Petaluma Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Rohnert Park Medium 2 0.22% Low 1 3
Santa Rosa Medium 2 17.66% Medium 2 6
Sebastopol Medium 2 5.75% Low 1 3
Sonoma Medium 2 0.00% None 0 0
Windsor Medium 2 56.49% High 3 9
1st Supervisorial District Medium 2 1.08% Low 1 3
2nd Supervisorial District Medium 2 4.31% Low 1 3
3rd Supervisorial District Medium 2 0.81% Low 1 3
4th Supervisorial District Medium 2 16.07% Medium 2 6
5th Supervisorial District Medium 2 22.88% Medium 2 6
Total Medium 2 15.03% Medium 2 6
Dam Failure Combined
SK RANKING-Combined Dam Failure Inundation Areas
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Property
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High, Medium,
Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor

0.00% None 0 0

6.58% Low 1 2

90.26% High 3 6

0.00% None 0 0

10.76% Medium 2 4

27.48% High 3 6

28.63% High 3 6

0.00% None 0 0

44.52% High 3 6

0.86% Low 1 2

10.09% Medium 2 4

6.14% Low 1 2

19.10% Medium 2 4

16.40% Medium 2 4

17.04% Medium 2 4
Dam Failure Combined
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Economy
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.18% Low 1 1 12 Low

70.42% High 3 3 36 High

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.78% Low 1 1 16 Medium

3.74% Low 1 1 26 Medium

18.08% High 3 3 24 Medium

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

11.97% High 3 3 36 High

0.11% Low 1 1 12 Low

2.49% Low 1 1 16 Medium

0.32% Low 1 1 12 Low

13.64% High 3 3 26 Medium

9.11% Medium 2 2 24 Medium

7.08% Medium 2 2 24 Medium
Earthquake Hayward M7.57
Probability Impact on People
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability
Factor (3,2,1,0) % Population Exposed
Impact (High, Medium,
Low, None)
Impact
Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Cloverdale Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Cotati Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Healdsburg Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Petaluma Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Rohnert Park Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Santa Rosa Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Sebastopol Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Sonoma Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Windsor Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
1st Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
2nd Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
3rd Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
4th Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
5th Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
TOTAL Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Earthquake Hayward M7.57

RISK RANKING
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
TOTAL
Impact on Property
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
Earthquake Hayward M7.57
G-Earthquake Hayward M7.57
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
TOTAL
Impact on Economy
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor Risk Ranking Score Hazard Risk Rating

21.77% High 3 3 36 High

13.75% High 3 3 36 High

22.93% High 3 3 36 High

16.24% High 3 3 36 High

17.03% High 3 3 36 High

21.30% High 3 3 36 High

6.41% Medium 2 2 34 High

12.31% High 3 3 36 High

14.62% High 3 3 36 High

13.50% High 3 3 36 High

10.46% High 3 3 36 High

20.32% High 3 3 36 High

14.49% High 3 3 36 High

7.65% Medium 2 2 34 High

14.31% High 3 3 36 High
Earthquake Maacama M7.55
Probability Impact on People
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High, Medium,
Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Cloverdale Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Cotati Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Healdsburg Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Petaluma Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Rohnert Park Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Santa Rosa Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Sebastopol Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Sonoma Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Windsor Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
1st Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
2nd Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
3rd Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
4th Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
5th Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
TOTAL Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Earthquake Maacama M7.55
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
TOTAL
Impact on Property
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
Earthquake Maacama M7.55
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
TOTAL
Impact on Economy
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor Risk Ranking Score Hazard Risk Rating

17.26% High 3 3 36 High

5.85% Medium 2 2 34 High

14.58% High 3 3 36 High

4.99% Low 1 1 32 Medium

10.36% High 3 3 36 High

14.40% High 3 3 36 High

3.31% Low 1 1 32 Medium

1.64% Low 1 1 32 Medium

9.70% Medium 2 2 34 High

6.52% Medium 2 2 34 High

3.25% Low 1 1 32 Medium

8.98% Medium 2 2 34 High

12.12% High 3 3 36 High

4.49% Low 1 1 32 Medium

8.48% Medium 2 2 34 High
Earthquake Rodgers Cr M7.19
Probability Impact on People
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0) % Population Exposed
Impact (High, Medium,
Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Cloverdale Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Cotati Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Healdsburg Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Petaluma Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Rohnert Park Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Santa Rosa Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Sebastopol Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Sonoma Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Windsor Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
1st Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
2nd Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
3rd Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
4th Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
5th Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
TOTAL Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Earthquake Rodgers Cr M7.19
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
TOTAL
Impact on Property
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
Earthquake Rodgers Cr M7.19
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
TOTAL
Impact on Economy
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor Risk Ranking Score Hazard Risk Rating

14.98% High 3 3 36 High

9.83% Medium 2 2 34 High

17.19% High 3 3 36 High

12.62% High 3 3 36 High

13.86% High 3 3 36 High

16.66% High 3 3 36 High

4.07% Low 1 1 32 Medium

9.05% Medium 2 2 34 High

11.50% High 3 3 36 High

11.44% High 3 3 36 High

7.68% Medium 2 2 34 High

13.83% High 3 3 36 High

12.26% High 3 3 36 High

5.45% Medium 2 2 34 High

11.19% High 3 3 36 High
Earthquake San Andreas M8.04
Probability Impact on People
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0) % Population Exposed
Impact (High, Medium,
Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Cloverdale Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Cotati Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Healdsburg Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Petaluma Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Rohnert Park Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Santa Rosa Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Sebastopol Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Sonoma Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Windsor Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
1st Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
2nd Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
3rd Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
4th Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
5th Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
TOTAL Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Earthquake San Andreas M8.04
RISK RANKING-Earth
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
TOTAL
Impact on Property
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
Earthquake San Andreas M8.04
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
TOTAL
Impact on Economy
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor Risk Ranking Score Hazard Risk Rating

3.74% Low 1 1 32 Medium

6.38% Medium 2 2 34 High

4.71% Low 1 1 32 Medium

9.85% Medium 2 2 34 High

9.93% Medium 2 2 34 High

5.41% Medium 2 2 34 High

4.32% Low 1 1 32 Medium

1.79% Low 1 1 32 Medium

3.72% Low 1 1 32 Medium

3.07% Low 1 1 32 Medium

5.52% Medium 2 2 34 High

4.77% Low 1 1 32 Medium

5.01% Medium 2 2 34 High

10.21% High 3 3 36 High

6.64% Medium 2 2 34 High
quake San Andreas M8.04
Earthquake 100-yr Probabilistic
Probability Impact on People
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0) % Population Exposed
Impact (High, Medium,
Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Cloverdale Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Cotati Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Healdsburg Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Petaluma Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Rohnert Park Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Santa Rosa Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Sebastopol Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Sonoma Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Windsor Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
1st Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
2nd Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
3rd Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
4th Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
5th Supervisorial District Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
TOTAL Medium 2 100.00% High 3 9
Earthquake 100-yr Probabilistic
RISK RANKING-Earth
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
TOTAL
Impact on Property
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
100.00% High 3 6
Earthquake 100-yr Probabilistic
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
TOTAL
Impact on Economy
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor Risk Ranking Score Hazard Risk Rating

4.83% Low 1 1 32 Medium

6.31% Medium 2 2 34 High

5.93% Medium 2 2 34 High

8.31% Medium 2 2 34 High

10.45% High 3 3 36 High

7.80% Medium 2 2 34 High

3.16% Low 1 1 32 Medium

3.13% Low 1 1 32 Medium

5.55% Medium 2 2 34 High

6.59% Medium 2 2 34 High

4.18% Low 1 1 32 Medium

4.77% Low 1 1 32 Medium

7.03% Medium 2 2 34 High

5.46% Medium 2 2 34 High

6.58% Medium 2 2 34 High
quake 100-yr Probabilistic
Flood 100-yr
Probability Impact on People
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability
Factor (3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High, Medium,
Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Cloverdale High 3 1.44% Low 1 3
Cotati High 3 8.16% Low 1 3
Healdsburg High 3 0.02% Low 1 3
Petaluma High 3 0.44% Low 1 3
Rohnert Park High 3 0.32% Low 1 3
Santa Rosa High 3 0.16% Low 1 3
Sebastopol High 3 2.21% Low 1 3
Sonoma High 3 0.78% Low 1 3
Windsor High 3 0.76% Low 1 3
1st Supervisorial District High 3 1.16% Low 1 3
2nd Supervisorial District High 3 1.23% Low 1 3
3rd Supervisorial District High 3 6.98% Low 1 3
4th Supervisorial District High 3 0.80% Low 1 3
5th Supervisorial District High 3 10.33% Medium 2 6
Total High 3 1.60% Low 1 3
Flood 100-yr
RISK RANKING-100-yr Flood
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Property
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor

0.93% Low 1 2

7.47% Low 1 2

2.96% Low 1 2

9.57% Low 1 2

2.74% Low 1 2

1.30% Low 1 2

12.49% Medium 2 4

1.57% Low 1 2

1.21% Low 1 2

3.86% Low 1 2

8.93% Low 1 2

12.29% Medium 2 4

7.42% Low 1 2

7.96% Low 1 2

5.65% Low 1 2
Flood 100-yr
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Economy
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating

0.23% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.12% Low 1 1 18 Medium

1.21% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.48% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.14% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.43% Low 1 1 18 Medium

1.27% Low 1 1 24 Medium

0.11% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.04% Low 1 1 18 Medium

1.16% Low 1 1 18 Medium

1.99% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.73% Low 1 1 24 Medium

3.21% Low 1 1 18 Medium

3.76% Low 1 1 27 Medium

1.78% Low 1 1 18 Medium
Flood 500-yr
Probability Impact on People
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability
Factor (3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High, Medium,
Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Cloverdale Medium 2 1.44% Low 1 3
Cotati Medium 2 20.12% Medium 2 6
Healdsburg Medium 2 0.02% Low 1 3
Petaluma Medium 2 3.37% Low 1 3
Rohnert Park Medium 2 1.33% Low 1 3
Santa Rosa Medium 2 0.89% Low 1 3
Sebastopol Medium 2 2.73% Low 1 3
Sonoma Medium 2 20.20% Medium 2 6
Windsor Medium 2 6.87% Low 1 3
1st Supervisorial District Medium 2 1.74% Low 1 3
2nd Supervisorial District Medium 2 1.88% Low 1 3
3rd Supervisorial District Medium 2 12.08% Medium 2 6
4th Supervisorial District Medium 2 2.44% Low 1 3
5th Supervisorial District Medium 2 11.87% Medium 2 6
Total Medium 2 3.68% Low 1 3
Flood 500-yr
RISK RANKING-500-yr Flood
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Property
% of Total Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor

2.28% Low 1 2

19.59% Medium 2 4

3.23% Low 1 2

16.27% Medium 2 4

3.46% Low 1 2

2.30% Low 1 2

15.74% Medium 2 4

16.28% Medium 2 4

7.41% Low 1 2

4.18% Low 1 2

11.01% Medium 2 4

25.74% High 3 6

10.48% Medium 2 4

9.04% Low 1 2

8.05% Low 1 2
Flood 500-yr
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Economy
% of Total Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score Hazard Risk Rating

0.24% Low 1 1 12 Low

0.58% Low 1 1 22 Medium

1.28% Low 1 1 12 Low

0.86% Low 1 1 16 Medium

0.14% Low 1 1 12 Low

0.49% Low 1 1 12 Low

1.68% Low 1 1 16 Medium

0.66% Low 1 1 22 Medium

0.14% Low 1 1 12 Low

1.20% Low 1 1 12 Low

2.13% Low 1 1 16 Medium

1.50% Low 1 1 26 Medium

3.61% Low 1 1 16 Medium

4.30% Low 1 1 18 Medium

2.05% Low 1 1 12 Low
Flood Awareness Areas
Probability Impact on People
Probability
(High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability
Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Cloverdale High 3 0.89% Low 1 3
Cotati High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Healdsburg High 3 0.05% Low 1 3
Petaluma High 3 0.15% Low 1 3
Rohnert Park High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Santa Rosa High 3 0.01% None 0 0
Sebastopol High 3 1.04% Low 1 3
Sonoma High 3 0.10% Low 1 3
Windsor High 3 0.05% Low 1 3
1st Supervisorial District High 3 1.55% Low 1 3
2nd Supervisorial District High 3 0.56% Low 1 3
3rd Supervisorial District High 3 0.00% None 0 0
4th Supervisorial District High 3 4.20% Low 1 3
5th Supervisorial District High 3 12.71% Medium 2 6
Total High 3 1.55% Low 1 3
Flood Awareness Areas
RISK RANKING - Flood Awareness Areas (3)
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
% of Total
Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score
Hazard Risk
Rating

5.16% Low 1 2 5.16% Medium 2 2 21 Medium

0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

1.39% Low 1 2 1.39% Low 1 1 18 Medium

1.19% Low 1 2 1.19% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.81% Low 1 2 0.81% Low 1 1 9 Low

9.92% Low 1 2 9.92% Medium 2 2 21 Medium

0.03% Low 1 2 0.03% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.40% Low 1 2 0.40% Low 1 1 18 Medium

2.31% Low 1 2 2.31% Low 1 1 18 Medium

4.50% Low 1 2 4.50% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.00% None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

9.52% Low 1 2 9.52% Medium 2 2 21 Medium

9.88% Low 1 2 9.88% Medium 2 2 30 Medium

4.68% Low 1 2 4.68% Low 1 1 18 Medium
Landslide
RISK
Probability Impact on People
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Cloverdale High 3 20.18% Medium 2 6
Cotati High 3 2.57% Low 1 3
Healdsburg High 3 10.97% Medium 2 6
Petaluma High 3 12.28% Medium 2 6
Rohnert Park High 3 0.14% Low 1 3
Santa Rosa High 3 7.08% Low 1 3
Sebastopol High 3 4.42% Low 1 3
Sonoma High 3 2.94% Low 1 3
Windsor High 3 2.56% Low 1 3
1st Supervisorial District High 3 22.26% Medium 2 6
2nd Supervisorial District High 3 7.62% Low 1 3
3rd Supervisorial District High 3 8.46% Low 1 3
4th Supervisorial District High 3 23.81% Medium 2 6
5th Supervisorial District High 3 41.39% High 3 9
Total High 3 12.09% Medium 2 6

Landslide
K RANKING- Landslide Hazard (Categories Very High & High) Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Property Impact on Economy
% of Total
Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score
Hazard Risk
Rating

17.79% Medium 2 4 4.45% Low 1 1 33 High

4.50% Low 1 2 1.13% Low 1 1 18 Medium

8.63% Low 1 2 2.16% Low 1 1 27 Medium

9.97% Low 1 2 2.49% Low 1 1 27 Medium

0.08% Low 1 2 0.02% Low 1 1 18 Medium

8.16% Low 1 2 2.04% Low 1 1 18 Medium

4.47% Low 1 2 1.12% Low 1 1 18 Medium

4.65% Low 1 2 1.16% Low 1 1 18 Medium

2.06% Low 1 2 0.51% Low 1 1 18 Medium

36.39% High 3 6 9.10% Medium 2 2 42 High

15.10% Medium 2 4 3.78% Low 1 1 24 Medium

4.45% Low 1 2 1.11% Low 1 1 18 Medium

39.95% High 3 6 9.99% Medium 2 2 42 High

55.21% High 3 6 13.80% High 3 3 54 High

26.70% High 3 6 6.67% Medium 2 2 42 High
SLR 200cm No Storm

RISK RA
Probability Impact on People Impact on Pr
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
% of Total
Value
Exposed
Cloverdale High 3 0.00% None 0 0 0.00%
Cotati High 3 0.00% None 0 0 0.00%
Healdsburg High 3 0.00% None 0 0 0.00%
Petaluma High 3 0.34% Low 1 3 2.66%
Rohnert Park High 3 0.00% None 0 0 0.00%
Santa Rosa High 3 0.00% None 0 0 0.00%
Sebastopol High 3 0.00% None 0 0 0.00%
Sonoma High 3 0.00% None 0 0 0.00%
Windsor High 3 0.00% None 0 0 0.00%
1st Supervisorial District High 3 0.06% Low 1 3 2.12%
2nd Supervisorial District High 3 0.12% Low 1 3 3.02%
3rd Supervisorial District High 3 0.00% None 0 0 0.00%
4th Supervisorial District High 3 0.00% None 0 0 0.00%
5th Supervisorial District High 3 0.23% Low 1 3 0.36%
Total High 3 0.07% Low 1 3 0.78%
SLR 200cm No Storm
ANKING - Sea Level Rise 200cm No Storm (3)
roperty Impact on Economy
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score
Hazard Risk
Rating
Cloverdale None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
Cotati None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
Healdsburg None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
Petaluma Low 1 2 0.27% Low 1 1 18 Medium
Rohnert Park None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
Santa Rosa None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
Sebastopol None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
Sonoma None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
Windsor None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low
1st Supervisorial District Low 1 2 0.21% Low 1 1 18 Medium 2nd Supervisorial District Low 1 2 0.30% Low 1 1 18 Medium 3rd Supervisorial District None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low 4th Supervisorial District None 0 0 0.00% None 0 0 0 Low 5th Supervisorial District Low 1 2 0.04% Low 1 1 18 Medium Total Low 1 2 0.08% Low 1 1 18 Medium
SLR 200cm 100-yr Storm
Probability Impact on People
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Cloverdale High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Cotati High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Healdsburg High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Petaluma High 3 1.42% Low 1 3
Rohnert Park High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Santa Rosa High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Sebastopol High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Sonoma High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Windsor High 3 0.00% None 0 0
1st Supervisorial District High 3 0.09% Low 1 3
2nd Supervisorial District High 3 0.12% Low 1 3
3rd Supervisorial District High 3 0.00% None 0 0
4th Supervisorial District High 3 0.00% None 0 0
5th Supervisorial District High 3 0.39% Low 1 3
Total High 3 0.23% Low 1 3
SLR 200cm 100-yr Storm
RISK RANKING - Sea Level Rise 200cm 100-yr Storm (3
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Property
% of Total
Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

7.64% Low 1 2

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

2.53% Low 1 2

3.38% Low 1 2

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.60% Low 1 2

1.34% Low 1 2
SLR 200cm 100-yr Storm
)
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Economy
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score
Hazard Risk
Rating

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.76% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.25% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.34% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.06% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.13% Low 1 1 18 Medium
Tsunami
Probability Impact on People
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Cloverdale Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
Cotati Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
Healdsburg Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
Petaluma Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
Rohnert Park Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
Santa Rosa Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
Sebastopol Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
Sonoma Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
Windsor Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
1st Supervisorial District Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
2nd Supervisorial District Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
3rd Supervisorial District Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
4th Supervisorial District Low 1 0.00% None 0 0
5th Supervisorial District Low 1 0.23% Low 1 3
Total Low 1 0.02% Low 1 3
Tsunami
RISK RANKING - Tsunami Zone (3)
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Property
% of Total
Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.11% Low 1 2

0.00% None 0 0

0.00% None 0 0

0.14% Low 1 2

0.04% Low 1 2
Tsunami
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Economy
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score
Hazard Risk
Rating

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.01% Low 1 1 3 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.01% Low 1 1 6 Low

0.00% None 0 0 5 Low
Wildfire
RISK R
Probability Impact on People
Probability (High,
Medium, Low,
None)
Probability Factor
(3,2,1,0)
% Population
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact Factor
Cloverdale High 3 0.72% Low 1 3
Cotati High 3 0.33% Low 1 3
Healdsburg High 3 0.40% Low 1 3
Petaluma High 3 0.11% Low 1 3
Rohnert Park High 3 0.00% None 0 0
Santa Rosa High 3 0.66% Low 1 3
Sebastopol High 3 0.52% Low 1 3
Sonoma High 3 1.17% Low 1 3
Windsor High 3 0.11% Low 1 3
1st Supervisorial District High 3 11.48% Medium 2 6
2nd Supervisorial District High 3 1.41% Low 1 3
3rd Supervisorial District High 3 1.48% Low 1 3
4th Supervisorial District High 3 6.03% Low 1 3
5th Supervisorial District High 3 4.49% Low 1 3
Total High 3 1.96% Low 1 3
Wildfire
RANKING- Wildfire Hazard (Very High & High Relative H
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Property
% of Total
Value
Exposed
Impact (High,
Medium, Low, None) Impact Factor
Weighted Impact
Factor

2.57% Low 1 2

0.20% Low 1 2

0.83% Low 1 2

1.03% Low 1 2

0.00% None 0 0

1.09% Low 1 2

0.20% Low 1 2

2.08% Low 1 2

0.38% Low 1 2

28.99% High 3 6

2.91% Low 1 2

1.95% Low 1 2

21.59% Medium 2 4

20.07% Medium 2 4

11.54% Medium 2 4
Wildfire
Hazard)
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
1st Supervisorial District
2nd Supervisorial District
3rd Supervisorial District
4th Supervisorial District
5th Supervisorial District
Total
Impact on Economy
% of Total
Value
Damaged
Impact (High,
Medium, Low,
None) Impact Factor
Weighted
Impact
Factor
Risk Ranking
Score
Hazard Risk
Rating

1.29% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.10% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.42% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.51% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.00% None 0 0 0 Low

0.55% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.10% Low 1 1 18 Medium

1.04% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.19% Low 1 1 18 Medium

14.49% High 3 3 45 High

1.46% Low 1 1 18 Medium

0.98% Low 1 1 18 Medium

10.79% High 3 3 30 Medium

10.03% High 3 3 30 Medium

5.77% Medium 2 2 27 Medium

CRITICAL FACILITY EXPOSURE

RESULTS BY JURISDICTION
Total Count
All Facilities
Jurisdiction Communications Energy Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Cloverdale 2 1 5 29 4 15 2 58
Cotati 1 0 0 45 4 17 1 68
Healdsburg 10 0 5 45 10 20 2 92
Petaluma 20 2 11 128 22 70 6 259
Rohnert Park 10 2 4 191 9 34 1 251
Santa Rosa 55 3 37 354 93 209 5 756
Sebastopol 7 0 3 27 13 19 0 69
Sonoma 11 1 3 65 11 19 0 110
Windsor 6 0 6 105 9 16 1 143
1st Supervisorial District 25 5 11 431 10 45 63 590
2nd Supervisorial District 7 8 7 340 4 31 45 442
3rd Supervisorial District 3 1 1 65 1 5 1 77
4th Supervisorial District 17 44 16 703 10 48 89 927
5th Supervisorial District 17 7 22 581 19 102 169 917
Total 191 74 131 3,109 219 650 385 4,759
Dam Failure Combined Count
Dam Failure Combined
Jurisdiction Communications Energy Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Cloverdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 10 0 4 43 10 19 1 87
Petaluma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rohnert Park 0 0 1 43 0 0 0 44
Santa Rosa 24 3 11 143 35 68 2 286
Sebastopol 5 0 2 18 3 8 0 36
Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Windsor 5 0 5 36 4 13 1 64
1st Supervisorial District 0 0 1 4 0 1 7 13
2nd Supervisorial District 1 1 0 5 0 0 5 12
3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 8
4th Supervisorial District 1 4 3 251 1 3 42 305
5th Supervisorial District 2 2 7 110 8 19 56 204
Total 48 10 34 660 61 131 115 1,059
NEHRP Soils D & E Count
NEHRP Soils D & E
Jurisdiction Communications Energy Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Cloverdale 2 1 4 19 3 13 2 44
Cotati 0 0 0 25 1 2 1 29
Healdsburg 8 0 2 21 4 8 0 43
Petaluma 19 2 7 111 15 53 6 213
Rohnert Park 10 2 4 191 9 34 1 251
Santa Rosa 48 3 20 313 74 178 4 640
Sebastopol 0 0 1 8 1 1 0 11
Sonoma 0 1 0 18 2 9 0 30
Windsor 6 0 5 56 6 8 0 81
1st Supervisorial District 2 2 6 236 5 22 53 326
2nd Supervisorial District 1 5 3 153 3 7 40 212
3rd Supervisorial District 0 1 1 64 1 5 1 73
4th Supervisorial District 1 10 9 313 7 28 61 429
5th Supervisorial District 2 1 6 169 12 39 84 313
Total 99 28 68 1,697 143 407 253 2,695
Flood 100-yr Count
Flood 100-yr
Jurisdiction Communications Energy Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Cloverdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4
Petaluma 1 1 0 25 2 2 2 33
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 9
Santa Rosa 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 6
Sebastopol 0 0 1 11 1 2 0 15
Sonoma 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
Windsor 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5
1st Supervisorial District 1 2 0 34 0 1 26 64
2nd Supervisorial District 0 0 1 43 0 2 22 68
3rd Supervisorial District 0 1 0 14 0 1 1 17
4th Supervisorial District 0 0 2 13 0 0 27 42
5th Supervisorial District 0 1 3 40 5 11 52 112
Total 2 7 8 199 11 20 130 377
Flood 500-yr Count
Flood 500-yr
Jurisdiction Communications Energy Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Cloverdale 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cotati 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 6
Healdsburg 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4
Petaluma 7 1 0 35 5 5 3 56
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 9
Santa Rosa 0 1 3 7 0 1 0 12
Sebastopol 0 0 1 13 1 4 0 19
Sonoma 2 1 0 10 1 4 0 18
Windsor 3 0 0 16 0 0 0 19
1st Supervisorial District 1 2 0 35 0 1 26 65
2nd Supervisorial District 1 1 1 52 0 3 22 80
3rd Supervisorial District 0 1 0 29 0 1 1 32
4th Supervisorial District 0 2 64 1 2 28 97
5th Supervisorial District 2 1 5 47 7 13 57 132
Total 16 8 12 322 20 35 137 550
Flood Awareness Areas Count
Flood Awareness Areas
Jurisdiction Communications Energy Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Cloverdale 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Petaluma 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 8
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3
Sebastopol 0 0 1 10 1 1 0 13
Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Windsor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Supervisorial District 0 0 1 21 0 0 48 70
2nd Supervisorial District 0 1 0 5 0 0 33 39
3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4th Supervisorial District 0 0 2 37 0 0 61 100
5th Supervisorial District 2 1 4 59 7 14 93 180
Total 2 3 10 142 8 15 238 418
Landslide Count
Landslide Very High & High
Jurisdiction Communications Energy Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Cloverdale 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 4
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3
Petaluma 1 0 0 9 2 11 1 24
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 1 0 6 11 6 7 0 31
Sebastopol 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Sonoma 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3
Windsor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Supervisorial District 14 1 3 70 0 9 32 129
2nd Supervisorial District 1 2 1 27 1 1 8 41
3rd Supervisorial District 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 6
4th Supervisorial District 6 12 4 168 0 6 39 235
5th Supervisorial District 6 2 11 91 5 35 93 243
Total 32 17 26 386 15 71 173 720
SLR 200cm No Storm Count
Sea Level Rise 200 cm No Storm
Jurisdiction Communications Energy Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Cloverdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Petaluma 2 0 0 6 1 2 0 11
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sebastopol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Windsor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Supervisorial District 1 1 0 4 0 0 3 9
2nd Supervisorial District 0 0 1 12 0 1 5 19
3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4th Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5th Supervisorial District 0 0 0 2 0 1 14 17
Total 3 1 1 24 1 4 22 56
SLR 200cm 100-yr Storm Count
Sea Level Rise 200cm with 100-yr Storm
Jurisdiction Communications Energy Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Cloverdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Petaluma 5 0 0 19 5 7 0 36
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sebastopol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Windsor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Supervisorial District 1 2 0 10 0 0 3 16
2nd Supervisorial District 0 0 1 42 0 1 5 49
3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4th Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5th Supervisorial District 0 0 1 2 1 3 17 24
Total 6 2 2 73 6 11 25 125
Tsunami Count
Tsunami Inundation Area
Jurisdiction Communications Energy Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Cloverdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Petaluma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sebastopol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Windsor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
2nd Supervisorial District 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 6
3rd Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4th Supervisorial District 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5th Supervisorial District 0 0 1 2 0 3 9 15
Total 0 0 2 2 0 3 15 22
Wildfire Count
Wildfire Very High & High Relative Hazard
Jurisdiction Communications Energy Food, Water,
Shelter
Hazardous
Material Health & Medical Safety & Security Transportation Total Cloverdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cotati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Healdsburg 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Petaluma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rohnert Park 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Santa Rosa 0 0 1 6 1 1 0 9
Sebastopol 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Sonoma 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3
Windsor 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
1st Supervisorial District 18 0 1 41 0 3 3 66
2nd Supervisorial District 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 6
3rd Supervisorial District 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4th Supervisorial District 6 1 0 26 2 1 6 42
5th Supervisorial District 3 0 1 10 0 1 9 24
Total 32 1 3 92 3 7 19 157

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021 Appendix E. Peak Riverine Discharges in the
Planning Area

- - - -
E. PEAK RIVERINE DISCHARGES IN THE PLANNING AREA
Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location
10 Percent Annual
Chance
2 Percent Annual
Chance
1 Percent Annual
Chance

0.2 Percent Annual
Chance
Adobe Creek
Above Petaluma River 1,410 2,033 2,226 2,417
Upstream of Ely Road 1,383 2,084 2,364 2,993
Upstream of confluence of Adobe Creek * * * *
Diversion Channel 1,084 1,290 1,342 1,372
Airport Creek
Upstream of confluence of Windsor Creek 943 1,262 1,379 1,678 Upstream of confluence of Redwood Creek 425 562 617 745 Arroyo Seco
At Cross Section B 1,250 1,910 2,140 2,660
At Cross Section W 725 1,070 1,200 1,470
Austin Creek
Upstream of confluence of Russian River 14,900 22,100 24,600 30,400 Upstream of confluence of East Austin Creek 8,500 12,400 13,500 16,600 Bloomfield Creek
Upstream of confluence of Estero Americano 1,000 1,300 1,444 1,720 Cameron Creek
Upstream of confluence of Fulton Creek 266 345 377 460
Capri Creek
At Southern Pacific Railroad 247 303 345 393
At Maria Drive 324 466 546 685
At Sonoma Mountain 276 410 463 583
Champlin Creek
At Cross Section B 325 520 585 725
At Cross Section J 195 315 350 435
Cloverdale Creek
At confluence of Russian River * * 835 *
Colgan Creek
At Mouth 1,220 1,780 2,019 2,504
At Stony Point Road 1,011 1,340 1,444 1,931
At Bellevue Avenue 777 1,017 1,102 1,312
E-1

- - - -
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location
10 Percent Annual
Chance
2 Percent Annual
Chance
1 Percent Annual
Chance

0.2 Percent Annual
Chance
At Hearn Avenue 673 867 908 1,003
At Highway 101 558 787 787 787
At Petaluma Hill Road 157 252 304 452
Corona Creek
Downstream of confluence with Capri Creek 576 736 765 908 At Highway 101 525 592 610 635
At Ely Road 462 662 727 825
Cotati Creek
Upstream of confluence of Laguna de Santa
Rosa
210 360 405 *
Upstream of Hillview Drive 210 360 440 610
Upstream of Water Avenue 110 180 220 310
Dry Creek
Upstream of confluence with Russian River 12,500 18,000 21,000 25,000 Upstream of confluence of Mill Creek 8,700 13,000 15,000 18,000 Upstream of confluence of Pena Creek 6,200 6,500 6,900 8,800 Upstream of confluence of Dutcher Creek
(Warm Springs Dam Outflow)
6,000 6,000 6,000 7,400
Dutch Bill Creek
Upstream of confluence of Russian River 2,100 3,400 4,200 5,900 Upstream of confluence of Tyrone Creek 1,900 3,200 3,900 5,600 Downstream of confluence of Duvoul Creek 1,500 2,500 3,000 4,400 Upstream of confluence of Duvoul Creek 1,250 2,080 2,500 3,670 East Austin Creek
Upstream of confluence with Austin Creek 7,400 11,000 12,300 15,300 East Washington Creek
Above Washington Creek 515 635 671 692
At Ely Road 479 599 636 710
East Windsor Creek
Upstream of confluence with Windsor Creek 929 1,223 1,339 1,616 At Highway 101 669 879 963 1,173
At Lakewood Drive 218 286 313 377
Fife Creek
Upstream of confluence with Russian River 1,600 2,400 2,800 3,900 Downstream of confluence of Sweetwater
Creek
1,400 2,100 2,400 3,400
Upstream of confluence of Sweetwater Creek 700 1,100 1,300 1,800 Fowler Creek
At Cross Section C 9,590 11,200 11,450 12,210
At Cross Section J 2,340 5,800 6,570 10,070
At Cross Section O 2,340 4,660 5,420 8,920
At Cross Section R 2,340 3,880 4,160 6,490
E-2

- - - -
E. Peak Riverine Discharges in the Planning Area
Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location
10 Percent Annual
Chance
2 Percent Annual
Chance
1 Percent Annual
Chance

0.2 Percent Annual
Chance
At Cross Section AB 1,500 2,400 2,580 3,310
Fryer Creek
At Leveroni Road * * 846 *
At confluence of West Fork Fryer Creek * * 818 *
At confluence of East Fork Fryer Creek * * 407 *
At Andrieux Street * * 395 *
North of Andrieux Street * * 380 *
North of Napa Street * * 360 *
North of Church Street * * 350 *
North of Spain Street * * 340 *
West of Fifth Street West * * 130 *
North of San Joaquin Drive * * 110 *
Fulton Creek
Upstream of confluence with Mark West Creek 592 800 892 1,060 Gibson Creek
Upstream of confluence with Marin Creek 185 240 265 322 Hulbert Creek
Upstream of confluence with Russian River 3,300 4,420 4,860 5,830 Downstream of confluence of Mission Creek 2,910 3,890 4,270 5,120 Upstream of confluence of Mission Creek 2,170 2,910 3,200 3,840 Hulbert Creek Tributary
Upstream of confluence with Hulbert Creek 650 900 1,010 1,240 Kelly Creek
Above Thompson Creek 210 325 380 520
Kizer Creek
Upstream of confluence with Petaluma Creek 322 420 462 555 At Middle Two Rock Road 170 220 245 290
Laguna de Santa Rosa
Upstream of confluence with Mark West Creek 21,100 30,300 35,100 44,900 Downstream of confluence of Santa Rosa
Flood Control Channel
16,800 23,900 28,000 35,700
Upstream of confluence of Santa Rosa Flood
Control Channel
14,000 20,100 23,300 30,800
Upstream of confluence of Irwin Creek 13,200 19,100 22,000 29,200 Upstream of confluence of Gravenstein Creek 12,300 18,000 20,500 27,200 Upstream of confluence of Pleasant Hill Creek 11,600 16,900 19,300 25,600 Upstream of confluence of Roseland Creek 10,800 15,800 18,000 23,900 Upstream of confluence of Blucher Creek 9,570 14,000 15,950 21,200 Upstream of confluence of Colgan Creek 7,710 11,200 12,850 17,100 At Stony Point Road 7,170 10,400 11,950 15,900
Downstream of confluence of Hinebaugh Creek 5,550 7,900 9,250 12,000 Upstream of confluence of Hinebaugh Creek 2,280 3,250 3,800 5,000 E-3

- - - -
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location
10 Percent Annual
Chance
2 Percent Annual
Chance
1 Percent Annual
Chance

0.2 Percent Annual
Chance
Upstream of confluence with Copeland Creek 977 1,410 1,630 2,120 At U.S. Highway 101 720 1,250 1,500 2,100
Upstream of confluence of Cotati Creek 320 540 660 930
Liberty Creek
Upstream of confluence with Marin Creek 490 640 710 820 At Pepper Road 180 240 260 320
Lichau Creek
Upstream of confluence with Willow Brook 1,738 2,310 2,543 3,140 Upstream of confluence of Penngrove Creek 1,480 1,970 2,160 2,700 Upstream of confluence of Meacham Creek 1,280 1,700 1,870 2,300 Upstream of confluence of Highlands Creek 1,030 1,390 1,510 1,890 Lynch Creek
At Highway 101 902 1,269 1,323 1,440
At Sonoma Mountain 890 1,643 1,994 2,739
Marin Creek
Upstream of confluence with Petaluma River 1,829 2,400 2,659 3,200 Upstream of confluence of Wiggins Creek 1,040 1,360 1,510 1,815 Upstream of confluence of Wilson Creek 684 906 988 1,209 Upstream of confluence of Gibson Creek 310 410 450 548
Mark West Creek
Upstream of confluence with Russian River 32,885 46,481 52,700 68,563 Upstream of confluence of Windsor Creek 29,602 42,248 47,900 62,318 Upstream of confluence of Laguna de Santa
Rosa
8,172 11,000 12,085 15,000
Downstream of confluence of Wikiup Creek 8,340 11,300 12,430 15,500 Downstream of confluence of Leslie Creek 8,260 11,100 12,300 15,500 Upstream of confluence of Leslie Creek 7,530 10,100 11,200 14,000 McBrown Creek
Upstream of confluence with Wiggins Creek 175 228 251 305 Mount Hood Creek
At Cross Section A 1,430 2,090 2,330 2,850
At Cross Section C & M 270 390 440 540
At Cross Section D 1,100 1,390 1,490 1,765
At Cross Section E 375 520 565 665
Nathanson Creek
At Cross Section A 1,760 2,470 2,780 3,450
At Cross Section G 1,480 2,070 2,320 2,870
At Cross Section O 835 1,260 1,410 1,750
At Napa Road 835 1,250 1,400 1,740
At MacArthur Street 835 1,240 1,390 1,700
At Fourth Street East 840 1,220 1,370 1,670
At Cross Section BZ 835 1,220 1,360 1,650
E-4

- - - -
E. Peak Riverine Discharges in the Planning Area
Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location
10 Percent Annual
Chance
2 Percent Annual
Chance
1 Percent Annual
Chance

0.2 Percent Annual
Chance
At Lovall Valley Road 710 1,030 1,150 1,400
Naval Creek
At Mouth 297 462 555 813
At Llano Road 269 424 509 748
North Kenwood Creek
At Mervin Avenue 310 440 490 600
At Cross Section F 290 460 460 565
At Cross Section G 180 230 250 300
At Chateau St. Jean 140 200 220 270
Petaluma River
Downstream of confluence with Adobe Creek 8,672 11,034 11,910 15,044 At Highway 101 bridge 6,675 9,149 10,494 13,694
Downstream of confluence of Washington
Creek
5,758 8,459 9,757 13,056
Downstream of confluence of Lynch Creek 5,246 7,492 8,671 11,563 Downstream of confluence of Capri Creek 4,653 6,583 7,728 10,523 Downstream of confluence of Willow Brook 3,587 4,825 5,360 6,733 Upstream of confluence of Willow Brook 1,701 2,947 3,529 4,801 Pocket Canyon
Upstream of confluence with Russian River 1,790 2,650 3,050 3,880 Downstream of confluence of Mays Canyon 1,390 2,050 2,360 2,990 Downstream of confluence of Oregon Canyon 840 1,230 1,400 1,780 Upstream of confluence of Oregon Canyon 580 850 970 1,230 Pool Creek
Upstream of confluence with Windsor Creek 2,283 2,970 3,258 3,815 Upstream of confluence of Pruitt Creek 1,358 1,874 1,906 2,165 At Highway 101 1,152 1,520 1,677 2,030
At Chalk Hill Road 684 895 987 1,200
Pruitt Creek
Upstream of confluence with Pool Creek 925 1,210 1,311 1,540 At Shiloh Road (upstream crossing) 876 1,146 1,240 1,455 At Fought Road 535 618 767 930
Redwood Creek
Upstream of confluence with Airport Creek 490 640 715 880 At NWPER 115 150 160 205
Rodgers Creek
At Cross Section F 2,340 5,820 6,570 10,000
At Cross Section K 2,340 4,660 5,420 8,920
At Cross Section N 2,340 3,880 4,160 6,490
At Cross Section O 815 1,400 1,490 1,910
At Cross Section S 435 740 790 1,030
At Cross Section T 385 655 700 910
E-5

- - - -
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location
10 Percent Annual
Chance
2 Percent Annual
Chance
1 Percent Annual
Chance

0.2 Percent Annual
Chance
Roseland Creek
At Mouth 622 944 1,106 1,537
At Fresno Avenue 527 781 917 1,294
At Stony Point Road 254 383 452 648
At Burbank Avenue 171 249 290 406
Russian River
At Pacific Ocean 76,000 102,000 114,000 135,000
Upstream of Duncan Mills 75,000 100,000 112,000 133,000 Upstream of confluence of Austin Creek 74,000 98,000 107,000 131,000 Upstream of Summerhome Gage 73,000 97,000 106,000 130,000 Downstream of confluence of Mark West Creek 67,000 92,000 97,000 126,000 Upstream of confluence of Mark West Creek 60,000 88,000 103,000 140,000 Upstream of confluence of Dry Creek 56,000 79,000 90,000 129,000 Upstream of confluence of Brooks Creek 55,000 78,000 88,000 127,000 Upstream of confluence of Maacama Canal 51,000 73,000 82,000 115,000 Upstream of confluence of Sausal Creek 50,000 71,000 81,000 111,000 Upstream of confluence of Lytton Creek 50,000 70,000 80,000 110,000 Upstream of confluence of Miller Creek 48,000 68,000 79,000 106,000 Upstream of confluence of Gill Creek 47,000 67,000 76,000 105,000 Upstream of confluence of Big Sulphur Creek 46,000 58,000 73,000 100,000 Upstream of confluence of Oat Valley Creek 40,000 56,000 64,000 85,000 Russian River Split Flow
At Healdsburg Avenue * 215 640 9,140
Salmon Creek
Upstream of Bodega Bay * * * *
Santa Rosa Flood Control Channel
Downstream of Guerneville Road 21,000 30,300 35,100 44,000 Upstream of confluence of Laguna de Santa
Rosa
9,900 14,500 16,500 22,000
Upstream of confluence of Channel No. 3 9,120 13,500 15,200 19,000 Schell Creek
At Cross Section A 2,710 4,300 4,880 6,140
At Cross Section B 2,650 4,180 4,730 5,940
At Cross Section K 1,830 2,610 2,950 3,680
At Southern Pacific Railroad 1,750 2,470 2,780 3,450
At Cross Section X 1,750 4,400 5,190 8,100
At Cross Section AC 1,750 2,470 2,780 3,450
At Cross Section AI 1,750 2,470 2,780 3,450
At Cross Section AO 205 325 365 455
Sonoma Creek
At State Route 121 10,590 17,200 18,500 24,200
At Watmaugh Road 9,820 15,500 16,700 21,500
E-6

- - - -
E. Peak Riverine Discharges in the Planning Area
Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location
10 Percent Annual
Chance
2 Percent Annual
Chance
1 Percent Annual
Chance

0.2 Percent Annual
Chance
At Cross Section AL 9,720 15,200 16,400 21,000
At Cross Section BB 9,280 14,500 15,600 20,000
At Cross Section BL 9,050 14,100 15,000 19,200
At Madrone Road 7,900 12,200 13,100 16,800
At Harney Road 7,770 12,000 12,800 16,400
At Cross Section BY 7,640 11,700 12,500 16,000
At Cross Section BZ 5,790 8,780 9,420 11,900
At Cross Section CG 5,500 8,320 8,950 11,300
At Cross Section CL 5,270 7,960 8,550 10,800
At Cross Section CN 4,260 6,400 6,890 8,620
At Cross Section CY 3,860 5,505 5,930 7,385
At Cross Section DD 3,295 4,910 5,300 6,575
At Cross Section DF 2,015 2,985 3,220 3,995
Spring Creek
Upstream of confluence of Matanzas Creek 700 1,170 1,350 1,730 At Franquette Avenue 580 970 1,120 1,440
Upstream of Yulupa Avenue 400 660 770 990
Upstream of confluence of Sierra Creek 200 360 420 540
Downstream of Summerfield Road 120 200 230 300
Starr Creek
Upstream of confluence with Windsor Creek 771 1,010 1,122 1,340 Upstream of confluence of Gumview Creek 494 650 717 870 At Windsor Road 236 310 341 415
Upstream of confluence of Wilson Creek 80 102 115135
Thompson Creek
At F Street Outfall 490 790 960 1,290
Above Kelly Creek 305 510 600 830
Washington Creek
At Holly Band Lane 1,249 1,558 1,611 2,161
E-7

- - - -
Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021; Volume 1—Area-Wide Elements Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location
10 Percent Annual
Chance
2 Percent Annual
Chance
1 Percent Annual
Chance

0.2 Percent Annual
Chance
Downstream of Maria Drive 682 941 984 1,110
Wiggins Creek
Upstream of confluence with Marin Creek 1,073 1,405 1,559 1,910 Upstream of confluence of Kizer Creek 768 1,010 1,108 1,385 Upstream of confluence of McBrown Creek 508 660 730 875 At King Road 438 570 627 755
Willow Brook
At Ely Road 5,749 8,291 9,372 11,656
Upstream of confluence of Lichau Creek 5,691 8,230 9,292 11,541 Wilson Creek
Upstream of confluence with Marin Creek 413 537 596 715 At Petaluma Valley Ford Road 365 470 525 630
Upstream of confluence of Stark Creek 205 270 295 355
Windsor Creek
Upstream of confluence with Mark West Creek 5,148 6,860 7,571 9,290 Upstream of confluence of Airport Creek 4,377 5,896 6,436 7,942 Upstream of confluence of Pool Creek 2,472 3,280 3,632 4,497 Upstream of confluence of Starr Creek 1,854 2,461 2,723 3,346 Upstream of confluence of East Windsor Creek 964 1,293 1,415 1,747 At Brooks Road 850 1,120 1,240 1,530
Woolsey Creek
Upstream of confluence with Mark West Creek 210 290 319 405 E-8

Sonoma County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021 Appendix F. FEMA Approval and Planning
Partner Adoption Resolutions

F. FEMA APPROVAL AND PLANNING PARTNER ADOPTION

RESOLUTIONS
FEMA Approval Pending Adoption provided on next page.

Partner adoption resolutions to be provided with final draft F-1

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
FEMA Region 9
1111 Broadway, Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94607-4052
September 27, 2021
Lisa Hulette
Grants Manager
Permit Sonoma
2550 Ventura Ave.

Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Dear Ms. Hulette:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has completed its review of the Sonoma County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021 and has determined that this plan is eligible for final approval pending its adoption by Sonoma County and all participating jurisdictions. Please see the enclosed list of approvable pending adoption jurisdictions.

Formal adoption documentation must be submitted to FEMA Region 9 by at least one participating jurisdiction within one calendar year of the date of this letter, or the entire plan must be updated and resubmitted for review. FEMA will approve the plan upon receipt of the documentation of formal adoption.

Once the plan is approved, each participating jurisdiction must adopt the plan within five calendar years of the date of the approval. The adoption of the plan by each jurisdiction ensures that jurisdiction’s continued eligibility for funding under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs. All requests for funding, however, will be evaluated individually according to the specific eligibility, and other requirements of the particular program under which applications are submitted.

If you have any questions regarding the planning or review processes, please contact the FEMA Region 9 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Alison Kearns
Risk Analysis Branch Chief
Mitigation Division
FEMA Region 9
Enclosures (2)
Sonoma County Plan Review Tool, dated September 27, 2021 Status of Participating Jurisdictions, dated September 27, 2021 www.fema.gov

Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan, APA Letter
September 27, 2021