Sebastopol City Council
June 7, 2022

RESOLUTION NUMBER: 6443-2022

CITY OF SEBASTOPOL

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTOPOL ADOPTING THE LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000 WHEREAS, the City of Sebastopol recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property within our community; and
WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions will reduce the potential for harm to people and property from future hazard occurrences; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sebastopol has prepared a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update in compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (“Disaster Mitigation Act”) emphasizing the need for pre-disaster mitigation of potential hazards; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sebastopol has received a letter from the Federal Emergency Management Agency identifying the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as eligible for approval pending final adoption; and
WHEREAS, City Council adoption of a current Local Hazard Mitigation Plan will make the City of Sebastopol eligible to receive earmarked mitigation grant funding as well as eligible to apply for additional federal mitigation grants; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sebastopol has met all federal requirements of the Stafford Act and applicable amendments, and has further met all requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, including development of a Disaster Mitigation Plan, through public participation and Steering Committee establishment, and development of a maintenance program for annual plan review and federal plan review every five (5) years; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sebastopol fully participated in the FEMA-prescribed mitigation planning process to prepare this local hazard mitigation plan; and WHEREAS, the California Office of Emergency Services and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX officials have reviewed the City of Sebastopol Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and approved it contingent upon this official adoption of the participating governing body; and WHEREAS, the City of Sebastopol desires to comply with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act and to augment its emergency planning efforts by formally adopting the City of Sebastopol Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, adoption by the governing body for the City of Sebastopol, demonstrates the jurisdiction’s commitment to fulfilling the mitigation goals and objectives outlined in this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, adoption legitimizes the plan and authorizes responsible agencies to carry out their responsibilities under the plan; and

WHEREAS, the Sebastopol Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is not a project subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as continuing administrative or maintenance activities such as general policy and procedure making or governmental organizational or administrative governmental activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment in accordance with Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Plan is exempt under the “common sense exemption” that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment, in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Plan is further categorically exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15306 of the CEQA Guidelines as basic data collection, research and resource evaluation activities that do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource and that are part of a study leading to an action that a public agency has not yet funded.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sebastopol as follows:

1. The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct and incorporated into this resolution as findings of the City Council.

2. The Sebastopol Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is attached to and made a part of this resolution by this reference, is not a project subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as continuing administrative or maintenance activities such as general policy and procedure making or governmental organizational or administrative governmental activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment in accordance with Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines; and, is exempt under the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment, in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and, is categorically exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15306 of the CEQA Guidelines as basic data collection, research and resource evaluation activities that do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource and that are part of a study leading to an action that a public agency has not yet funded.

3. The City Council hereby adopts the Sebastopol Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official plan of the City.

4. The City of Sebastopol will submit this resolution to the California Office of Emergency Services and FEMA Region IX officials to permit the plan’s final approval in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Council of the City of Sebastopol at a Regular meeting on the 7th day of June 2022.

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by City of Sebastopol City Council following a roll call vote:

VOTE:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Councilmembers Gurney, Rich and Mayor Slayter
None
Councilmember Glass and Vice Mayor Hinton
None
APPROVED:

Mayor Patrick Slayter
ATTEST: ______________________________
Mary Gourley, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk, MMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Larry McLaughlin, City Attorney

City of Sebastopol Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Public Review Draft Plan | October 2021
Prepared for:

City of Sebastopol
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Executive Summary
The purpose of hazard mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards. The City of Sebastopol (City) developed this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update to make the City and its residents less vulnerable and more resilient to future hazard events. This plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 so that Sebastopol would be eligible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs.

The City followed a planning process prescribed by FEMA, which began with the formation of a hazard mitigation planning committee (HMPC) comprised of key City representatives, and other regional stakeholders. The HMPC conducted a risk assessment that identified and profiled hazards that pose a risk to the City of Sebastopol, assessed the City’s vulnerability to these hazards, and examined the capabilities in place to mitigate them. The City is vulnerable to several hazards that are identified, profiled, and analyzed in this plan. Floods, wildfires, severe weather, and earthquake hazards are among the hazards that can have a significant impact on the City.

Based on the risk assessment review and goal setting process, the HMPC identified the following four goals, which provide the direction for reducing future hazard-related losses within the City’s Planning Area:
• Goal 1: Minimize new development in hazard-prone areas. • Goal 2: Minimize hazard impacts on existing development. • Goal 3: Build resiliency in the community and build capacity against hazards in the City. • Goal 4: Improve infrastructure and lifeline resiliency and redundancy against disruption and interruption.

To meet identified goals, the plan recommends 30 mitigation actions, which are summarized in the table that follows. This plan has been formally adopted by the City and will be updated every five years.

Table ES-1: Mitigation Action Summary Table
Action
ID
Action Title New
Action/2010
Action
Address
Existing or
Future
Development
Priority Related
Goal
Earthquake
E-1 Inventory soft-story structures in the City and
provide notification to property owners of the
findings of those inspections
2010 Action Both High 1, 2, 3
E-2 Inventory all non-ductile concrete, concrete
tilt-up, and other suspicious building in the
City
2010 Action Both High 1, 2, 3
E-3 Use both the non-ductile concrete and
concrete tilt-up inventory and the soft-story
inventory to recommend private owners to
inform existing tenants (and prospective
tenants prior to signing a lease agreement)
that they live in this building type
2010 Action Both Low 1, 2, 3
E-4 Adopt incentives to encourage retrofitting of
privately-owned seismically vulnerable
residential buildings
2010 Action Both Medium 1, 2, 3
E-5 Hillside Slope Stabilization Project at Burbank
Farm
New Both Low 1, 2, 3, 4

Action
ID
Action Title New
Action/2010
Action
Address
Existing or
Future
Development
Priority Related
Goal
Flood
F-1 Temporary Flood Protection for the
Sebastopol Community Cultural Center Main
Hall
New Both High 1, 2, 3, 4
F-2 Housing Replacement and Recreation
Easement Project at the Park Village Property
New Both High 1, 2, 3, 4
F-3 Repetitive Loss Area Analysis New Both Medium 1, 2, 3, 4 F-4 Consider joining Community Rating System
Program
New Both Low 1, 2, 3, 4
F-5 Participation in the FEMA Sea Level Rise Study New Both High 1, 2, 3, 4 F-6 Sebastopol Community Cultural Center Main
Hall Flood Mitigation Alternative
Implementation
New Both High 1, 2, 3, 4
F-7 Ives Park Calder Creek Daylighting and
Stormwater Improvement and Green
Infrastructure Project
New Both Medium 1, 2, 3
Wildfire
W-1 Promote Wildfire-Resistant Construction
Materials for New Construction in the City
New Both High 1, 2, 3, 4
W-2 Develop a Tree Ordinance that requires
defensible space maintenance and promotes
healthy landscapes
New

Both High 1, 2, 3, 4
W-3 Develop a Sebastopol Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
New Both High 1, 2, 3, 4
Drought
D-1 Continue participation in the Groundwater
Sustainability Agency and support future
project-specific groundwater management
projects related to the City’s water system
New Both Medium 1, 2, 3, 4
D-2 Build resiliency in the City’s water conveyance
system by upgrading and replacing water line
infrastructure
New Existing High 1, 2, 3, 4
D-3 Enhance the City’s local drought contingency
plan to focus on additional water conservation
measures
New Existing Low 1, 2, 3, 4
D-4 Conduct a City-wide Facility Energy and Water
Audit
New Existing Medium 3, 4
Dam Incidents
DI-1 Participate in the Emergency Action Plan for
Warm Springs Dam
New Both Medium 1, 2, 3, 4
Extreme Heat
EH-1 Identify locations for Sebastopol Designated
Cooling Centers and including the locations in
updated outreach information
New Existing Medium 1, 2, 3, 4
Severe Weather: Heavy Rain/Thunderstorms/Lightning/Dense Fog SW-1 Upgrade emergency back-up power
generation for essential areas of the public
safety building
New Both Low 1, 2, 3, 4
Severe Weather: High Wind

Action
ID
Action Title New
Action/2010
Action
Address
Existing or
Future
Development
Priority Related
Goal
HW-1 PSPS Readiness & Community Outreach
Preparedness Program
New Both Low 1, 3, 4, 5
HW-2 Inspect City-owned critical facilities and create
a plan that corrects deficiencies and addresses
infrastructure hardening and utility
undergrounding to ensure resiliency to high
winds and severe weather
New Existing Low 1, 2, 3
Public Health Hazards
PH-1 Pandemic Preparedness and Response Plan New Both Medium 1, 2, 3, 4 Multi-Hazard
M-1 Ensure that the Police and Fire Departments
have adequate and interoperable radio
communication systems and equipment to
meet current technology requirements and to
support first responders during response and
recovery operations
2010 Action Both High 1, 2, 3
MH-2 Ensure that emergency operational plans meet
SEMS and NIMS compliance and are adequate
for federal and state response and recovery
New Existing High 1, 2, 3, 4
MH-3 Develop plans and procedures for Para-Transit
system response and recovery from disasters
that utilizes the Sonoma County Mutual Aid
Program
2010 Action Both High 1, 2, 3, 4
MH-4 Update the City Emergency Operations Plan New Both High 1, 2, 3, 4 MH-5 Evacuation Route Plan New Both High 1, 2, 3, 4

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... i 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Background and Scope ................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Previous Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Regulatory Authority ..................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................................ 1-3

1.3.2 State and Local ................................................................................................................................ 1-3

1.4 Plan Organization............................................................................................................................................ 1-4 2 Community Profile ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Location and Geography .............................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Land Use Distribution .................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 History ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-5

2.4 Demographics .................................................................................................................................................. 2-5

2.4.1 Population and Growth Projections ........................................................................................ 2-5

2.4.2 Age ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-6

2.4.3 Housing .............................................................................................................................................. 2-7

2.4.4 Race and Ethnicity .......................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.4.5 Income and Poverty ...................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.5 Social Vulnerability ......................................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.5.1 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................ 2-13

2.5.2 Disadvantaged Communities.................................................................................................. 2-14

2.6 Economy and Employment ...................................................................................................................... 2-17

2.7 Commuter Population ................................................................................................................................ 2-18

2.8 Growth and Development Trends ......................................................................................................... 2-18

2.9 Mitigation Capability Assessment ......................................................................................................... 2-20

2.9.1 City of Sebastopol’s Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities ............................................. 2-20

2.9.2 City of Sebastopol Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities .................... 2-26

2.9.3 City of Sebastopol Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities ............................................................ 2-28

2.9.4 Mitigation Outreach and Partnership Capabilities ......................................................... 2-29

2.9.5 Opportunities for Enhancement ............................................................................................ 2-31 3 Planning Process..........................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Background on Mitigation Planning in the City of Sebastopol.................................................... 3-1

3.2 Local Government Participation ................................................................................................................ 3-2

3.3 The 10-Step Planning Process ................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3.1 Phase 1: Organize Resources ..................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.2 Phase 2: Assess Risks.................................................................................................................. 3-22

3.3.3 Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan ................................................................................. 3-22

3.3.4 Phase 4: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress ..................................................... 3-23 4 Risk Assessment...........................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Hazard Identification: Natural and Human-Caused Hazards ........................................................ 4-2

4.1.1 Methodology and Results ........................................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Overall Hazard Significance Summary ................................................................................... 4-7

4.1.3 Disaster Declaration History ....................................................................................................... 4-8

4.1.4 Climate Change Considerations Summary ........................................................................ 4-10

4.2 Asset Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 4-12

4.2.1 Total Assets at Risk ..................................................................................................................... 4-12

4.3 Hazard Profiles and Risk Assessment ................................................................................................... 4-21

4.3.1 Earthquake ..................................................................................................................................... 4-23

4.3.2 Flooding .......................................................................................................................................... 4-50

4.3.3 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................ 4-70

4.3.4 Drought ........................................................................................................................................... 4-91

4.3.5 Dam Incidents ............................................................................................................................. 4-103

4.3.6 Severe Weather .......................................................................................................................... 4-109

4.3.7 Severe Weather: Extreme Heat ............................................................................................ 4-110

4.3.8 Severe Weather: Heavy Rain/ Thunderstorm/ Hail/ Lightning/ Dense Fog ....... 4-116

4.3.9 Severe Weather: High Winds ................................................................................................ 4-129

4.4 Human-Health and Human-Caused Hazard Profiles and Risk Assessment ....................... 4-133

4.4.1 Public Health Hazards .............................................................................................................. 4-134

4.4.2 Hazardous Material Releases ................................................................................................ 4-141

4.5 Hazard Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 4-147 5 Mitigation Strategy .....................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Goals Development Process ...................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Objectives Development Process ............................................................................................. 5-2

5.1.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms ............................................................ 5-2

5.2 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions .............................................................................. 5-3

5.2.1 Prioritization Process ..................................................................................................................... 5-4

5.3 Mitigation Action Plan .................................................................................................................................. 5-6

5.3.1 Progress on 2010 City of Sebastopol LHMP Annex Mitigation Actions ................... 5-6

5.3.2 Continued Compliance with National Flood Insurance Program................................ 5-6

5.3.3 Mitigation Action Plan .................................................................................................................. 5-7 6 Plan Adoption....................................................................................................................................... 6-1 7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance ............................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Implementation ............................................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.1 Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee in Implementation and Maintenance ..................................................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.2 Maintenance ..................................................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.2.1 Maintenance Schedule ................................................................................................................. 7-2

7.2.2 Maintenance Evaluation Process .............................................................................................. 7-3

7.2.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms ............................................................ 7-5

7.2.4 Process for Plan Integration ....................................................................................................... 7-5

7.2.5 Continued Public Involvement .................................................................................................. 7-6 Tables
Table ES-1: Mitigation Action Summary Table .......................................................................................................................... i Table 2-1: City of Sebastopol Land Uses by Acreage ....................................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2: City of Sebastopol Populations Changes (counts), 2010-2020................................................................ 2-6 Table 2-3: City of Sebastopol’s Demographic and Social Characteristics, 2014-2018 ......................................... 2-6 Table 2-4: City of Sebastopol Housing Tenure, 2015 ........................................................................................................ 2-7 Table 2-5: City of Sebastopol Race and Ethnicity, 2014-2018....................................................................................... 2-8

Table 2-6: City of Sebastopol’s Comparative Economic Characteristics: 2014 and 2018 ................................... 2-9 Table 2-7: City of Sebastopol’s Employment by Industry, 2014-2018 ..................................................................... 2-17 Table 2-8: City of Sebastopol’s Major Employers ............................................................................................................. 2-17 Table 2-9: City of Sebastopol Land Use Acreages at Plan Buildout .......................................................................... 2-19 Table 2-10: City of Sebastopol’s Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities........................................................................ 2-20 Table 2-11: City of Sebastopol Safety Element Goals ..................................................................................................... 2-24 Table 2-12: City of Sebastopol Open Space and Conservation Goals ..................................................................... 2-24 Table 2-13: City of Sebastopol Community Services and Facilities Element Goals ............................................. 2-25 Table 2-14: City of Sebastopol’s Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities ................................... 2-26 Table 2-15: City of Sebastopol’s Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities ................................................................................... 2-28 Table 3-1: Mitigation Planning Processes Used to Develop the City of Sebastopol’s LHMP Update ........... 3-4 Table 3-2: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Schedule of Planning Activities ................................................................ 3-4 Table 3-3: Schedule of Planning Meetings............................................................................................................................ 3-6 Table 3-4: Public Workshops .................................................................................................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-5: Incorporated Planning Mechanisms ................................................................................................................. 3-17 Table 4-1: Crosswalk with Other Hazard Mitigation Plans .............................................................................................. 4-3 Table 4-2: City of Sebastopol Hazard Significance Summary ........................................................................................ 4-7 Table 4-3: Sebastopol and Sonoma County State and Federal Disaster Declarations, 1950-2020 ................ 4-9 Table 4-4: City of Sebastopol Total Improved Parcel Exposure by Parcel Type................................................... 4-13 Table 4-5: Sebastopol Critical Facilities by FEMA Community Lifeline and Type Counts ................................. 4-14 Table 4-6: City NRHP Historical Resources and Sonoma County District 5 Historic Landmarks ................... 4-17 Table 4-7: Threatened and Endangered Species in Sonoma County and the Planning Area ......................... 4-18 Table 4-8: Magnitude and Mercalli Intensity Scale Measurements and Associated Characteristics ........... 4-32 Table 4-9: Expected Building Damage by Building Type (All Building Design Levels) ...................................... 4-39 Table 4-10: Casualty and Injury Estimates from Hazus Results ................................................................................... 4-41 Table 4-11: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates (Millions of dollars) ........................................................ 4-42 Table 4-12: Transportation System Economic Losses (Millions of Dollars) ............................................................ 4-43 Table 4-13: Utility System Economic Losses (Millions of Dollars) .............................................................................. 4-44 Table 4-14: Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems ................................................................................... 4-45 Table 4-15: Expected Utility System Facility Damage ..................................................................................................... 4-46 Table 4-16: Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific) ...................................................................... 4-46 Table 4-17: Hazus 4.2 Deterministic M7.2 Earthquake Scenario Loss Estimations for Sebastopol’s Census Tracts .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4-48 Table 4-18: FEMA’s Special Flood Hazard Area Zone Descriptions ........................................................................... 4-58

Table 4-19: NFIP Claims in City of Sebastopol by Building Type (Residential versus Non-Residential) ..... 4-61 Table 4-20: City of Sebastopol Repetitive Losses in Floodplains ............................................................................... 4-61 Table 4-21: City of Sebastopol Combined Hazus Level 2 & FEMA Flood Loss Estimates ................................ 4-62 Table 4-22: City of Sebastopol Parcels in 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Floodplains by Property Type ........ 4-64 Table 4-23: Sebastopol’s Critical Facilities in the 100-Year Floodplain and Hazus Level 2 Depth Grid ...... 4-69 Table 4-24: Summary of Fire History within 10 miles of the City of Sebastopol ................................................. 4-75 Table 4-25: Parcels in FHSZs within LRAs in Sebastopol ............................................................................................... 4-83 Table 4-26: Parcels in Wildland Fire Threat Areas in Sebastopol ............................................................................... 4-83 Table 4-27: The City of Sebastopol’s Critical Facilities at Risk to Wildfire based on FHSZs in LRAs ............ 4-87 Table 4-28: City of Sebastopol’s Critical Facilities at Risk to Wildfire based on Wildfire Threat.................... 4-87 Table 4-29: Sebastopol’s Current Water Supply Sources and Projected Availability for 2025 ....................... 4-92 Table 4-30: Disaster Declarations and Proclamations Related to Drought in Sonoma County ..................... 4-98 Table 4-31: Characteristics of the Dams of Concern Upstream of the City of Sebastopol ........................... 4-104 Table 4-32: NCEI Hazard Event Reports for the Sonoma County: 1950-2020 ................................................... 4-109 Table 4-33: Hail Measurements ............................................................................................................................................ 4-120 Table 4-34: Lightning Activity Level Scale ........................................................................................................................ 4-120 Table 4-35: Atmospheric River Categories ....................................................................................................................... 4-121 Table 4-36: Severe Weather Events recorded in Sonoma County (1950-2020) ................................................ 4-123 Table 4-37: Beaufort Wind Scale .......................................................................................................................................... 4-130 Table 4-38: Annual Cases of Communicable Diseases in Sonoma County: 2015 – 2019 .............................. 4-137 Table 4-39: Hazard Identification and Determination of Priority Hazard ............................................................ 4-147 Table 5-1: Mitigation Action Summary Table ...................................................................................................................... 5-8 Figures
Figure 2-1: City of Sebastopol Planning Area ...................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2: City of Sebastopol Land Use Distribution....................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-3: City of Sebastopol Current and Projected Age Distribution, 2010 – 2023 ........................................ 2-7 Figure 2-4: City of Sebastopol Age Distribution vs. Sonoma County Percentage of Population, 2019 ....... 2-7 Figure 2-5: Comparable Median Home Sales Price in Sonoma County, 2017 ........................................................ 2-8 Figure 2-6: Disadvantaged Communities based on CDC ATSDR SVI Tool ............................................................. 2-11 Figure 2-7: Overall Social Vulnerability in the City of Sebastopol Planning Area based on SVI Data ......... 2-12 Figure 2-8: Disadvantaged Communities based on California DWR DAC Mapping Tool ................................ 2-14 Figure 2-9: Sebastopol Census Tract Scores based on OEHHA CalEnviroScreen Tool ...................................... 2-15 Figure 2-10: SCTA-Defined Disadvantaged Communities in Sebastopol ............................................................... 2-16

Figure 4-1: Risk Graphic ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 Figure 4-2: Critical and FEMA Community Lifeline Facilities in Sebastopol by Overall Category ................. 4-15 Figure 4-3: Potential Ground Shaking Probability in the City of Sebastopol ........................................................ 4-24 Figure 4-4: Liquefaction Susceptibility in the City of Sebastopol .............................................................................. 4-26 Figure 4-5: Landslide Susceptibility in the City of Sebastopol and Its Planning Area ....................................... 4-28 Figure 4-6: Earthquake Faults near the Planning Area ................................................................................................... 4-30 Figure 4-7: Hazus 2,500 Year Probabilistic Earthquake Scenario with Liquefaction Susceptibility – Total Losses by Census Tract ................................................................................................................................................................ 4-36 Figure 4-8: Estimated Building Damage by General Occupancy Type and Damage Category...................... 4-38 Figure 4-9: Displaced Households and Persons Seeking Shelter Estimates .......................................................... 4-40 Figure 4-10: Economic Loss Estimates by Loss Type and Occupancy Type ........................................................... 4-42 Figure 4-11: USGS Generated ShakeMap Earthquake Scenario for Hayward-Rodgers Creek Faults .......... 4-47 Figure 4-12: Watersheds in the City of Sebastopol Planning Area ........................................................................... 4-53 Figure 4-13: FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas for the 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Events in the City of Sebastopol ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4-57 Figure 4-14: City of Sebastopol Parcels in the FEMA and Hazus One Percent Annual Chance Depth Grid Floodplain ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-63 Figure 4-15: City of Sebastopol Parcels in the 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplains ............................... 4-65 Figure 4-16: City of Sebastopol Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in the 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplains ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-67 Figure 4-17: City of Sebastopol Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in the Hazus One-Percent Annual Chance Depth Grid Floodplain ................................................................................................................................................. 4-68 Figure 4-18: FHSZs in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) and Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs) .................. 4-72 Figure 4-19: Fire Threat Zones in and Near the City of Sebastopol .......................................................................... 4-73 Figure 4-20: Fire History and Burn Perimeters near the City of Sebastopol 1944 to 2020 .............................. 4-77 Figure 4-21: Annual Fire Probability in the City of Sebastopol for the Years 2026-2050 ................................. 4-79 Figure 4-22: Future Annual Averages of Acres Burned in Sebastopol under Low and High Emission Scenarios ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-81 Figure 4-23: Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas - City of Sebastopol .......................... 4-84 Figure 4-24: Wildland Fire Threat Areas within and around the City of Sebastopol .......................................... 4-85 Figure 4-25: Critical Facilities and Infrastructure within Local Responsibility Hazard Areas in the City of Sebastopol ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-88 Figure 4-26: Critical Facilities and Infrastructure within Fire Threat Zones in the City of Sebastopol ......... 4-89 Figure 4-27: U.S. Drought Monitor Conditions for California, January 5, 2021 .................................................... 4-95 Figure 4-28: U.S. Drought Monitor Conditions for California, November 29, 2018 ........................................... 4-96 Figure 4-29: U.S. Drought Monitor for California: August 4, 2015 ............................................................................ 4-97

Figure 4-30: Drought Conditions in California – 2000 – 2019 ..................................................................................... 4-97 Figure 4-31: Drought Impact Reporter Impacts at the County Level in Sonoma County, 1950-2020 ........ 4-99 Figure 4-32: Dams of Interest in the Vicinity of the City of Sebastopol ............................................................... 4-105 Figure 4-33: Dam Failure Inundation in Sonoma County ........................................................................................... 4-107 Figure 4-34: National Weather Service Heat Index ....................................................................................................... 4-110 Figure 4-35: The City of Santa Rosa’s Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes ......................................... 4-112 Figure 4-36: California’s Statewide Mean Temperature Departure, 1900-2014 ................................................ 4-112 Figure 4-37: City of Sebastopol – Future Extreme Heat Days in High and Low Emission Scenarios ........ 4-113 Figure 4-38: Cloud to Ground Lightning ........................................................................................................................... 4-119 Figure 4-39: Atmospheric River Strength and Land Distribution, February 2018 vs. February 2019 ........ 4-122 Figure 4-40:City of Santa Rosa’s Monthly Average Total Precipitation ................................................................ 4-125 Figure 4-41: City of Santa Rosa’s Daily Average and Extreme Precipitation....................................................... 4-125 Figure 4-42: City of Sebastopol Future Precipitation Estimates in High and Low Emission Scenarios .... 4-126 Figure 4-43: Sonoma County New Cases by Date ........................................................................................................ 4-137 Figure 4-44: Hazardous Materials Incidents in Sebastopol Reported to Cal OES: 2010-2020 .................... 4-145 Appendices
Appendix A: Planning Process
Appendix B: References
Appendix C: Mitigation Strategy
Appendix D: Adoption Resolution
Appendix E: Annual Progress Meeting Agenda and Report Template

Acronyms
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
APG Adaptation Planning Guide
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
AWIA America Water Infrastructure Act
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BCM Basin Characterization Model
BFE Base Flood Elevation
CAC Climate Action Commission
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program Cal FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal OES California Office of Emergency Services
CAP Climate Action Plan
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERT Community Emergency Response Team
CIS Community Information System
COPE Citizens Organized to Prepare for Emergencies
CRHR California Registry of Historic Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWD Climate Water Deficit
CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan
DHS Department of Health Services
DOF Department of Finance
DOT Department of Transportation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR Department of Water Resources
EAP Emergency Action Plan
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EOC Emergency Operations Center

EOP Emergency Operations Plan
ERP Emergency Response Plan
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS Flood Insurance Study
FMP Floodplain Management Plan
FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment Program
GCM Global Climate Model
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
HMPC Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee
HSC Health and Safety Code
IBC International Building Council
ICC International Code Council
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IVT Integrated Water Vapor Transport
IZO Implementing Zoning Ordinance
LAL Lightning Activity Level
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LOMA Letter of Map Amendment
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MDD Maximum Daily Demand
NBRP North Bay Reuse Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NFHL National Flood Hazard Layer
NOAA National Oceanic Atmospheric Association
NPMS National Pipeline Mapping System
NRC National Response Center

NRHP National Registry of Historic Places
NWS National Weather Service
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PRC Public Resources Code
PSPS Public Safety Power Shutoff
RCPA Regional Climate Protection Authority
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RGMS Residential Growth Management System
RMP Risk Management Plan
RTK NET Right-to-Know Network
SBA Small Business Administration
SCAPOSD Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Agency
SHMP State Hazard Mitigation Plan
SLR Sea Level Rise
SRA State Responsibility Area
STAPLEE Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, Environmental UGB Urban Growth Boundary
URM Unreinforced Masonry
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WERC Western Ecological Research Center
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
WRFP Water Recycling Funding Program
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WUI Wildland Urban Interface

This page is intentionally left blank.

1 Introduction
The City of Sebastopol prepared this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update to guide efforts to better protect the people and property of the City from the effects of hazardous events. It serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities, to coordinate City resources, and to be eligible for State and Federal mitigation funding. This plan updates the City’s previous hazard mitigation plan that was developed as part of a regional effort. This plan also demonstrates the City’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards to the community and serves as a tool to implement and achieve mitigation goals.

1.1 Background and Scope
Each year in the United States, natural disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more.

Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters because additional expenses to insurance companies and nongovernmental organizations
are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many natural disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these
events can be alleviated or even eliminated.

Hazard mitigation is defined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” Mitigation activities can be planned and implemented before a disaster occurs. After the disasters, reconstruction is completed to restore the damaged property to pre-disaster conditions. While such efforts repair and reconstruct the property, the pre-disaster conditions may result in a repetitive cycle of damage and reconstruction. The results of a three-year, congressionally mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation activities provides evidence that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spent on hazard mitigation saves society an average of $6 in avoided future disaster costs (National Institute of Building Sciences 2018).

Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are identified, likely impacts of those hazards are determined, mitigation goals are set, and appropriate strategies to lessen impacts are determined, prioritized, and implemented. Hazard mitigation planning in the City of Sebastopol can break this repetitive cycle by reducing vulnerability to hazards through thoughtful planning and smart construction. This plan documents the City of Sebastopol’s hazard mitigation planning process and identifies relevant hazards and vulnerabilities and strategies the City will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability in Sebastopol.

1.2 Previous Plan
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) prepared a regional multi-jurisdictional LHMP for the San Francisco Bay Area in 2005 referred to as Taming Natural Disasters. The plan was updated in 2010 and covered numerous jurisdictions in the Bay Area consisting of seven counties, 76 cities including the City of Sebastopol, five school districts, 12 transit agencies, 13 water districts, and five special-purpose districts.

The goal of the regional multi-jurisdictional LHMP was to maintain and enhance a disaster-resistant

region by reducing the potential loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from natural disasters, while accelerating economic recovery from those disasters. The City participated in the original plan and update by preparing an annex that was approved by FEMA and adopted by resolution in 2011 by the Sebastopol City Council as the City of Sebastopol 2010 LHMP Annex. Today ABAG is no longer managing the update of the multi-jurisdictional LHMP and the 2010 Taming Natural Disasters plan has expired.

The City’s 2021 LHMP update supersedes the 2010 LHMP Annex prepared by ABAG. This new and updated LHMP is a single jurisdictional stand-alone plan for the City of Sebastopol that geographically covers everything within the City of Sebastopol’s jurisdictional boundaries and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) (hereinafter referred to as the Planning Area). The single jurisdictional and stand-alone plan is tailored to better suit the needs and capabilities of the City and their planning partners. The updated 2021 LHMP differs from the 2010 ABAG plan as follows:
• The single jurisdictional and stand-alone plan focuses only on the City of Sebastopol rather than being a subset of a larger regional and multi-jurisdictional planning effort. • The risk assessment addresses natural, human-caused, and human-health hazards specific to the City and includes a vulnerability assessment that evaluated risks to people and property within the City’s Planning Area, critical facilities and infrastructure, and City-owned facilities and infrastructure, specifically municipal buildings, community lifelines, and water and wastewater systems. • The plan integrates best available data and tools, including information on climate change impacts in a detailed risk and vulnerability assessment.
• The planning process was aligned with FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) in order to maximize credits if the City participates in the CRS program in the future to reduce flood insurance premiums.
• A City and planning committee (referred to as the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee [HMPC]) was formed that collaborated to develop the plan and involve the public through a coordinated outreach strategy targeted for both socially vulnerable, such as the City’s senior population, as well as disadvantaged communities.
• The HMPC consisted of the City and local government and non-profit organization planning partners, such as Sonoma County, a neighboring jurisdiction (City of Petaluma), a local fire district, and senior center who worked together to develop goals and objectives, and mitigation strategies and implementation methods to reduce natural hazard risks in the Planning Area. • The planning process involved the circulation of one online public survey to better understand the community’s perception of natural, human-caused, and health hazard risks and to engage and solicit input on risk reduction through mitigation actions for the whole community. • The planning process involved review of mitigation activities and strategies identified in City planning documents, such as the 2016 Sebastopol General Plan and 2010 LHMP Annex. • The plan includes a more detailed and tailored mitigation action strategy than the previous 2010 ABAG plan; the mitigation strategy included additional flood mitigation projects. • The City and planning committee identified specific mitigation actions that are best suited for the City of Sebastopol and can be funded under Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) program and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grants and state funding programs in order to meet multiple objectives.

• It provides access to FEMA grant funding to conduct hazard mitigation activities and provides resources to City residents wishing to conduct hazard mitigation efforts by providing financial and technical resources.

1.3 Regulatory Authority

1.3.1 Federal
This plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) and the implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized on October 31, 2007. (Hereafter, these requirements and regulations will be referred to collectively as the Disaster Mitigation Act or DMA of 2000.) The DMA of 2000, also commonly known as “The 2000 Stafford Act Amendments,” constitutes an effort by the Federal government to reduce the rising cost of disasters. The Act stresses the importance of coordinated mitigation planning and disaster preparedness prior to an event and emphasizes the need for mitigation planning.

Section 322 of the regulations established the requirements that LHMPs must meet in order for a local jurisdiction to be eligible for certain Federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93-288). To facilitate implementation of the DMA 2000 and the Stafford Act Amendments, FEMA created an Interim Final Rule (the Rule), published in the Federal Register in February of 2002 in Section 201 of 44 CFR (44 CFR §201.6). The Rule spells out the mitigation planning criteria for States and local communities.

In March 2013 FEMA released The Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (Handbook) as the official guide for local governments to develop, update and implement local mitigation plans. The Handbook complements and references the October 2011, FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide (Guide) in order to help “Federal and State officials assess Local Mitigation Plans in a fair and consistent manner.” Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that proposed mitigation actions are based upon a sound planning process that accounts for the inherent risk and capabilities of the individual communities as stated in Section 201.5 of the Rule. The Handbook and Guide were routinely reviewed during the development of the City’s 2021 LHMP update for the purpose of ensuring thoroughness, diligence, and compliance with the DMA of 2000 planning requirements. The City also reviewed the California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) among other state-focused planning guides to inform the climate vulnerability assessment and development of climate-specific adaptation goals and strategies.

This plan was also developed so the City can be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically, the FEMA HMA grants including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), BRIC program, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. Additional FEMA mitigation funds include the HMGP-Post Fire funding associated with Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) declarations).

1.3.2 State and Local
During the development of the City’s LHMP update, City staff initiated a review of the Sebastopol General Plan Safety Element to ensure consistency with hazards and mutually reinforcing policies. Following approval of the City’s LHMP update, the City intends to formally update the Sebastopol General Plan Safety Element. In addition to following the DMA requirements the development of the 2021 LHMP addressed and exceeded the requirements of California Government Code Section 65302 (g) and the following State of California legislation that relate to the General Plan and LHMP:

• Senate Bill (SB) 379 requires inclusion of climate adaptation strategies in the General Plan Safety Element and encourages a climate change discussion in LHMP updates. Climate change considerations are addressed in a subsection within each hazard profile in the risk assessment. • SB 1000, the Planning for Healthy Communities Act requires environmental justice and social equity considerations in the General Plan update upon the next revision of two or more elements concurrently on or after January 1, 2018 or the next revision of a LHMP; these considerations were addressed in the social vulnerability and disadvantaged communities summary of the community profile in Chapter 2 and again in the mitigation action prioritization criteria detailed in Chapter 5. • Assembly Bill (AB) 2140 requires adoption by reference or incorporation of the LHMP into the Safety Element of the General Plan, following LHMP approval, to be eligible for a larger share of California Disaster Relief Act (CDAA) funding, should a disaster be declared. The sample adoption resolution is included in Appendix D.

Information in this plan will be used to guide and coordinate mitigation activities and decisions for local land use policy in the future. Proactive mitigation planning will help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery to communities and their residents by protecting critical community facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall community impacts and disruptions. All residents and businesses in the City will benefit from the implementation of the LHMP, as the plan reduces risk for those who live in or work in the City, and the mitigation strategy sets the foundation for the development of collaborative partnerships in the region and the implementation of local mitigation activities.

The City of Sebastopol’s Planning Area has been affected by hazards in the past and the City is committed to reducing future impacts from hazard events, building community resilience to future disasters, and becoming eligible for mitigation-related federal funding.

1.4 Plan Organization
The City of Sebastopol’s LHMP is organized as follows:
• Chapter 2: Community Profile
• Chapter 3: Planning Process
• Chapter 4: Risk Assessment
• Chapter 5: Mitigation Strategy
• Chapter 6: Plan Adoption
• Chapter 7: Plan Implementation and Maintenance
• Appendices

2 Community Profile
The City of Sebastopol is located approximately 55 miles north of San Francisco. Sebastopol is a vibrant and unique community, geographically situated on the edge of the Laguna de Santa Rosa River and defined by the surrounding hillsides and vineyards, and pedestrian-friendly Main Street and “small town” atmosphere.

Today the City’s proximity to the San Francisco Bay Area and the growing food, wine, and art scene continues to make it an attractive place for home buyers and visitors. Sebastopol has experienced modest growth since suburbanization in the 1950s and the adoption of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 2016. In 2020, the City’s population was 7,745 compared to 7,370 in 2010, representing a slower growth rate of four percent when compared to the rest of Sonoma County’s nine major cities over the same period (DOF 2020).

2.1 Location and Geography
The City of Sebastopol is located at the western end of Sonoma County. The City is comprised of 1.9 square miles. State Route (SR-) 12 and SR 116 bisect the City, approximately 9 miles west of U.S. Highway 101 easily connecting locals and visitors to the surrounding Bay Area region.

Sebastopol’s boundaries have been defined mostly by the surrounding natural landscape. The City is situated along the edge of the Laguna de Santa Rosa River and wetland preserve to the east, which is fed by Santa Rosa Creek, and other tributaries including Zimpher Creek, Calder Creek, and Witter Creek. The City also sits within the Santa Rosa Plain between the Mayacamas Mountains to the east and the Coastal Range to the west along the Pacific Ocean. The City is surrounded by the unincorporated community of Graton to the north and the City of Santa Rosa to the east.

2.2 Land Use Distribution
The City of Sebastopol’s land use pattern has been defined by historical growth and land use regulations (City of Sebastopol 2016c). In 1996, Sebastopol voters approved a 25-year UGB as part of Measure O, which amended the General Plan to establish the UGB and amend land use policies in the City’s General Plan. This UGB was reaffirmed in 2016 with minor modifications when the City Council adopted Ordinance 1090, which defines and establishes standards for the administration of the UGB. The City may also amend the UGB and approve annexation in order to accommodate lands to be designated for residential uses (City of Sebastopol 2016c). No more than three acres of land may be brought within the UGB for this purpose in any calendar year, and no more than a total of ten acres may be brought within the UGB for this purpose during the term of the initiative if certain findings related to land use consistency, scenic impacts, critical habitat protection, affordable housing, safe access, and the provision of services are made. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) selected the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) as the Planning Area for this plan because it represents the probable physical boundary and service area of the City that could potentially be developed after annexation. This Planning Area is shown in Figure 2-1.

It should be noted that the “planning area” defined in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is different than the “planning area” defined in the Sebastopol General Plan, which consists of the City, SOI, and the UGB (see Figure 2-1). State law allows cities to identify a planning area during their General Plan process.

This is typically an area outside of city boundaries and generally outside the UGB. It is designed to act as a signal to the County and other nearby local authorities that Sebastopol recognizes that development may occur within these areas.

The most common land use classification in the City of Sebastopol is residential with more than 52 percent of parcels being designated as residential single-family homes, medium-density residences, and high-density residences. The remaining land uses include primarily open space and park land (11 percent), community facilities (8 percent), right-of-way (15 percent), general commercial (6 percent), mixed-use use (1 percent), light industrial (3 percent), and office (3 percent) (City of Sebastopol 2016a). A detailed breakdown of land use in the City is summarized in Table 2-1. These land uses are shown in Figure 2-2.

Table 2-1: City of Sebastopol Land Uses by Acreage
Land Use Description Acres Percentage of Total
Open Space 90.7 7.6%
Parkland 34.4 2.9%
Downtown Core 44.8 3.8%
General Commercial 66.4 5.6%
Light Industrial 32.7 2.8%
Office 35.8 3.0%
Office/Light Industrial 13.3 1.1%
Very Low Density Residential 7.4 0.62%
Low Density Residential 89.9 7.6%
Medium Density Residential 369.7 31.1%
High Density Residential 134.5 11.3%
Community Facilities 96.3 8.1%
Right-of-Way 172.5 14.5%
No Label 0 0%
Total 1,188.4 100%
Source: City of Sebastopol 2016a

Figure 2-1: City of Sebastopol Planning Area

Figure 2-2: City of Sebastopol Land Use Distribution

2.3 History
The native Miwok and Pomo originally inhabited the area of modern-day Sebastopol. The town of Sebastopol later formed in the 1850s when a U.S. Post Office was established as a small trade center for the farmers in the surrounding agricultural region. As California’s population grew after the Gold Rush of the 1850s, settlers moved into the fertile California valleys north of San Francisco.

The apple industry brought steady rural prosperity to the town and Sebastopol was incorporated in 1902 (City of Sebastopol 2020). With incorporation, the City grew and was soon developed with schools, churches, hotels, canneries, mills, wineries, and an opera house. The 1906 earthquake reduced much of this early development, but much of the town was soon rebuilt.

In the second half of the 20th century, the apple industry struggled to compete with other appleproducing regions and gradually declined. With greater mobility and the rise of shopping centers in other Sonoma County communities, the City changed from a full-service town to one with more limited range of goods and services. Today, Sebastopol is a vibrant, unique, and creative community with a thriving and growing food and wine and arts hub. The City is a known leader in environmental and conservation efforts and sustainable farming. Sebastopol’s geographical setting, proximity to wineries and the Sonoma Coast, and new commercial and industrial businesses and healthy living also support a strong local economy.

2.4 Demographics
Comprehensive data on the City of Sebastopol’s demographics was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates (2014-2018) and the California Department of Finance (DOF) population estimates.

2.4.1 Population and Growth Projections
Between 2010 and 2020 the population of Sebastopol steadily increased by 366 persons (4.8 percent) (DOF 2020) as shown by Table 2-2 reported by the California DOF Population Estimates. During the same time period, the state of California population increased by two percent, but Sonoma County’s population slightly decreased by 1.6 percent. This growth trend demonstrates that the City of Sebastopol has experienced growth compared to the State and the surrounding region; however, this growth is relatively small given the small size of the City (US Census 2010; DOF 2020). The County’s population increased between 2010 through 2017 and then gradually decreased (Sonoma County 2019). The City’s General Plan Housing Element also estimates an additional 455 residents in the City by 2030, resulting in another 5.5 percent increase over the next decade. Although Sonoma County’s growth has decreased slightly in the last several years and estimates by the Sonoma County Economic Development Board show a slight decrease in population in Sebastopol in the short-term (next 4-5 years), the County population is projected to grow at a similar rate as Sebastopol, or by roughly 7 percent over the next decade (Sonoma County EDB 2019, City of Sebastopol 2015).

The key land use changes noted in the City’s General Plan buildout are increases in residential and mixeduses within the City limits. The City estimated the buildout will result in approximately 750 new residential units, 341,159 square feet of new commercial space, 59,959 square feet of new industrial space, and 137,375 square feet of new office space (City of Sebastopol 2016a). Cumulatively, maximum buildout projections (beyond the General Plan buildout scenarios) within the City limits and the SOI and UGB could yield up to 1,185 new residential units, 341,159 square feet of new commercial space, 684,889 square feet of new industrial space, and 137,375 square feet of new office space (City of Sebastopol 2016a). In summary, the population and growth projections over the next 5 to 10 years could be lower or higher depending on a range of economic and environmental factors in the region.

Table 2-2: City of Sebastopol Populations Changes (counts), 2010-2020 Year Total Population
2020 7,745
2015 7,440
2010 7,379
Sources: U.S. Census ACS 2010-2015, DOF 2020, City of Sebastopol 2016a Table 2-3 breaks down Sebastopol’s demographics for select social characteristics.

Table 2-3: City of Sebastopol’s Demographic and Social Characteristics, 2014-2018 Characteristic
Gender/Age
Median Age 48.5
Male, percentage 45.8%
Female, percentage 54.2%
Under 5 Years, percentage 2.9%
Under 18 Years, percentage 17.6%
65 Years and Over, percentage 22.5%
Race/Ethnicity Percentage
White 77.3%
Hispanic or Latino (Any Race) 9.3%
Asian 2.7%
Some Other Race 7.4%
Black or African American 2.0%
American Indian/Alaska Native 0.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 1.1%
Education** Percentage
High School Graduate or Higher 95.7%
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 43.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2014-2018, www.census.gov/ ; DOF 2020 **California DOF estimates

2.4.2 Age
As noted in Table 2-3, the median age of Sebastopol residents was 48.5 years old in 2017. According to the 2019 Sebastopol City Profile Report from the Sonoma County Economic Development Board, Sebastopol is ranked second-highest among the County’s nine incorporated cities in terms of age, and older than the median age of Sonoma County (41) and above California (36). The City’s labor force is older than the state but younger than the county overall. The City is projected to continue to age with the greatest increase by 2022 being individuals 65 years and older. A low unemployment rate paired with a relatively lower labor force rate also indicates an aging population. Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 show the age distribution as of 2019 and projected for 2023.

Figure 2-3: City of Sebastopol Current and Projected Age Distribution, 2010 – 2023 Source: Sebastopol City Profile Report, Sonoma County Economic Development Board 2019 Figure 2-4: City of Sebastopol Age Distribution vs. Sonoma County Percentage of Population, 2019 Source: Sebastopol City Profile Report, Sonoma County Economic Development Board 2019

2.4.3 Housing
Housing tenure for City of Sebastopol was obtained through the U.S. Census Bureau ACS and shows the majority of residents live in a home they own. Table 2-4 breaks down the differences in housing tenure.

Table 2-4: City of Sebastopol Housing Tenure, 2015
Characteristic Estimates
Total Households 3,482
Owner Occupied 1,762 (51%)
Renter Occupied 1,720 (49%)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2014-2018, www.census.gov/; City of Sebastopol General Plan Housing Element 2015 Median home prices in the City of Sebastopol as of 2019 was $849,750, which is the second highest among Sonoma County’s nine cities. In the past five years, Sebastopol’s median home sales prices have risen by 9 percent annually, which is the slowest in the County (Sonoma County 2019). Figure 2-5 compares Sebastopol’s median home sale prices to the other incorporated communities in Sonoma County. % of Population
Age Distribution
% of Population

Figure 2-5: Comparable Median Home Sales Price in Sonoma County, 2017 Source: 2019 Sebastopol City Profile Report, Sonoma County Economic Development Board 2019 The City of Sebastopol has made a strong commitment to affordable housing and a diversity of housing types over the last decade. This commitment is demonstrated by its support for a number of affordable housing developments, such as the Hollyhock, Sequoia Village, and Petaluma Avenue Homes projects.

According to the City’s Housing Element, there was 402 affordable housing units in 2014 out of the 537 subsidized and restricted affordable housing units developed in the City. The City has also maintained an inclusionary housing ordinance, requiring projects to provide deed-restricted affordable units.

2.4.4 Race and Ethnicity
Table 2-5 shows the comparative demographic estimates between 2014 and 2018. The racial and ethnicity makeup of the City is somewhat similar to the County. Sebastopol is less diverse in terms of race and ethnicity compared to the County and state and has a smaller Hispanic population.

Table 2-5: City of Sebastopol Race and Ethnicity, 2014-2018 Race/Ethnicity 2008-2012
Sebastopol County California
White 77.3% 66.5% 37.5%
Black 2.0% 1.4% 5.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.2% 0.4% 0.4%
Asian 2.7% 3.9% 14.1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 1.1% 0.3% 0.4%
Other 0% 0.5% 0.2%
Hispanic 9.3% 26.5% 38.9%
Two races, excluding other race 7.6% 0.5% 2.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, Comparative Demographic Estimates, 2008-2012 and 2014-2018 estimates,www.census.gov/

2.4.5 Income and Poverty
Individual households are commonly expected to use private resources and funds to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters. This means that households living in poverty are disadvantaged when confronting natural and human-caused hazards. Households living in poverty may also occupy poorly built or inadequately maintained housing. These housing types may be more susceptible to damage in earthquakes or flood events than other types of housing. In semi-urban areas, such as the City of Sebastopol, households living in poverty may also live in older houses and multi-family housing that is constructed of un-reinforced masonry, a building type that is susceptible to damage during earthquakes.

Further, residents living below the poverty level are less likely to have insurance to compensate for the losses incurred from natural disasters.

Persons under 18 years old in Sebastopol can also be disproportionately affected by poverty. According to the 2014-2018 ACS data, 9.6 percent of the City’s total residents under the age of 18 were living in

poverty and 11.6 percent of the City’s total residents under the age of 18 were living in poverty based on the 2018 ACS data (see Table 2-5 below), compared to the 8 percent of all families in the City, respectively. As shown in Table 2-6, the percentage of residents in poverty in Sebastopol has decreased between 2014 and 2018. The income brackets of $50,000 to $75,000 is estimated to shrink by 2.2 percent while the income bracket of $200,000 and more is estimated to grow by 2.1 percent by 2022 (Sonoma County 2018).

Table 2-6: City of Sebastopol’s Comparative Economic Characteristics: 2014 and 2018 City of Sebastopol
Characteristic 2014 2018
Families below Poverty Level 9.6% 8.0%
All People below Poverty Level
(under 18 years)

10.8% 11.6%
All People below Poverty Level
(18 years and over)

13.1% 9.7%
Median Household Income $67,782 $77,204
Per Capita Income $35,094 $40,125
Population in Labor Force 66.7% 65.7%
Population Employed* 61.1% 60.0%
Unemployment 5.6% 5.7%**
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2014-2018, obtained by California Office of Finance. 2018 ACS data added in July 2020. *Excludes active duty armed forces
**Unemployment rate is based on 2018: ACS 5-Year Estimate data.

The City of Sebastopol also had the fifth-highest median household income in the County’s nine incorporated cities as the average household income in 2014 was $67,782 and in 2018 increased to $77,204 according to the U.S. Census Bureau ACS data. During 2018, the median household income in Sonoma County was at $76,753 while household incomes in nearby counties ranged higher from $84,753 to $110,217 (Napa and Marin counties). The median household income for the State in 2018 was $71,228 and the 10.4 percent of families were living below the poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2018). Based on this comparison, while the City of Sebastopol has a slightly higher median household income than the County and State, there are small segments of the City’s population that are low income and disadvantaged, and in turn socially vulnerable and expected to be more susceptible to natural disasters and less likely to recover at the same pace as the rest of the community. The City of Sebastopol recently approved the Elderberry Commons projects, a remodeled 31-room hotel to provide permanent and supportive housing for vulnerable housing individuals, and a workforce and affordable housing project is proposed along Bodega Avenue (City of Sebastopol 2021).

Additional demographic data and information on income, social vulnerability, and disadvantaged communities in the Sebastopol Planning Area are summarized below in Section 2.5 Social Vulnerability.

Information on population growth is summarized in Section 2.8 Growth and Development Trends.

2.5 Social Vulnerability
Social vulnerability considerations were included in the development of this plan to identify populations across the City’s Planning Area that might be more vulnerable to hazard impacts based on a number of factors. Hazard events can have very different impacts for different segments of a community, even if the hazard effects the entire City. The combination of socioeconomic status, household composition, physical disabilities, age, race and ethnicity, education level, primary language, housing, and transportation barriers can alter the way communities prepare for and respond to hazard events. For example, as stated in the previous section, families with lower household incomes may not be able to renovate their home to be more resilient to flooding and earthquakes, and as a result these households may be disproportionately

affected by a flood or earthquake event. The elderly population may have limited mobility due to age and physical disabilities, which could lead to less accessibility during hazard events. It may also be more timeintensive for this population to receive hazard information and respond in the event of a hazard. Similarly, for those segments of the population where English is not their native language, it may take these individuals and families more time to prepare and respond during a hazard event.

The social vulnerability considerations in this plan cover household income, ethnicity, English proficiency, senior population, disabled population, single-parent households metrics. The considerations in this plan are broad in scope and are based on best available data and mapping information from the following source:
• Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).

CDC Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Social Vulnerability Index A social vulnerability index (SVI) was developed by the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and their Geospatial Research, Analysis & Services Program, as a way to portray communities’ capacities to prepare for and respond to natural and manmade disasters. The SVI provides information on vulnerable populations to assist emergency response planners and public health officials in the identification of communities more likely to require additional support before, during, and after a hazardous event. The CDC’s SVI includes county- and state-level maps that show relative vulnerability, provide key socially and spatially relevant information on communities’ populations, and the maps compare the SVI based on Census Tracts. This SVI index combines four main themes of vulnerability: socioeconomic status; household composition and disability; minority status and language; and housing and transportation. The information from the SVI data informs the vulnerability of people, as qualitatively discussed in the vulnerability assessment for each hazard in Chapter 4.

An overview of social vulnerability for the City’s Planning Area is shown in Figure 2-6 based on CDC SVI data aggregated to Census Tracts. The SVI map depicts that within the City there is one census tract in the eastern portion with population with a higher vulnerability to disasters (in navy blue) and a portion of two other census tracts to the northwest and south with population with high vulnerability. The census tracts shaded in green and yellow have moderate to low vulnerability to disasters. The overall social vulnerability in the surrounding unincorporated portion of Sonoma County based on the SVI data is shown in Figure 2-7. Additional maps using the four main vulnerability themes of the SVI, including socioeconomic vulnerability, household composition and disability, minority status, language vulnerability, and housing and transportation are provided on the CDC’s SVI online materials and maps at https://svi.cdc.gov/.

Additional data and mapping sources on defining and identifying vulnerable communities in the context of climate change and other natural hazards will soon be available in California but was not yet developed to be incorporated into this plan. Therefore, the CDC’s SVI data was used to quantitatively summarize potential socially vulnerable communities in the City.

Figure 2-6: Disadvantaged Communities based on CDC ATSDR SVI Tool Source: CDC ATSDR 2016

Figure 2-7: Overall Social Vulnerability in the City of Sebastopol Planning Area based on SVI Data Sebastopol

2.5.1 Environmental Justice
Certain low-income residents, communities of color, and immigrant communities in California have disproportionately experienced greater environmental burdens and related health problems than other communities. The inequity is a result of many factors, including, but not limited to inappropriate zoning, discriminatory housing, limited political and economic power among certain demographics, and development patterns that tend to concentrate pollution in in certain communities (CEJA 2018). When combined with a lack of economic resources and unjust policy making, these residents and communities, also known as disadvantaged communities (DACs) or environmental justice (EJ) groups can face significant barriers to their overall health, livelihood, and resiliency to hazard events. With the support of communitybased organizations (CBOs), planners, local governments, and public health advocacy groups, recent legislation in California was developed to create healthier cities and counties and prioritize the needs of DACs.

SB 1000 Requirements §65302(h)(1)
The environmental justice element, or related environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, shall do all of the following:
(A) Identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity.
(B) Identify objectives and policies to promote civil engagement in the public decision making process. (C) Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.

In 2016 California passed Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000), the Planning for Healthy Communities Act, which mandates that cities and counties to adopt EJ elements or integrate EJ goals and policies into the elements of their General Plans when they are updating two or more elements of their General Plan concurrently on or after January 1, 2018. Environmental justice is defined by state law as “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (Gov. Code § 65040.12(e)). According to the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), SB 1000, and pursuant to Section 39711 of the California Health and Safety Code a DAC is a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.

Cities and counties are individually responsible for identifying EJ communities within their jurisdictions and incorporating the SB 1000 requirements into their planning processes. The City of Sebastopol incorporated these requirements into the LHMP, as this plan will be incorporated into their General Plan in accordance with Government Code Section 65302.10 (Assembly Bill [AB] 2140). The City can meet these requirements by identifying DACs and socially vulnerable communities, promoting engagement in the public decision-making process and in socially vulnerable communities through the implementation of an outreach strategy, addressing EJ considerations to a degree in the vulnerability assessment, and by considering prioritization criteria, such as social equity during the development of mitigation actions. For example, the HMPC addressed vulnerable and sensitive populations in the City and emphasized outreach and coordination with the senior population in Sebastopol by engaging a local senior center during the planning process. The HMPC distributed the Administrative Draft LHMP to the City’s Climate Action Committee (CAC) and the CAC Equity Working Group. The City also distributed the plan survey to a large network of community members through the Map Your Neighborhood program. The following sections

summarize additional information on DACs within the City of Sebastopol Planning Area based on various state and local sources.

2.5.2 Disadvantaged Communities
DACs refer to areas in California that suffer the most from a combination of economic, health, and environmental burdens. These burdens include poverty, high unemployment, air and water pollution, the presence of hazardous wastes and the high incidence of asthma and other health diseases. DACs have been identified across the state, region, and Sonoma County using various criteria. The social equity considerations in this plan regarding DACs cover household income, ethnicity, English proficiency, senior population, disabled population, and single-parent households metrics. The considerations in this plan are broad in scope and are based on best available data and mapping information from the following state and local sources:
• California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Mapping Tool, • California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen Tool, and • Sonoma County’s Disadvantaged Communities Online Mapping Tool.

The metrics and methodology applied by each federal, state, and local source is summarized below, followed by a “snapshot” of the social vulnerability metrics and information available for the population in the City according to each tool.

California DWR Disadvantaged Community (DAC) Mapping Tool California DWR defines DACs as a community with an annual median household income (MHI) that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual MHI (Public Resources Code 7500(g)). Census geographies within an annual MHI less than 60 percent of the statewide annual MHI are considered “severely disadvantaged communities.” Figure 2-8 shows there is one DAC within the City’s Planning Area. As shown in Figure 2-8 there is one block group on the northwest end of Sebastopol identified as a DAC. The block group identified in in the northwest end of Sebastopol identified as a DAC has approximately 977 residents within 416 households; the median household income is $53,750.

Figure 2-8: Disadvantaged Communities based on California DWR DAC Mapping Tool Source: California DWR 2019

California OEHHA CalEnviroScreen Tool
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) uses the CalEnviroScreen Tool to identify California communities by census tract that are disproportionately burdened by, and vulnerable to, multiple sources of pollution. CalEnviroScreen is a science-based mapping tool that uses environmental conditions such as proximity to solid waste sites, clean-up sites, etc.; personal health (sensitive populations with asthma, cardiovascular disease, etc.), and socioeconomic (poverty, unemployment, educational attainment, etc.) information to produce a numerical score for each census tract in the state. A census tract with a high score (orange to red) is a community that experiences higher pollution burden and vulnerability than census tracts with low score (yellow to green).

California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) implemented a cap-and-trade program as one of several strategies in California to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause climate change. In 2012 the Legislature passed Senate Bill 535 that directed 25 percent of the proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GHGRF) go to projects that provide benefit to DACs. As a result, the legislation gave California’s EPA responsibility for identifying those communities. California EPA identified the 25 percent highest scoring CalEnviroScreen census tracts as DACs. The designation then led to AB 1550 that requires 25 percent of the proceeds from the GHGRF be spent on project located in DACs.

As shown in Figure 2-9 there are no environmentally burdened or vulnerable communities with high scores in the City of Sebastopol with the exception of one community to the southeast of the City with a moderate score where 61 to 70 percent of the census tract has the potential to be burdened by pollution.

Figure 2-9: Sebastopol Census Tract Scores based on OEHHA CalEnviroScreen Tool Source: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2018 Sonoma County’s DAC Online Mapping Tool
The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) functions as the countywide planning and fund programming agency for transportation projects. The SCTA was created in 1990 as a result of federal and state legislation to address regional planning, specifically the implementation of transportation improvement projects. The SCTA Board of Directors also coordinates countywide climate protection activities through its other role as the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA).

SCTA defines DACs using different identification criteria than the tools developed by other state agencies.

The following DAC designations are defined in the SCTA Disadvantaged Communities mapping tool, including whether the DAC designations occur within the City of Sebastopol:
• MTC Adopted Communities of Concern (COC): MTC identified regional COCs use demographic variables including ethnicity, income, English proficiency, senior population, disabled population, single-parent households, zero-vehicle households, and overburdened renters using Census Tract

data from the 2005-2009 and 2010-2014 ACS 5-Year Average. These COCs were adopted as part of Plan Bay Area and are currently being revised as part of the Plan Bay Area update that is underway.

There are no MTC Adopted COCs within the City of Sebastopol Planning Area. • SCTA Defined COCs: SCTA Defined COCs use poverty level data (i.e., 30 percent of the census block group households earning 200 percent or less of the federal poverty level) and a more detailed level of census geography. Using census block groups allows better accuracy when identifying pockets of poverty in Sonoma County, especially in areas that are located in large census tracts, or that are adjacent to affluent areas. There is one census block group within the City of Sebastopol Planning Area. The census block identified as SCTA-defined COC is comprised of approximately 1,144 residents (14.7 percent of population) within 598 households.
• 2019 Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) DACs: The Caltrans ATP defines DACs using income, tribal lands, and proximity to disadvantaged schools. Disadvantaged schools are those where 75 percent of the students are eligible to receive free or reduced meals. The City’s Planning Area is not identified as an ATP DAC.
• Portrait of Sonoma County Priority Places. Portrait of Sonoma County considers life expectancy, education, and income of county residents and combines the variables into a single Human Development Index (HDI), which can be used to identify disadvantaged communities and disparities among Sonoma County neighborhoods. The 20 census tracts in the County with the lowest HDI are identified as DACs and included in the mapping tool. There were no census tracts that met these criteria in the City of Sebastopol Planning Area.

Figure 2-10 shows the SCTA-defined COCs and 2019 Caltrans ATP DACs in and near the Planning Area.

Figure 2-10: SCTA-Defined Disadvantaged Communities in Sebastopol Source: SCTA 2019

2.6 Economy and Employment
The most comprehensive economic data available for the City of Sebastopol comes from the U.S. Census Bureau ACS data and the California DOF. Select estimates of economic characteristics for the City of Sebastopol are summarized below.

As of 2019, Sebastopol had the highest unemployment rates of the cities in Sonoma County (Sonoma County 2019). The ACS 5-year estimates show a 4.1 percent unemployment rate, higher than the County (2.7 percent), and statewide rates (3.7 percent). Sebastopol’s 52 percent labor force participation rate is lower than the County, but higher than the statewide rates. The labor force participation rate is calculated by dividing the number of people working or looking for work, by the total population. Stay-at-home parents, students not looking for work, retirees, and discouraged workers, are not included in the labor force. As a result, and as previously noted, low unemployment rate paired with a relatively lower labor force participation rate indicates an aging population (Sonoma County, 2019). Section 2.4 summarized the City’s general economic characteristics. Unemployment rates have slightly decreased in the past three years based on the most recent ACS data and California DOF data.

Table 2-7 shows the breakdown of employment by industry in the City of Sebastopol from 2014-2018, as well as the number of people employed by each industry, and Table 2-8 lists the City’s major employers and approximate number of employees.

Table 2-7: City of Sebastopol’s Employment by Industry, 2014-2018 Industry # Employed % Employed
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Mining 55 1.4
Construction 423 11.0
Manufacturing 178 4.6
Wholesale trade 218 5.6
Retail trade 363 9.4
Transportation and warehousing, utilities 128 3.3
Information 81 2.1
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and rental and leasing 260 6.7 Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services
542 14.0
Educational services and Health care and social assistance 1,047 27.1 Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and associated accommodation and food services
332 8.6
Other services 112 2.9
Public Administration 124 3.2
Totals 3,863 100
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2014-2018, Economic Characteristics, www.census.gov/ *Civilian population 16 or older
Table 2-8: City of Sebastopol’s Major Employers
Employer
O’Reilly and Associates
Safeway
Analy Union High School
Sebastopol Union School
Palm Drive Hospital
Source: City of Sebastopol Demographics; City Snapshot https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/Our-Community/Current-Snapshot

2.7 Commuter Population
Based on ACS five-year estimates data for 2014-2018, nearly 68.1 percent of Sebastopol’s workforce travelled alone by car for employment. Approximately 7.8 percent during this same time period worked from home, but this percentage has likely increased in 2020 due to the stay-at-home orders in California and Sonoma County due to the COVID-19 pandemic (U.S. Census 2020). Also, in 2018, the Sebastopol area accommodated 11,168 jobs and 13,975 resident workers suggesting that 2,806 workers commuted out of Sebastopol for their work (Sonoma County EDB 2019). These commuter patterns likely change due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and stay-at-home restrictions put into effect during 2020.

Commuting patterns can increase congestion on SRs 116 and 12 and local county and city roads.

Commute congestion can also affect the City’s transportation infrastructure, as well as how the City responds to hazard events and evacuation procedures that may limit the commuting population’s ability to travel to work and safely return to Sebastopol after an event.

2.8 Growth and Development Trends
Most of the development in the City of Sebastopol occurred prior to 1976. Residential development during this period was spread throughout the City whereas non-residential growth was concentrated along SR 116 and development north of Sebastopol Avenue along Morris Street. From 1990 to 1999, residential growth occurred in small subdivisions and various scattered sites (City of Sebastopol 2014).

Non-residential growth continued to occur along the City’s major arterials and also included small commercial centers in the City’s neighborhoods. From 2000 to today, the pace of development slowed in the City. Residential development continued to occur on scattered sites throughout the City. Nonresidential and commercial development consisted of several scattered sites but was primarily focused in the “Barlow” area, west of Morris Street and north of Sebastopol Avenue (City of Sebastopol 2014).

The City has limited developable areas and a history of a few annexations since the General Plan was adopted in 2015. The City of Sebastopol General Plan lists the following milestones in the City’s growth management history designed to preserve the small-town character of the town:
• 1994 General Plan - The 1994 General Plan recognized the importance of careful development patterns and environmental protection. It provided a framework for development within the City that intended to retain Sebastopol’s small-town feeling and rural character and provide a safe and friendly environment. The main themes of the plan were focused on maintaining the character of existing residential neighborhoods; emphasizing infill development versus annexations; ensuring future growth matches available infrastructure; focusing development downtown; and implementing environmental protections through strong regulations to protect sensitive areas, such as the Laguna de Santa Rosa, Atascadero Creek, and the adjacent ecosystems. It also focused on providing housing opportunities and parks, employing an UGB for the 20-year time period of the plan, and reducing the SOI to ensure it is coterminous with the UBG and to prevent sprawl. • Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) – The City’s 1994 General Plan established an UGB. The UGB is a line beyond which development will not be allowed, except for public parks and public schools. • Growth Management Program – The City’s Growth Management Program was established by the 1994 General Plan and is implemented through Zoning Code Section 17.350 Growth Management. It allows for 575 dwelling units or the remaining wastewater treatment capacity, whichever is less. It stipulates that dwelling units may not exceed 25 dwelling units per year, averaged over a two-year prior (e.g. up to 50 dwelling units may be allocated in any given two-year period). The Growth Management Program exempts affordable housing units, second dwelling units, replacement residential structures, single-family homes on an existing lot of record as of November 1994,

homeless shelters, single-family occupancies, and community or health care facilities from the annual allocation.
• Measure O – Measure O was approved by Sebastopol voters in 1996. It amended the General Plan to reaffirm the City’s UGB, amend specific land use policies (Policies P.8 and P.9) and keep the UGB in effect until December 2016.
• 2015 General Plan – The latest General Plan carries forward the major goal and policy framework of the 1994 General Plan but has been substantially updated to address local current conditions, community priorities and goals, and has been reorganized to make the document more user-friendly and straightforward. The 2015 General Plan process identified the following distinct guiding principles: protect Sebastopol’s small-town charm and unique character, sustain and encourage a vibrant downtown core and strong community identify, improve traffic conditions downtown, emphasize sustainability and environmental stewardship, and provide opportunities for extensive community input and participation.
• Ordinance 1090 – City Council adopted Ordinance 1090 in 2016, which re-established the UGB with minor modifications through 2030 (another 25 years). Ordinance 1090 defines the UGB and established standards for administration of the boundary.

The City continues to regulate and manage development through its two growth management programs the Growth Management Program and the UGB. Development on the western side of the City is constrained by the hilly topography and the UGB, while the east side is constrained by the UGB and the Laguna de Santa Rosa. As of February 2021, the City has 11 major development projects going through the planning process with the Planning Department or recently approved and under construction. A majority of the projects (6) are residential developments (i.e., residential townhomes, studios, condominium subdivisions, homeless housing), followed by commercial and mixed-use projects (5) (i.e., hotels, mixed-use commercial, car wash, bank). The major development projects are located throughout the City with a majority being concentrated near downtown Sebastopol along Sebastopol Avenue.

Table 2-9 shows the City’s maximum projected development and land use acreages at complete General Plan buildout. This projection assumes every single parcel in the City will be developed at or near the higher end densities and intensities allowed under the current General Plan, while also considering growth restrictions.

Table 2-9: City of Sebastopol Land Use Acreages at Plan Buildout Land use Single-Family
Units
Multi-Family
Units
Commercial
(square feet)
Office
(square feet)
Industrial Hotel
(rooms)
Core Downtown (1) 112 203,051 62,557 0 65
Community
Facilities
0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial Office (3) 36 132,608 50,380 0 18
High Density
Residential
131 247 0 0 0 0
Low Density
Residential
29 0 0 0 0 0
Light Industrial 0 5 5,500 0 (7,665) 90
Medium Density
Residential
167 0 0 0 - 0
Office/Light
Industrial
0 22 0 28,982 67,624 0
Open Space 0 0 0 0 0 0
Very Low Density
Residential
5 0 0 (4,544) 0 0

Land use Single-Family
Units
Multi-Family
Units
Commercial
(square feet)
Office
(square feet)
Industrial Hotel
(rooms)
Total General
Plan
328 422 341,159 137,375 59,959 173
Source: City of Sebastopol General Plan EIR 2016
Additional information on development trends in the City’s Planning Area can be found in the Future Development section of each hazard profile in Chapter 4.

2.9 Mitigation Capability Assessment
During the development of this plan the City’s HMPC completed a mitigation capability assessment to understand what loss prevention mechanisms are already in place. When combined with the risk assessment the mitigation capability assessment this results in the City’s “net vulnerability” to disasters, and more accurately focuses the goals and proposed actions of this plan. For this planning effort, a representative from most departments where the City had in-house staff available, participated on the HMPC. The HMPC also consists of representatives from neighboring jurisdictions, fire districts, and CBOs.

The HMPC used a two-step approach to conduct the capability assessment for the City. First, an inventory of common mitigation activities was made through the use of a matrix. The purpose of this effort was to identify policies and programs that were either in place, needed improvement, or could be undertaken if deemed appropriate. Second, the HMPC conducted an inventory and review of existing policies, regulations, plans, and programs to determine if they contributed to reducing hazard-related losses or if they inadvertently contributed to increasing such losses.

Similar to the HMPC’s effort to describe hazards, risks, and vulnerability of the City of Sebastopol, this mitigation capability assessment describes the City’s existing capabilities, programs, and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. It also identifies select state and federal departments/agencies that can supplement the City’s mitigation capabilities. This assessment is divided into four sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, and mitigation outreach and partnerships.

2.9.1 City of Sebastopol’s Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Table 2-10 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in the City of Sebastopol. Excerpts from applicable policies, regulations, and plans and program descriptions follow to provide more detail on existing mitigation capabilities.

Table 2-10: City of Sebastopol’s Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Tool (ordinances, codes, plans) Yes/No Comments General Plan Yes The Sebastopol General Plan (2015) was last updated and amended in 2016. The Housing Element was last
updated and amended in 2015. Both planning
documents are the City’s most comprehensive land use
and development tools. Together, they establish the
vision for the buildout of the City of Sebastopol
through 2035. They include a set of broad-based goals,
policies, and actions to guide development in the City.

Upon adoption of the LHMP, the City should update
the General Plan Safety Element (Chapter 8) and
amend the General Plan to include the LHMP.

Regulatory Tool (ordinances, codes, plans) Yes/No Comments Zoning Ordinance Yes The City’s Zoning Ordinance is the part of Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code that contains regulations that
pertain to land use in the City. The Zoning Ordinance
includes requirements regarding zoning districts, use,
density, intensity, setbacks, signs, accessory uses, and other land use matters. It also establishes the process by which development applications are processed at
the City.

Subdivision Ordinance Yes Chapter 16 of Sebastopol’s Municipal Code contains the City’s subdivision provisions and tentative
procedural requirements, and tentative subdivision
maps.

Growth Management Ordinance Yes The City’s Growth Management Program was established by the 1994 General Plan. The program is
summarized in Chapter 15.500 and implemented
through Zoning Code Section 17.350 Growth
Management. It allows for 575 dwelling units or the
remaining wastewater treatment capacity, whichever is
less and stipulates that dwelling units may not exceed
25 dwelling units per year, averaged over the two prior years. The Growth Management Program exempts
affordable housing units, second dwelling units,
replacement residential structures, single-family homes on an existing lot of record as of November 1994,
homeless shelters, single-family occupancies, and
community or health care facilities from the annual
allocation.

The City’s 1994 General Plan established the UGB – the
line beyond which development will not be allowed,
except for public parks and public schools. The UGB
was renewed for another 25 years with the adoption of
the 2015 General Plan.

Floodplain Ordinance Yes Articles I through V, the Flood Damage Prevention and Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction in Chapter 15.16
of the City’s Zoning Code contain standards of
construction for all areas of special flood hazards, such as elevating structures two feet above the base flood
elevation (BFE), which goes beyond the minimum
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards.

Construction standards include anchoring, construction
materials and methods, elevation and floodproofing
requirements (e.g., two feet above the BFE in zones AE, AH, and A1-30, etc.), and flood opening standards.

Chapter 15 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code
establishes the special flood hazard areas in the City
based on the March 7, 2017 Flood Insurance Study
(FIS) for the City of Sebastopol and accompanying
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and flood
boundary and floodway maps (FBFMs). It limits
development of projects in the flood hazard zone
unless the project demonstrates flood management
facilities will protect the project to the level of flood

Regulatory Tool (ordinances, codes, plans) Yes/No Comments protection, implements conditions on the permit or
project entitlement that protect the project to standard flood protection standards.

Other special purpose ordinance (e.g.,
stormwater, steep slope, wildfire)
Yes Chapter 16.40, Design and Improvement Standards of
the Municipal Code contains a range of requirements
that pertain to lot design, circulation, drainage, and
grading that also include specific standards for fire
protection, scenic areas, resources areas, and soil
investigation. For example, Chapter 16.40.110 requires
adequate mitigation for the protection and
preservation of scenic resources, such as ridges,
hilltops, and other natural landforms. Chapter

16.40.120 requires protections for natural resources,
such as riparian areas, wildlife areas, cultural resources sites, and wetland and water bodies through project
design, setbacks, resource management plans, and
mitigation.

Building Code Yes The City adopted the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and the International Building Code (2019
Edition). Adoption and reference to the 2019 CBC
(2019 Edition) is outlined in Chapter 15.04.040. Chapter

15.04.170 adopts the current edition of the National
Fire Code, as published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) (Ordinance 1128 Section 16, 2019;
Ordinance 1093 Section 17, 2016)
Fire department Insurance Services Office
(ISO) rating
Yes Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating of 3
Erosion or Sediment Control Program Yes Chapter 15.08, Excavation, Grading, and Earthwork Construction covers erosion and sediment controls and
specific amendments to the City’s adoption of the 2019
CBC that includes requiring erosion control and
sediment control plans for work that occurs between
October 1st and April 15th, grading along Calder Creek
or Zimpher Creek, grading on hillsides with a slope of
10 percent or greater.

Storm Water Management Program Yes They City complies with requirements under the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Order
No. R1-2015-0030, which was updated in 2015 as part
of the second Phase II Small MS4 General Permit
(adopted 2015). The City is a Co-Permittee of this
permit (North Coast RWQCB 2015). They City is
implementing a Storm Water Management Plan that
contains processes that will be used to meet
mandatory requirements under the 2015 order.

Site Plan Review Requirements Yes Discretionary projects involve site plan review as part of the planning and approval process conducted by the
City’s Planning Division. The Development Engineering
Division of the Public Works Department provides
review and permit processing. This division reviews
subdivision maps, construction plans, public
improvements, and grading plans for all residential,
commercial, and industrial projects.

Regulatory Tool (ordinances, codes, plans) Yes/No Comments Capital Improvements Plan Yes The Public Works Department and Engineering Division are responsible for the implementation of the City’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) each year with its
annual budget. The CIP is a long-range plan that
identifies capital projects, provides a planning schedule and identifies options for financing. The plan is linked between project priorities established by City Council
and the City’s annual budget. The current CIP covers
2021 through 2026.

The Public Works Department and Engineering Division
follows design standards, and standard plans made
numerous accomplishments on the 2015-2020 CIP
related to their pavement program; bicycle, pedestrian, and transportation projects; water and sewer projects;
water production and distribution system; sewer
collection and pumping system; storm drains; parks;
government buildings; and energy efficiency (City of
Sebastopol 2015). Several of the recently updated
2021-2026 projects may be integrated into the LHMP.

Economic Development Plan Yes The Economic Development Division contains business development and incentive and program resources for
commercial, retail, and property owners. Oversight of
the Community Block Grant (CDBG) and Housing
Program are functions of the City Manager’s Office.

Local Emergency Operations Plan Yes The City of Sebastopol is currently updating their Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), including an
evacuation route planning effort.

Other special plans Yes The City of Sebastopol has administered an Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Planning division through
the Fire Department.

Flood Insurance Study or other engineering
study for streams
Yes The City joined the NFIP on June 18, 1980. The City began implementing their NFIP floodplain regulations
in 1980. The most recent FIS for the City was
completed on March 7, 2017.

Elevation certificates No The City requires building elevation certificate but does not currently electronically track elevation certificates.

Other No
Source: HMPC Data Collection Guide
As indicated in the table above, the City of Sebastopol has several plans and programs that guide the City’s development in hazard-prone areas. Starting with the Sebastopol General Plan, which is the most comprehensive of the City’s plans when it comes to mitigation, these relevant plans and programs are described in more detail below.

Sebastopol General Plan (2016)
The Sebastopol General Plan provides a comprehensive and long-term blueprint for the future by establishing a framework for how Sebastopol should grow and change over the next two decades (Year 2035). The General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions that empower the City and community to achieve their future vision. The General Plan is the City’s principal policy and planning document to guide future conservation, enhancement, and development in the City. It addresses all aspects of development organized in nine elements, including six required by State Planning law and three elements prepared to meet local needs and concerns. The seven mandatory elements include the Land Use Element, Housing Element, Circulation Element, Conservation Element, Open Space Element, Safety Element, and Noise Element. The three remaining elements include the Community Services and Facilities Element, Community Design Element, and Community Health and Wellness Element.

The Safety Element contains goals, policies, and action programs related to hazards and hazard mitigation, as detailed below:
• Safety Element
The Safety Element includes goal and policy statements relating to different aspects of the issues addressed in the element, including seismic and geologic hazards, flooding hazards and flood protection, emergency response and disaster preparedness, and hazardous materials. The summary below tracks the organization of the Safety Element and other relevant elements, with topically-focused goals and policies.

Safety Element
This element summarizes broad policies that ensure adequate public facilities and services exist and are maintained to meet the safety needs of the community. Relevant safety goals are outlined in Table 2-11.

Table 2-11: City of Sebastopol Safety Element Goals
Goal Goal Description
Goal SA 1 Minimize the risk of injury and property damage resulting from seismic and geologic hazards Goal SA 2 Reduce risks to human life, property, and public services associated with flood hazards Goal SA 3 Protect the safety of life and property by ensuring emergency preparedness Goal SA 4 Reduce fire hazards and maintain effective fire and emergency response services Goal SA 5 Maintain effective police services
Goal SA 6 Reduce hazards associated with the transportation, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes and hazardous materials
Conservation and Open Space Element
The Conservation and Open Space Element provides a framework to protect and maintain the City’s natural and open space resources, specifically water and wetland resources and groundwater quality. It includes goals and policies to protect air quality in the City. Relevant natural resource and groundwater goals are outlined in Table 2-12.

Table 2-12: City of Sebastopol Open Space and Conservation Goals Goal Goal Description
Goal COS 1 Make proactive, forward-thinking environmental protection and resource management the cornerstone of Sebastopol’s identity
Goal COS 2 Protect and enhance Sebastopol’s ecosystem and natural habitats Goal COS 3 Protect and enhance water resources in local creeks, riparian habitat, wetlands, the Laguna de Santa Rosa watershed, Atascadero Creek, and aquatic habitat

Goal Goal Description
Goal COS 4 Proactively manage, protect, and restore the Laguna de Santa Rosa Goal COS 5 Protect, manage, and enhance groundwater as a valuable and limited shared resource Goal COS 6 Conserve, protect, and enhance trees and native vegetation Goal COS 7 Improve air quality in Sebastopol and reduce air quality impacts from future development Goal COS 8 Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from City operations and community sources Goal COS 9 Promote conservation of energy and other natural resources Goal COS 10 Protect and preserve Sebastopol’s historic and cultural resources Goal COS 11 Preserve and enhance scenic views of the Laguna de Santa Rosa, Atascadero Creek, the hills to the west of Sebastopol, and other natural resources within the Sebastopol planning area Goal COS 12 Ensure the provision and preservation of diverse and accessible open spaces throughout the Sebastopol planning area
Community Services and Facilities Element
Planning for growth and development requires the consideration of a wide range of public services and facilities. The City’s Community Services and Facilities Element includes goals and policies related to water supply, fire prevention, the provision of community services related to public safety, and emergency preparedness. Relevant goals are outlined in Table 2-13.

Table 2-13: City of Sebastopol Community Services and Facilities Element Goals Goal Goal Description
Goal CSF 3 Provide an adequate, clean, safe, and environmentally sound water supply to all existing and future water users in Sebastopol
Goal CSF 5 Provide effective, high quality, and responsive police and fire services to all areas of the City Goal CSF 6 Enhance the quality of life for all City residents through the provision of cultural and social resources including quality schools, libraries, and other community services and facilities 2023 Housing Element (2015)
The City prepared the latest Housing Element in 2015 for the 2015 to 2023 planning period. The Housing Element is one of the seven mandatory elements of the General Plan. The Housing Element provides a long-term comprehensive plan to address the housing needs for all economic segments of the community. It addresses existing and projected housing demand and establishes goals, objectives, policies, and actions to assist the City in implementing the plan in accordance with other General Plan policies. The 2015-2023 Housing Element was prepared under a separate timeline and under different detailed State criteria. The Housing Element includes a review of the 2010 Housing Element, an analysis of the City’s current and future housing needs, an inventory of housing resources, an analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing production, a housing plan (goals, policies, and programs) to address housing needs, and a General Plan consistency analysis.

Floodplain Management Regulations and NFIP Participation (1983) The City of Sebastopol has participated in the NFIP since 1980 by administering floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP. The purpose of these regulations is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. These regulations apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of Sebastopol identified in FEMA’s most recent FIS completed for Sonoma County on March 7, 2017. The Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), also known as the base flood, 100 year flood (1 percent annual chance flood) in the City is mapped as Zone A or AE.

Floodplain management is administered through the City’s Building and Safety Department. The City maintains records of BFE certificates for the properties within the SFHA (although they are not tracked electronically). The NFIP is administered by the City Building Official (Floodplain Administrator).

City of Sebastopol Emergency Operations Plan
The City’s recently initiated updating their EOP. The EOP is a basic plan that addresses the City of Sebastopol’s responsibilities for emergencies associated with natural disaster, human-caused emergencies, and technological incidents. It provides a framework for coordination of response and recovery efforts within the City and in coordination with local, state, and federal agencies. The plan establishes emergency organization staff to direct and control operations during a period of emergency by assigning responsibilities to specific personnel. It includes procedures for emergencies that may or may not require the full or partial activation of an Emergency Operation Center (EOC). The City’s response to an emergency incident is coordinated through the EOC. As part of this effort, the City is also preparing a City-wide evacuation route plan.

2.9.2 City of Sebastopol Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities Table 2-14 identifies the City personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in the City of Sebastopol.

Table 2-14: City of Sebastopol’s Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position
Planner/engineer with knowledge of land
development/land management practices
Yes Planning Department/Planning
Director/Associate Planner
Engineer/professional trained in construction
practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure
Yes Building and Safety Department / Chief
Building Official
Planner/engineer/scientist with an understanding of
natural hazards
Yes Fire Department/Fire Chief
Personnel skilled in GIS No GIS Services hosted by the City of Santa Rosa Full-time building official Yes Building and Safety Department / Chief Building Official
Floodplain manager Yes Building and Safety Department / Chief Building Official (Floodplain Administrator)
Emergency manager No Fire Department/Fire Chief
Grant Writer No Handled within each department/program
GIS data—Hazard areas No GIS Services hosted by the City of Santa Rosa GIS data—Critical facilities No GIS Services hosted by the City of Santa Rosa GIS data—Building footprints No GIS Services hosted by the City of Santa Rosa GIS data—Land use No GIS Services hosted by the City of Santa Rosa GIS data—Assessor’s data No GIS Services hosted by the City of Santa Rosa Warning Systems/Service (Reverse 911, cable
override, outdoor warning signals)
Yes Flood alert system; Cal WARN; EAS; SoCo Alert
Source: HMPC Data Collection Guide; City of Sebastopol GIS Viewer is hosted here: https://maps.srcity.org/Html5Viewer/Index.html?viewer=sebastopol

City Departments/Agencies
The City of Sebastopol government consists of a City Council with five members including the Mayor. The City Council appoints the City Manager. Each City of Sebastopol department and service group is summarized below.

City Attorney’s Office
The City Attorney is responsible for legal advice and representation of the City Council and all city departments. The City Attorney coordinates all legal representation of the City, including outside counsel, if needed. At the direction of the City Council, the City Attorney prepares all ordinances and other legal documents for Council consideration.

City’s Clerk Office
The City Clerk’s office provides a variety of administrative services in support of the City Council. The City Clerk's role includes coordination of local ballot measures and City Council elections with the County Registrar of Voters, compliance with state campaign reporting and conflict of interest laws, and overall records keeping of the City. The City Clerk serves as Clerk of the Council and maintains all official City records, administers Fair Political Practice and conflict of interest legislation; maintains official City seal; administers municipal elections; serves as an executive assistant to the City Manager and is responsible for providing confidential support to the City Manager, the Council and other City staff.

City Manager’s Office
The City Manager is the administrative head of the government of the City and works under the direction and control of the City Council. The City Manager has authority over the City's employees, has the authority to appoint, remove, promote and demote any and all officers and employees of the City. The City Manager department provides oversight to the following six departments:
• Building and Safety Division. The Building and Safety Department is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the City of Sebastopol's construction codes relative to new and existing development, and alteration or repair to residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and properties. The Department plans, coordinates, and manages all City activities related to building and construction inspections, including review of construction plans, drawings, specifications for compliance with state and local requirements.
• Planning Division. The Planning Department provides planning and environmental review assistance to the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, and Public Arts Committee. The department also provides services to citizen committees, the City's residents and the real estate, development and construction industries. This service is divided into two primary functions. Current planning includes receiving and processing all applications for land use permits, subdivision and other development permits, preparing staff reports for the appropriate City boards and commissions and performing inspections to assure compliance with zoning and other planning regulations. This includes preparation of environmental documents as required by State and City law and policies.

Advance planning includes preparation of long-range planning documents, special studies, policy development, and preparation of municipal ordinances.
• Fire Department. The Sebastopol Fire Department's mission is to be a leading emergency service organization by meeting the service requirements of our community in fire prevention, fire suppression, rescue and education; utilizing and improving the dedication and skills of our people; and continually improving all of City services and operations.

• Administrative Services Department. The Administrative Services (also referred to as the Finance Department) Department is responsible for the City's financial records including preparation of the annual City budget and ongoing monitoring of City's financial health. This Department prepares and issues financial status or informational reports; prepares annual User Fee Schedule updates; and completes the annual State Controllers reports. The Department services the City's municipal bond debt; manages two assessment districts; provides Risk Management services; maintains the Fixed Asset inventory for the City; and provides financial support to other departments with the administration and management of grants and projects. The department also provides financial management for the Water and Sewer enterprise funds by billing, collecting, and rate setting. • Police Services Department. The Police Department administers two budgets: Police Service and Animal Control, providing comprehensive community-based police services. The department coordinates counseling with a community-based agency for at-risk youth. Current personnel includes 16 sworn Police Officers, including the Chief of Police and Lieutenant; six Dispatchers and one Police Technician.
• Public Works Department and Engineering Division. The Public Works Department is responsible for operation and maintenance of the City infrastructure, including the water and sewer systems, industrial waste system, streets, parks, swimming pool, parking lots and government buildings. Public Works Department also provides inspection of private and public construction projects on public streets and properties and supervises City Engineering Division. The Engineering Division provides administrative and technical engineering services.

2.9.3 City of Sebastopol Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Table 2-15 identifies financial tools or resources that the City could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities.

Table 2-15: City of Sebastopol’s Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Financial Resources Accessible/Eligible
to Use (Yes/No)
Comments
Community Development Block Grants Yes The City is an Entitlement Jurisdiction under the CDBG Program. A majority of
CDBG allocation is for housing
development and housing-related
services. The funds, granted through the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) target programs
and/or projects geared towards
assisting low and moderate-income
persons by providing decent housing, a
suitable living environment, and
expanding economic opportunity.

Capital Improvements Project funding Yes The City implements their Capital Improvement Program: 2021 –
2026 and relies on HMGP grants or Cal
OES planning grants for project
implementation.

Authority to levy taxes and assessments
for specific purposes
Yes Tax assessment for water and
wastewater department services via
billing, collecting and rate setting.

Assessments can also be tied to specific
mitigation projects.

Financial Resources Accessible/Eligible
to Use (Yes/No)
Comments
Fees for water, sewer, services Yes Utility fees can be used for hazard mitigation of water and sewer projects.

These fees are currently collected by the
Administrative Services Department.

Impact fees for new development Yes The City oversees a comprehensive development impact fee program.

Incur debt through general obligation
bonds
Yes
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
Incur debt through private activities Yes
Withhold spending in hazard prone areas No

2.9.4 Mitigation Outreach and Partnership Capabilities
Sonoma County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2016) The Sonoma County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) consists of three components: a collaborative effort of input from various agencies and community members, the identification of prioritized treatment areas and mitigation strategies, and the recommendation of measures to reduce ignitability of structures. The plan was developed with Fire Safe Sonoma, Cal Fire, and Sonoma County.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the Fire Safe Sonoma’s 2016 CWPP. The County is currently updating the CWPP; the update is anticipated to be complete in 2021.

Regional Climate Protection Authority Climate Action Plan (2016) The RCPA is governed by a twelve member Board of Directors comprised of representatives from the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and Council Members from each of the nine cities – Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Sebastopol, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma and Windsor. The RCPA coordinates climate protection activities countywide and performs a variety of important related functions including advocacy, project management, planning, finance, grant administration, and research. The Climate Action 2020 and Beyond, Sonoma County’s Regional Climate Action Plan published in 2016 was a collaborative effort between Sonoma County and all nine cities within the County. The Regional Climate Action Plan (CAP) is specific to the reduction of countywide GHG emissions. The Regional CAP sets forth near-term actions to be implemented through 2020 to achieve a 25 percent reduction in countywide GHG emissions. Although this plan is still referenced as it relates to the County’s GHG emissions inventory and targets, it was not formally adopted by the County.

Climate Mobilization Strategy (2021)
In 2020 the RCPA developed the Climate Mobilization Strategy to support a resolution that declared a Climate Emergency that was adopted by the RCPA Board in September 2019. This strategy solidifies the County’s commitment to mobilizing an emergency response commensurate with the scale of the climate crisis (RCPA 2021). The 10-year Emergency Policy package outlines 14 countywide actions with the potential to reduce GHG emissions by 2030 under local authority. This Strategy was adopted by the RCPA in March 2021. The RCPA has since convened working groups to begin funding and implementing the plans for the Strategy.

City of Sebastopol Climate Emergency Resolution (2019)
The City Council adopted a climate emergency resolution in November 2019. The City established a Climate Subcommittee of the City Council to evaluate and propose actions to reduce GHG emissions and increase climate resilience and adaptation.

Sonoma County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (2021) The Sonoma County HMP assesses the County’s vulnerabilities to hazards and presents a mitigation strategy of actions intended to reduce the disruption to life, property, and economy that might result from a natural disaster. Permit Sonoma and the Fire Prevention Division prepared the update in 2021. The HMP focuses on earthquake, flood, wildland fire, and landslide hazards, as they were considered to constitute the greatest risk to the County based on past disaster events, future probabilities, and vulnerability. Within the risk assessment, secondary and tertiary are addressed, such as winter storms, coastal erosion, bluff failure, tsunamis, and post fire erosion. The planning process for updating this plan utilizes a MJHMP approach. It involved collaboration with local jurisdictions in the community, including the cities of Santa Rosa, Cotati, and Sonoma; the Town of Windsor; two resource conservation districts; and five fire districts.

Sonoma Water Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018)
Sonoma Water, previously referred to as Sonoma County Water Agency, is a wholesale provider of potable water that serves nine municipal customers in Sonoma and Marin counties. The water agency maintains a water transmission system that provides naturally filtered Russian River water, builds variety of flood protection projects, manages the county sanitation zones and districts that provide wastewater collection and treatment and recycled water distribution, and produces recycled water from its wastewater treatment plants to offset surface water drawn from the Russian River.

Sonoma Water implements the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in Sonoma County and is actively working to protect the basins throughout the region. The water agency adopted a LHMP in 2018 to assess the natural hazard risks and vulnerabilities facing the agency’s infrastructure, and to articulate a plan to address the vulnerabilities. The plan includes three tailored mitigation strategies focusing on water supply and distribution, sewer and sanitation, and flood control projects.

Community Shelters
The Sebastopol Community Center at 390 Morris Street has been designated a community shelter during recent wildfires.

Other Planning Capabilities (Ongoing)
The HMPC noted the following additional mitigation outreach efforts during planning sessions:
• Emergency Response Plan. The City Public Works Department is in the process of updating their ERP. It contains a detailed summary of the City’s public utilities, including all water and wastewater system, such as the four City groundwater wells, three steel water storage tanks, and chemical storage facilities. The ERP inventories the City’s response resources, including generators and wastewater pump station information. The ERP outlines resilience strategies, including resources in place to improve the resilience of the utility system, including the physical security and cybersecurity of the system. It will also consist of incident-specific response procedures for cybersecurity, drought, earthquake, extreme cold/winter storms, extreme heat, flooding, algal blooms, and wildfires. Other mitigation actions, with the exception of earthquake anchoring and security detection strategies and operations in the ERP are under development.
• Map Your Neighborhood. The Map Your Neighborhood (MYN) program is sponsored by the Gravenstein Health Action Coalition with task force members from the City of Sebastopol Fire Department. MYN is designed to help neighborhoods prepare for disasters. When a crisis occurs, those physically closest to you may be your greatest help. Emergency personnel will likely not be available to immediately assist your area. The MYN provides basic education to prepare

neighborhoods through a step-by-step process to customize an emergency preparedness plan for an area.
• City’s Website. The City of Sebastopol’s website provides public information and resource. Including information related to the PG&E Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS). The City’s social media accounts (Twitter, Facebook) are used to disseminate public information. • Barlow Flood Emergency Operation Plan (2020). The City required that Barlow Planned Development prepare and implement a Flood Emergency Operation Plan and Inspection and Maintenance Plan to establish flood emergency operations as part of its floodproofing design. The initial plan was completed in December 2011 and complied with the FEMA Technical Bulletin 9-93 Non-Residential Floodproofing Requirements and Certification for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas in accordance with the NFIP. In April 2012 the City issued the Flood Plain Development Permit for the development, which incorporated the Flood Emergency Operation Plan, as well as an Inspection and Maintenance Plan and the backup power plan. Between 2012 and 2016, the Barlow development team tested the system to ensure the plan met the FEMA requirements and found the testing of the system was successful and in compliance with the flood mitigation plan approved by the City. However, during the 2019 flood event, the development sustained significant flood damage and the City directed the developers to review their plan and make amendments to ensure it was consistent with FEMA regulations. The City Council approved the revised plan on February 18, 2020.

2.9.5 Opportunities for Enhancement
Based on the capability assessment, the City has several existing mechanisms in place that help to mitigate hazards. In addition to these existing capabilities, there are opportunities for the City to expand or improve on these policies and programs to further protect the community. Future opportunities for enhancement to comply with Assembly Bill 2140 include amending the Sebastopol General Plan Safety Element to incorporate the LHMP by reference. The City can update other plans, such as the City’s 5 Year CIP to include hazard mitigation actions and climate adaptation strategies that relate to infrastructure resiliency. Other future improvements may include providing hazard training for staff or hazard mitigation grant funding in partnership with Sonoma County and Cal OES.

CRS Program Participation
The City of Sebastopol does not currently participate in the NFIP CRS Program. There are also only 37 flood insurance policies in effect in the City. With a small number of policies, the City will need to determine if it makes sense to apply to participate in the program. Table 2-16 shows the CRS discount for policy holders if the City did participate in the program at a Class 9.

Table 2-16: Cost Savings by Policy and by Community under CRS Class 9 CRS Class Description Total SFHA X-STD/AR/A99
9 Per Policy $529 $592 $34
Per Community $19,558 $19,524 $34
8 Per Policy $1,056 $1,183 $34
Per Community $39,082 $39,048 $34
7 Per Policy $1,584 $1,775 $34
Per Community $58,606 $58,572 $34
6 Per Policy $2,113 $2,367 $68
Per Community $78,164 $78,096 $68
5 Per Policy $2,640 $2,958 $68
Per Community $97,688 $97,620 $68
4 Per Policy $3,168 $3,550 $68
Per Community $117,213 $117,144 $68

CRS Class Description Total SFHA X-STD/AR/A99
3 Per Policy $3,696 $4,141 $68
Per Community $136,737 $136,668 $68
2 Per Policy $4,223 $4,773 $68
Per Community $156,261 $156,192 $68
1 Per Policy $4,751 $5,325 $68
Per Community $175,785 $175,716 $68 1
– SHFA includes Zones A, AE, A1-A30, V, V1-V30, AO, and AH; discount varies depending on class. 2 – SFHA includes Zones A99, AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/A1-A30, AR/AH, and AR/AO; 10 percent discount for Classes 1-6; 5 percent discount for Classes 7-9 Source: CRS 2021
At Class 9, there is an average discount of $592 per policy for the 33 policies in place within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and approximately $19,000 in annual savings. This is a substantial saving from a per policy perspective. However, the City needs to determine what works best for their community. CRS participation will only provide specific benefits to 37 policy holders; however, the program does provide benefits to the greater community beyond the policy holder insurance discounts, such as comprehensive floodplain management practices, public awareness about flood hazards and insurance, and flood protection assistance.

Other Opportunities
Additional training opportunities will help to inform City staff members on how best to integrate hazard information and mitigation projects into their departments. Continuing to train City staff on mitigation and the hazards that pose a risk to the City of Sebastopol will lead to more informed staff members who can better communicate this information to the public.

This page is intentionally left blank.

3 Planning Process
44 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Requirements §201.6 Local Mitigation Plans (b) and §201.6(c)(1): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; 2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests to be involved in the planning process; and 3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.

3.1 Background on Mitigation Planning in the City of Sebastopol This multi-hazard, single-jurisdiction Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Update is customized plan tailored for the City of Sebastopol (City). The City’s previous plan, “Taming Natural Hazards,” adopted in 2005, was a regional, multi-jurisdictional LHMP for all nine counties within the Bay Area prepared on behalf of the City by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The City participated as an annex to the regional plan in 2010 which has since expired in 2015. ABAG is no longer managing the update of the multi-jurisdictional LHMP which requires the City to create a single-jurisdiction update to their original annex.

The increasing cost of disaster recovery in the nation and the State of California over the past decades, and specifically from the recent wildfires in 2017, 2019, and 2020, has prompted a renewed interest in determining effective and holistic approaches to minimize natural hazards. Hazard mitigation planning plays an important role in building community resilience through the identification of hazards, assessment of vulnerabilities, and the development of mitigation actions. The City recognized the importance of developing a customized and updated LHMP and was responsible for initiating its development in 2020.

The goal of the LHMP Update is to develop practical, attainable, and cost-effective mitigation actions to reduce vulnerability to the identified hazards and reduce human, property, and economic losses from hazard events. The City contracted with Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood) to facilitate and develop the plan. Wood’s role was to:
• Assist in establishing the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) as defined by the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) commonly known as the 2000 Stafford Act Amendments;
• Meet the DMA requirements as established by federal regulations and follow the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) planning guidance;
• Facilitate the entire planning process based on a Public Outreach Strategy; • Identify the data requirements for the HMPC and conduct the research and documentation necessary to augment that data;
• Perform risk assessments that identify, evaluate, and prioritize natural and human-caused hazards that could impact the City;

• Conduct a vulnerability assessment to identify the hazard’s impacts on the City’s critical facilities, infrastructure, property, and future development;
• Assist in facilitating the public input process;
• Integrate the risk and vulnerability assessment to help the City determine appropriate mitigation goals and objectives to minimize long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards; • Produce draft and final plan documents; and
• Coordinate with California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and FEMA Region IX plan reviews.

The original plan developed by ABAG broadly covered natural hazards and vulnerabilities in the City of Sebastopol. This new and updated plan expands on the multi-jurisdictional LHMP and is tailored to address the natural and human-caused hazards in the City, the identified hazard impacts specific to Sebastopol’s critical facilities and infrastructure, and the development of a locally attainable mitigation strategy. The new LHMP will involve adopting, implementing, assigning responsibility, monitoring, and reviewing the mitigation actions over time to ensure the goals and objectives of the plan are being achieved and the plan remains relevant. The remainder of this chapter provides a narrative of the steps taken to prepare the LHMP.

3.2 Local Government Participation
The LHMP Update is a single-jurisdictional plan that covers the City of Sebastopol Planning Area, which is the same boundary as the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary. The DMA planning regulations and guidance stress that each local government seeking FEMA approval of their mitigation plan must participate in the planning effort in the following ways:
• Participate in the process as part of the HMPC
• Identify potential mitigation actions; and
• Formally adopt the plan.

For the City of Sebastopol’s HMPC, “participation” was defined at the outset of the planning process as the following:
• Providing a virtual meeting space to ensure HMPC engagement during in the LHMP planning process; • Completing and returning the Wood Data Collection Guide; • Collecting and providing other requested data (as available); • Managing administrative details;
• Engaging the community during the facilitation of two public outreach workshops; • Making decisions on plan process and content;
• Identifying mitigation actions for the plan;
• Reviewing and providing comments on plan drafts;
• Informing the public, local officials, and other interested parties, such as the Planning Commission and Climate Action Commission about the planning process and providing opportunity for them to comment on the plan;
• Advertising, coordinating, and participating in the public input process; and

• Coordinating the formal recommendation of the plan by the City Planning Commission and formal adoption of the plan by the City Council.

The City met all FEMA’s requirements for plan participation. The City brought together a local planning team with representatives from City departments to help collect data, identify mitigation actions and implementation strategies, and review and provide data on plan drafts. The City engaged several federal, state, regional, and local stakeholder representatives from various agencies and municipalities in the region. In most cases, one or more representatives from each City department and each agency attended the three HMPC meetings.

The preparation of the updated LHMP was also intended to assist the City in reducing its risk from natural and man-made hazards by identifying resources, information, and strategies for risk reduction. For the City’s HMPC, the intention of the plan is to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout the City’s various departments, as this is their first stand-alone and customized LHMP since the multijurisdictional regional LHMP prepared by ABAG. As a result, the HMPC set out to develop a plan that would meet the objectives summarized below.
• The plan would meet or exceed program requirements specified under the DMA of 2000. • The plan would not only meet Cal OES and FEMA requirements, but also the needs of the City. • The plan would coordinate existing and ongoing plans and programs already established at the City so that high priority initiatives and projects to mitigate possible disaster impacts would be funded and implemented.
• The plan would create a linkage between the LHMP and established plans such as the Sebastopol General Plan Safety Element and City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) so that existing planning mechanisms can be integrated to help the City achieve successful mitigation.

Given plan integration is a key strategy in the success of LHMP implementation, the HMPC focused on consistency between plans and programs at the City, including the Sebastopol General Plan and the City’s CIP. The HMPC focused on ensuring each department representative consulted with their individual departments in between meetings to ensure existing capabilities were adequately documented in the LHMP and that mitigation actions were thoroughly reviewed and developed by a range of department leads throughout the City. Appendix A provides additional information and documentation of the planning process.

3.3 The 10-Step Planning Process
The City followed a planning process for the LHMP Update that uses the DMA planning requirements and FEMA’s associated guidance. This guidance is structured around a four-phase process:
1) Organize Resources
2) Assess Risks
3) Develop the Mitigation Plan
4) Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
Into this process, the City integrated a detailed 10-step planning process used for FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) programs, if Sebastopol intends to join the CRS. Thus, the modified 10-step requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants (HMA) including Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation program (PDM) (now Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities [BRIC]), FMA, CRS, and the flood control projects authorized by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are addressed. FEMA’s March 2013 Local Mitigation Planning Handbook

recommends a nine step process within the four-phase process. Table 3.1 summarizes the four-phase DMA process, the detailed CRS planning steps and work plan used to develop the plan, the nine handbook planning tasks from FEMA’s 2013 Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, and where the results are captured in the plan. The sections that follow describe each planning step in more detail, including information on the schedule and general timeframe of activities that took place to develop the plan.

Table 3-1: Mitigation Planning Processes Used to Develop the City of Sebastopol’s LHMP Update FEMA 4-Phase
Guidance Phases
CRS Planning Steps 2013 FEMA Local Mitigation
Planning Handbook Steps (44 CFR
Part 201)
Location in LHMP
Phase 1: Organize
Resources
Step 1. Organize
Resources
1: Determine the Planning Area
and Resources
Chapters 1, 2, and 3
2: Build the Planning Team 44 CFR
201.6(c)(1)
Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1
Step 2. Involve the public 3: Create an Outreach Strategy 44 CFR 201.6(b)(1)
Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1
Step 3. Coordinate with
Other Agencies
4: Review Community Capabilities
44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) & (3)
Chapter 2, Section 2.2;
Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1
Phase 2: Identify
Hazards and Assess
Risks
Step 4. Assess the hazard 5: Conduct a Risk Assessment 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(i) 44 CFR
201.6(c)(2)(ii) & (iii)
Chapter 4, Sections 4.1
through 4.3
Step 5. Assess the
problem
Chapter 4, Sections 4.1
through 4.3
Phase 3: Develop a
Mitigation Strategy
Step 6. Set goals 6: Develop a Mitigation Strategy
44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(i); 44 CFR
201.6(c)(3)(ii); and 44 CFR
201.6(c)(3)(iii)
Chapter 5, Section 5.1
Step 7. Review possible
activities
Chapter 5, Section 5.2
Step 8. Draft an action
plan
Chapter 5, Section 5.3
Phase 4: Implement
and Monitor the
Plan
Step 9. Adopt the plan 8: Review and Adopt the Plan Chapter 6, Appendix C Step 10. Implement,
evaluate, and revise
7: Keep the Plan Current Chapter 7
9: Create a Safe and Resilient
Community 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4)
Chapter 7

3.3.1 Phase 1: Organize Resources
Planning Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort
The organization of the planning effort was initiated as a joint commitment and effort by the City’s Planning Department and Fire Department to develop the plan and establish the framework and organization for the planning process. Organizational efforts were initiated with the City to inform and educate the HMPC participants of the purpose and need for the City, single-jurisdictional LHMP update.

The City held an initial call on July 9, 2020 with Wood to discuss the organizational aspects of this planning process. On August 2, 2020 the City circulated the HMPC invitee list. The schedule of subsequent planning activities is summarized in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Schedule of Planning Activities Project Task Meeting Date(s)
Project Kick-Off Meeting July 9, 2020
Circulate Draft HMPC Invitee List August 2, 2020
Submit HMPC Meeting #1 Agenda August 17, 2020
HMPC Meeting #1 October 20, 2020
Submit Draft Public Outreach Strategy October 16, 2020
City and HMPC Review of Public Outreach Strategy October 20, 2020 Public Outreach Meeting/Workshop #1 October 27, 2020

Project Task Meeting Date(s)
Circulate Public Survey (3-month survey period) November 1, 2020 Prepare Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment January 20, 2021 HMPC Meeting #2 February 4, 2021
Develop Goals and Objectives February 15, 2021
HMPC Meeting #3 March 16, 2021
Compile Mitigation Action Worksheets April 15, 2021
Submit 1st Administrative Draft LHMP April 30, 2021
City and HMPC provides consolidated comments on 1st Administrative Draft LHMP May 14, 2021 Submit 2nd Administrative Draft LHMP May 28, 2021
Complete FEMA Region IX Review Tool: Elements A through D May 31, 2021 Circulate Public Review Draft LHMP (30-day public review) October 21, 2021 Public Meeting/Workshop #2 October 26, 2021
Public Review Ends November 19, 2021
Submit Final Draft LHMP to Cal OES for review (45-day review period) December 3, 2021 Submit Final Draft LHMP to FEMA Region IX for review January 17, 2021 City Council Hearing* TBD
*City Council Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month.

Invitations to the kick-off meeting were extended to key City departments, and federal and state agencies, Sonoma County, neighboring municipalities, and key stakeholders. Using FEMA planning guidance, representatives from City departments established the base membership for the HMPC stakeholder committee. The HMPC also included representatives from federal, state, and local agencies, and stakeholders from the local school district, senior center, and other organizations. Key representatives from neighboring communities included staff from the Sonoma County Department of Emergency Management, Sebastopol Union School District, and City of Petaluma. The list of agencies and individuals invited to participate is included in Appendix A.

The HMPC was established as a result of this effort, as well as through interest generated through outreach conduced for this project, which is outlined in more detail in the Public Outreach Strategy. The HMPC collectively developed the plan with leadership from the City and facilitation by Wood. The HMPC meetings also had participation from other agency stakeholders with an interest in hazard mitigation, which are described in Planning Step 3. Representatives from the following City departments and other agencies participated on the HMPC:

City of Sebastopol
• City Manager’s Office
• City Clerk Office
• City Attorney
• Building and Safety Department
• Planning Department
• Administrative Services (Finance) Department
• Police Department
• Public Works Department and Engineering Division
Other Agency and Organization Stakeholders
• Sonoma County

• Sebastopol Union School District
• City of Petaluma
A list of participating HMPC representatives is included in Appendix B. This list includes all HMPC members that attended one or more HMPC meetings detailed in Table 3-2. The City also utilized the support of other City staff in order to collect and provide requested data and to conduct timely reviews of draft documents. The core HMPC group was also supplemented by input from other government and stakeholder representatives that contributed to the planning process as identified in Planning Step 3:

Coordinate with Other Department and Agencies.

The planning process officially began with a kick-off meeting on October 20, 2020. The meeting covered the scope of work and an introduction to the DMA requirements. Participants were provided with a Data Collection Guide, which included worksheets to facilitate the collection of information necessary to support development of the plan. Using FEMA guidance, Wood designed these worksheets to capture information on past hazard events, identify hazards of concern to the jurisdiction, quantify values at risk to identified hazards, inventory existing capabilities, and record possible mitigation actions. A copy of the Data Collection Guide for this project is included in Appendix A. The City completed and returned the worksheets in the data collection guide to Wood staff for incorporation into the plan.

During the planning process, the HMPC communicated through virtual sessions/workshops, email, and monthly virtual meetings, and added information to the City’s LHMP Webpage. Draft documents were distributed via email to the City (Planning and Fire Department representatives) and then distributed to the HMPC stakeholders. The HMPC met three times during the planning period (October 20, 2020 through March 23, 2021).

The dates and purposes of these meetings are described in Table 3-3. The HMPC also met internally (monthly) in between meetings to help the City’s Planning Department and Fire Department track deliverables, worksheet materials, and public outreach documentation. Agendas for each of the meetings and lists of attendees are included in Appendix A. Figure 3-1 is from HMPC Meeting #1.

Table 3-3: Schedule of Planning Meetings
Meeting Type Meeting Topic Meeting Date(s)
HMPC Meeting #1 Kick-off meeting: introduction to DMA, the planning process, and hazard identification
October 20, 2020
HMPC Meeting #2 Risk assessment overview and work session on new goal development
February 4, 2021
HMPC Meeting #3 Development of mitigation actions; selection and prioritization of mitigation recommendations
March 23, 2021
At HMPC Meeting #1, the planning process scope and schedule were discussed, along with the list of hazards addressed in the plan, followed by a presentation that summarized hazard vulnerability. The group was asked what hazards presented the greatest concern. Figure 3-1 is from HMPC Meeting #1.

Figure 3-1: HMPC Meeting #1
HMPC Meeting #2 focused on the findings from the Risk Assessment and the specific vulnerabilities to the City’s critical assets and infrastructure that need to be addressed in the mitigation strategy. The HMPC also developed goals and objectives during HMPC Meeting #2. Figure 3-2 is from HMPC Meeting #2.

Figure 3-2: HMPC Meeting #2
This led to further discussion and the prioritization of mitigation actions developed at the HMPC Meeting #3. Figure 3-2 is from HMPC Meeting #3.

Figure 3-3: HMPC Meeting #3
Planning Step 2: Involve the Public
Early discussions with the City of Sebastopol established the initial plan for public involvement. At the kick-off meeting, the HMPC discussed options for public involvement and agreed to an approach using established public information mechanisms and resources within the community with a focus on digital platforms such as Zoom meetings, virtual public workshops scheduled in conjunction with Planning Commission meetings, and social media postings. This approach was outlined in the project’s Public Outreach Strategy (Appendix C). The approach was supported and implemented by the City’s Planning Department.

Public outreach was initiated during the plan development process with an informational press release to notify the public of the purpose of DMA and the hazard mitigation planning process for the City of Sebastopol. The City Planning Department coordinated the circulation of outreach materials, such as press releases and social media postings and advertisements prior to the first public workshop. Public involvement activities included the development of the LHMP Webpage, the organization of two public outreach workshops, and circulation of press releases and an online survey. The City compiled public comments received during the first public workshop and based on the first online survey.

The City also compiled public comments on the planning process, hazard profiles, risk assessment, and the Draft LHMP during a second public workshop. During this time formal comments on the draft plan circulated during public review were compiled and organized. These comments were submitted by email and through the second online form. The City received a total of one written public comment on the plan, in addition to several verbal comments provided by the Planning Commission and Climate Action Commission. The City incorporated public input by reviewing the comments and revising the LHMP prior to submittal to Cal OES and FEMA Region IX.

The City also took public comment during the second public workshop. The second public workshop was held as a virtual webinar. The City notified the project stakeholders and public about the second public workshop via email, the circulation of press releases, newspaper notices, and social media postings. The second public workshop was also advertised on daily and weekly City of Sebastopol news updates. The City received several verbal public comments during the second public workshop. Most of these

comments were regarding the critical facilities located within the floodplain and wildfire threat zones within the State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) around the City. A written comment letter was also submitted that noted minor typographical errors in the document.

Project Webpage
At the beginning of the planning process, the City created a LHMP Webpage linked to the City’s Main Website to keep the public informed on hazard mitigation, the development of the LHMP and the planning process, and as a place to solicit public input. The LHMP Webpage include a background section on hazard mitigation planning and the DMA. It also highlighted recent natural hazard events that have occurred in the City of Sebastopol and adjacent unincorporated Sonoma County. The LHMP Webpage publicized on all media releases, mailings, newsletters, surveys, and public meeting advertisements. It has a sidebar with the key deliverables, including the meeting agenda’s, minutes, sign-in sheets, and presentations from the various HMPC meetings and public workshops. The City intends to keep the LHMP Webpage active after the plan is completed to keep the public informed about the status of the mitigation actions. Figure 3-4 shows the City of Sebastopol LHMP Webpage.

The City made the Public Review Draft LHMP available on the LHMP Webpage in October 2021 here:
https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/City-Government/Departments-Services/Fire/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan Figure 3-4: City of Sebastopol Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Website (Original) Public Meetings/Workshops
Public meetings were held during the draft-plan development process and prior to finalizing the plan as further described in Table 3-4. The first public meeting was held on October 27, 2020 in conjunction with the City’s Planning Commission meeting. The second public meeting was held via a livestream virtual workshop on October 26, 2021. Figure 3-6 is a screenshot of the second public meeting/workshop.

Figure 3-5: 2nd Public Meeting/Workshop
All press releases and website postings are on file with the City of Sebastopol Planning Department. The public outreach activities described here were coordinated and fully supported by the City of Sebastopol.

The two public meetings/workshops scheduled and organized by the City are detailed in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4: Public Meetings
Meeting Topic Meeting Dates Meeting Locations
1st Public Meeting October 27, 2020 Livestream Virtual Workshop

2nd Public Meeting October 26, 2021 Livestream Virtual Workshop The first public meeting was held to solicit public and stakeholder input during draft development of the plan. Public outreach included an email distribution with a notice of the public meeting to the HMPC with direction to share with other associations, boards and committees and postings around the workplace.

The meeting notice was also posted on the City of Sebastopol LHMP Webpage. Approximately ten people attended the first Public Meeting. Workshop materials are included in Appendix A. There were several general comments during a presentation from the Planning Commissioners and the general public on the need to prepare a LHMP. One participant asked for information about the proposed outreach tools the team plans to use to engage the community. Another participant asked about collaborating with the Map your Neighborhood program. Where appropriate, stakeholder and public comments were incorporated into the final plan, including the sections that address mitigation goals and strategies.

The second public meeting was held to solicit pubic and stakeholder input after the Public Review Draft LHMP was circulated for input. The meeting was noticed the same way as the first meeting, which was through email distribution, press releases, social media, and the City’s LHMP Webpage. Approximately nine people participated in the meeting, including the City’s Planning Commissioners. An additional 11 people viewed the City’s meeting via the YouTube posting on social media and the City’s Webpage.

Comments submitted during the second public meeting also addressed proposed mitigation actions.

Where appropriate, stakeholder and public comments and recommendations were incorporated into the final plan, including the risk assessment and sections that address mitigation goals and strategies.

Comments submitted during the second public workshop and during public review will be summarized in this chapter. A summary of the meeting will also be shared with the HMPC and is included in Appendix A.

Prior to finalization of the plan a draft was made available on the City’s LHMP Webpage for a 30-day public comment period. The Public Review Draft LHMP update was circulated from October 21, 2021, through November 19, 2021. The City also posted an electronic form with the plan on the City’s LHMP Webpage to capture electronic comments (see Appendix A).

Online Survey
During the planning process and drafting stage, one web-based public survey was developed as a tool to gather public input. The survey was for the public to provide feedback to the HMPC on topics related to hazard concerns and reducing hazard impacts. The survey provided an opportunity for public input during the planning process and prior to finalization of the plan. The survey gathered public feedback on concerns about earthquakes, flooding, wildfires, climate change, and other hazards and solicited input on strategies to reduce their impacts. The first survey was released as on November 1, 2020 and closed on January 31, 2021 and (3-month comment period). The HMPC provided links to the public survey by distributing it using social media, email, and posting the link on the City’s LHMP Webpage. 137 responses were received on the survey. This information was shared with the HMPC to inform the process.

The survey included a total of 10 questions. There was a short section of questions on demographics, specifically on whether participants were residents of the City or the unincorporated portion of Sonoma County outside the City of Sebastopol. These questions also inquired about homeownership and insurance; the questions are also intended to compile information on what segments of the population participated on the survey and where additional outreach efforts may be necessary. The next section included questions on ranking hazard significance. The results track with the significance levels noted in Chapter 4 of this plan, with flooding, wildfires, and climate change being considered the most significant.

Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) and high wind events also ranked highly in significance based on the public input. The last section of the survey focused on questions related to mitigation actions that the City should consider in the plan. The results indicated that public education/awareness, planning/zoning, Meeting Topic Meeting Dates Meeting Locations

floodplain management improvements, indoor/outdoor warning systems were popular topics to the public. These results were shared with the HMPC and considered during the planning process. Figure 3-5 shows an example of the responses from the survey. The full results of the survey are included in Appendix A.

Figure 3-5: Example of Public Survey Response
Social Media
The City of Sebastopol used the following social media platforms to circulate information on the LHMP:
• City Facebook (7,680+ followers);
• City Twitter (1,030+ followers); and

• City Nextdoor (1,000+ followers).

The three social media platforms announced the kick-off of the LHMP planning process, advertised the City’s LHMP Webpage and other events, included a link to the online survey, notified the public about meetings and workshops, and announced the availability of the plan for public input and comment. Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 are examples of news feeds from the social media platforms: the City’s Facebook and Nextdoor pages that announced the first public workshop. Figure 3-8 advertised the availability of the Public Review Draft LHMP.

Figure 3-6: Example on Announcement of Public Workshop #1 on City’s Facebook Page

Figure 3-7: Notice of Public Workshop on City’s Nextdoor Page

Newspapers
The following regional and local print newspapers were used to circulate and advertise information on the LHMP, specifically the announcement of the public workshop:
• Sonoma West Times & News; and
• Press Democrat.

Press Releases
The City was encouraged to distribute and circulate press releases over the course of the LHMP development. The City and Wood staff also encouraged HMPC participants and stakeholders to distribute press releases during the project. Press releases were distributed as informational flyers, advertisements, posters, and public notices handed out during community events. These communication platforms were used to spread the news about the LHMP and invite the public to participate in the process.

Advertisements and press releases announced the kick-off of the LHMP planning process, advertised the City’s LHMP Webpage and other events, included links to the public survey, notified the public about workshops, and announced the availability of the plan for public input and comment. Press releases were distributed to multiple print and digital news agencies. Figure 3-8 is an example of a press releases and used to announce the public workshop in October 2020 and to notify the public about the LHMP update.

Figure 3-8: Press Release published prior to the 1st Public Meeting/Workshop Public Review and Comments on the Draft LHMP
The City circulated the Public Review Draft LHMP for 30 days; it was posted on the City’s LHMP Webpage and circulated from October 21, 2021, to November 19, 2021. The City solicited public input on the Draft LHMP by collecting and reviewing comments received during the public review period. Comments submitted during public review are summarized in this chapter and incorporated in the revised version of the Draft LHMP submitted to Cal OES and FEMA Region IX. Public comments received consisted of one written letter and several verbal comments made during the public meetings/workshops. General

comments consisted of relatively minor text errors and corrections, map updates related to critical facilities, flood risk in the City, and input on mitigation projects.

Planning Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies Early in the planning process, the HMPC determined that data collection, mitigation strategy development, and plan approval would be greatly enhanced by inviting state and federal agencies and organizations to participate in the process. Based on their involvement in hazard mitigation planning, their landowner status in the County, and/or their interest as a neighboring jurisdiction, representatives from the following agencies were invited to participate on the HMPC:
• Graton Fire Protection District
• Sonoma County Department of Emergency
Management
• City of Petaluma
• Sebastopol Union School District
• Sebastopol Area Senior Center
• Sebastopol Chamber of Commerce
Wood in coordination with the City and the HMPC also used technical data, reports, and studies from the following agencies and groups:
• American Red Cross
• California Department of Finance
• California Department of Fish and Game
• California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (Cal Fire)
• California Department of Parks and
Recreation Office of Historic Preservation
• California Department of Public Health
• California Department of Water Resources
• California OES
• California Geological Survey
• Sonoma County Department of Health
Services Environmental Health and Safety
Division
• USACE
• U.S. Center for Disease Protection
• U.S. Bureau of Land Management
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Forestry Service
• U.S. Geological Survey
• U.S. Census Bureau
• Federal Emergency Management Agency
• National Weather Service
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Climatic Data
Center
• National Resource Conservation Service
Several opportunities were provided for the above groups to participate in the planning process. At the beginning of the planning process, invitations were extended to the first group to actively participate on the HMPC and as a stakeholder representative to support the DMA planning process and to maximize credits under the NFIP CRS program if the City decides to participate in this program. Specific participants from these groups are detailed in Appendix C.

The City also provided various opportunities for Sonoma County and other neighboring communities, such as the City of Petaluma to participate in the City of Sebastopol LHMP update development. Others assisted in the process by providing data directly as requested in the Data Collection Guide or through data contained on their websites or as maintained by their offices. These groups were also invited to participate through the public outreach process, which included public workshops as previously described. Further as part of the HMPC and public outreach processes, all groups were invited to review and comment on the plan during public review and prior to submittal to Cal OES and FEMA.

Other Community Planning Efforts and Hazard Mitigation Activities Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the success of this plan. Hazard mitigation planning involves identifying existing policies, tools, and actions that will reduce a community’s risk and vulnerability to hazards. The City of Sebastopol uses a variety of comprehensive planning mechanisms, such as general plans and ordinances, to guide growth and development. Integrating existing planning efforts and mitigation policies and action strategies into this plan establishes a credible and comprehensive plan that ties into and supports other community programs. The development of this plan incorporated information from the following existing plans, studies, reports, and initiatives listed in Table 3-5. Other related planning efforts were inventoried in the capability assessment in Chapter 2.

Table 3-5: Incorporated Planning Mechanisms
City of Sebastopol Plans How Plan is Incorporated in LHMP City of Sebastopol General Plan
Safety Element (2015)
• Incorporated relevant hazard information from the Safety Element (Chapter 8) into the LHMP.
• Reviewed the Safety Element goals in HMPC Meeting #2 and developed new goals for the LHMP that were consistent and mutually reinforcing. • Reviewed the implementation program for the General Plan to determine if plan updates occurred, when, how often, and whether the next update can integrate the LHMP into the Safety Element.
• Discussed whether the Planning Commission wanted to participate and provide a consistency review with the City’s General Safety Element (and other elements).
• Assembly Bill 2140 requires the adoption of LHMPs into the General Plan Safety Element after LHMP Approval; this topic was discussed during each HMPC meeting.
• The LHMP emphasizes need to ensure General Plan is amended to include the LHMP after it is approved by City Council; this information is included in the chapter on the adoption process.

Zoning Ordinance • Chapter 16.40, Design and Improvement Standards of the Municipal Code contains a range of requirements that pertain to lot design, circulation, drainage, and grading that also include specific standards for fire protection, scenic areas, resources areas, and soil investigation. Chapter

16.40.110 requires mitigation for the protection and preservation of natural landforms. Chapter 16.40.120 requires protections for natural resources, such as riparian areas, wildlife areas, cultural resources sites, and wetland and water bodies through project design, setbacks, resource management plans, and mitigation.
• The HMPC reviewed these existing zoning requirements during HMPC Meeting #3 to develop new actions that exceeded existing requirements.

Growth Management Ordinance • The City’s Growth Management Program was established by the 1994 General Plan, which also established the UGB – the line beyond which development will not be allowed, except for public parks and public schools. The UGB was renewed for another 25 years with the adoption of the 2015 General Plan. The City’s HMPC reviewed both the SOI and UGB (both areas share mostly similar boundaries) to determine the best “planning area” for the City’s LHMP and selected the SOI.

NFIP Participation (1980) • The City of Sebastopol has participated in the NFIP since June 8, 1980 by administering floodplain management regulations; the current effective map date is March 7, 2017.
• The LHMP integrates information in the risk assessment on the most recent Flood Insurance Study (FIS) completed for Sonoma County on March 7, 2017.
• Reviewed DFIRMS and base flood elevation (BFE) data for critical facilities and properties identified within the flood hazard zones.

City of Sebastopol Plans How Plan is Incorporated in LHMP • Reviewed Repetitive Loss and Severe Repetitive Loss information from the Community Information System (CIS) and discussed the benefits of joining the CRS while also taking into account the low number of policy holders in the City (37 flood insurance policies).

Floodplain Ordinance • Articles I through V, the Flood Damage Prevention and Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction in Chapter 15.16 of the City’s Zoning Code contain standards of construction for all areas of special flood hazards, such as elevating structures two feet above the BFE, which goes beyond the minimum NFIP standards. The HMPC reviewed and discussed these standards during HMPC Meeting #3.
• Chapter 15 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code establishes the special flood hazard areas (SFHAs) in the City based on the March 7, 2017 Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for the City of Sebastopol and accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and flood boundary and floodway maps (FBFMs). It limits development of projects in the SFHA unless the project demonstrates flood management facilities will protect the project to the level of flood protection, implements conditions on the permit or project entitlement that protect the project to standard flood protection standards. These standards were also reviewed during the development of new mitigation actions in an effort to enhance the floodplain management activities in the City’s LHMP.

City of Sebastopol Fire-Year
Capital Improvement Plan: 2015
– 2020 (2021-2026 Update was
underway during LHMP planning
process)
• The CIP is a long-range plan that identifies capital projects, provides a planning schedule and identifies options for financing. It is considered the link between the project priorities of the City Council and the City’s annual budget.
• The CIP was reviewed to understand the prioritized projects the City wished to implement over the past five years (2021 – 2026 CIP was under development during this planning process) and to understand existing capabilities. These projects were reviewed during HMPC Meeting #3 to inform the development of new mitigation actions. Subsequent monthly follow-up meeting with the HMPC and City staff were organized to ensure the two plans were consistent and contained complementary projects. • Information from the CIP was also aggregated into the LHMP and supported by additional project information and programs outlined in the City’s General Plan, Utility Master Plans (Sewer, Water and Storm Drain Master Plans [2006]), and other goal-oriented planning documents. • Completed projects are cross referenced in the LHMP in some instances as they related to hazard mitigation (solar installations, sewer/pump station replacement, park improvements, groundwater studies, groundwater management plans, new wells [Well 8]).
• Projects that were tied to water supply and addressed mitigation of drought hazards were reviewed, as well as information on the City’s water and well production and distribution system. This information was integrated into the Risk Assessment and mitigation action planning session.
• The City’s Public Works Superintendent also discussed the CIP and integration with the LHMP as it related to the City’s sanitary sewer collection system and the 14-inch main line that conveys wastewater to the City of Santa Rosa Wastewater Treatment Facility.

City of Sebastopol Community
Water System Emergency
Response Plan (2020)
• The City’s Emergency Response Plan (ERP) was completed in 2020; it addresses utility information and summarizes protocols on actions that must be taken during a hazard incident. It covers all utility information, including the City’s pumping and storage facilities, water treatment

City of Sebastopol Plans How Plan is Incorporated in LHMP facilities, and pump stations. The City’s four wells are noted, as well as the chemical storage facilities in Sebastopol.
• The ERP was reviewed during the development of new mitigation actions to ensure the plan information is incorporated into the new mitigation actions, and matches the critical facilities evaluated in the Risk Assessment.

City of Sebastopol Emergency
Operations Plan (No Date)
• The EOP is a basic plan that addresses the City of Sebastopol’s responsibilities in emergencies associated with natural disaster, humancaused emergencies, and technological incidents. It provides a framework for coordination of recovery efforts within the City.
• The EOP was discussed at most HMPC meetings given it is outdated and needs to address current hazard issues in the City, especially because the Emergency Operation Center (EOC) has been activated over the past few years due to flooding, wildfires, and PSPS.

Climate Emergency Resolution
(2019)
• The City Council adopted a climate emergency resolution in November 2019. The City established a Climate Subcommittee of the City Council to evaluate and propose actions to reduce GHG emissions and increase climate resilience and adaptation. The City asked the Climate Subcommittee (also referred to as the Climate Action Committee [CAC]) to review the Public Review Draft LHMP.

Laguna Santa Rosa Master
Restoration Plan
• The Laguna Santa Rosa Master Restoration Plan (also referred to as the Restoration VISION for the Laguna Santa Rosa) details the restoration vision for the Laguna that incorporates the best available science, landscape change over the past 200 years, projected climate change impacts, and known constraints associated with restoration. • The plan was reviewed to understand the increased stormwater runoff and flooding issues associated with the waterway, as one of the first steps in the development of the plan was the vision for the 100-year floodplain.

Any infrastructure redesign goals associated with the plan could benefit floodplain management within the City of Sebastopol.
• The LHMP incorporates future flood flow information on the Laguna based on the four downscaled global climate models (GCMs) considered by the State and summarized in the Master Restoration Plan. These models show an increase in both the average and maximum number of days per decade the Laguna flows reach 6,000 cubic feet per second (cfs).

Other Plans
Sebastopol Municipal Services
Review (2006)
• The City of Sebastopol’s 2006 Municipal Services Review (MSR) identifies the future needs for the extension of infrastructure and the provision of services from the City to new development within the planning horizon. • This plan was reviewed to ensure facility and infrastructure needs were integrated into the LHMP and were consistent to the needs outlined in the City’s CIP (current MSR references to the City’s budget and CIP in the plan are based on 2005-2006 City budget and capital improvement information).
• The plan provides information on the City’s facilities and infrastructure and staff could compare facility lists to understand what is include in the LHMP and what facility was not included and why.
• The 2006 MSR was also reviewed to provide information to the City on the selection of the “planning area” for the LHMP given it provided detailed descriptions and maps of the City limits, SOI, and UGB. • The LHMP notes that the City’s ability to serve the anticipated growth within the SOI is not anticipated to have any adverse effects on the City,

City of Sebastopol Plans How Plan is Incorporated in LHMP as there are mechanisms in place to effectively expand facilities and services.

Sonoma County Operational
Area Hazard Mitigation Plan
(2016)
• Hazard profile information from the 2016 Sonoma County Operational Area HMP was incorporated throughout the LHMP, where appropriate; this included information on flooding, landslides, and earthquake hazards. • HMPC reviewed the Sonoma County Operational Area HMP goals during the development of the City of Sebastopol LHMP goals and objectives. • There are comparative tables on the hazards profiled in the state and county plan to those addressed in the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan. This information was helpful for the HMPC to compare which hazards to address and which to prioritize.
• Sonoma County stakeholder from the Department of Emergency Management participated in the HMPC meetings and provided mitigation goals and action strategies to consider developing in the City’s LHMP. • Sonoma County intends to update their plan in 2021; this provides the City with another opportunity to participate with hazard mitigation planning efforts in the region.

California State Hazard
Mitigation Plan (2018)
• Reviewed goals and objectives in the State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) and noted the new and revised hazards related to community resilience
• Reviewed the hazards profiled in the SHMP and compared those with the hazards summarized in the City’s 2016 Safety Element and the 2016 Sonoma County Operational Area HMP.
• Integrated disaster declaration information and other key findings on major hazards from the SHMP into the City’s LHMP Update. • Under 44 CFR Section 201.6, LHMPs must be consistent with the SHMP. In updating this plan, HMPC and Wood staff reviewed California’s SHMP to identify key relevant state plan elements.
• Climate change is expected to intensify existing hazards in the City.

Consistent with the organization of the 2018 California SHMP, the City and HMPC integrated a discussion of climate change hazards and considerations throughout the hazard profiles in the Risk Assessment.

Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater
Sustainability Agency Draft
Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(2020)
• The 20-year Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) ensures the sustainable use of groundwater within the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Basin (City’s water supply also comes from the Wilson Grove Formation area, which is part of the Petaluma Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency.
• The plan establishes standard groundwater management tools and incorporates best available scientific and technical information by building on the technical foundation established for the Santa Rosa Plain. • The plan integrates the interests of many users and uses of groundwater resources and is cross referenced in the LHMP Risk Assessment. The Risk Assessment notes the relatively stable groundwater conditions in the Wilson Grove basin and adjacent areas of the Santa Rosa Plain groundwater basin where the City operates their groundwater wells. This information was reviewed during the development of the City’s LHMP goals and mitigation actions to ensure they aligned with the GSP.

Other documents were reviewed and considered, as appropriate, during the collection of data to support Planning Steps 4 and 5, which include the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment. Appendix B References identifies additional documents and community planning efforts utilized in the development of this plan. Specific references relied on in the development of this plan are also sourced throughout the document as appropriate.

3.3.2 Phase 2: Assess Risks
Planning Steps 4 and 5: Identify the Hazards and Assess the Risks Wood led the HMPC in a comprehensive research effort to identify and document all the hazards that have, or could, impact the City’s Planning Area. Data collection worksheets were developed and used in this effort to aid in determining hazards and vulnerabilities and where risk varies across the Planning Area.

Geographic information systems (GIS) were used to display, analyze, and quantify hazards and vulnerabilities. The HMPC conducted a capability assessment to review and document the Planning Area’s current capabilities to mitigate risk and vulnerability from hazards. By collecting information about existing government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and emergency plans, the HMPC could assess those activities and measures already in place that contribute to mitigating some of the risks and vulnerabilities identified. Using this information, Wood developed the risk assessment portion of the plan, which contained the hazard identification, the vulnerability assessment, and the capability assessment.

Wood completed the risk assessment in January 2021 and the information was presented at the second HMPC meeting on February 2, 2021. A more detailed description of the risk assessment process and the results are included in Chapter 4 Risk Assessment. The risk assessment also included a vulnerability assessment on flooding and increased risk due to climate change.

3.3.3 Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan
Planning Steps 6 and 7: Set Goals and Review Possible Activities Wood facilitated brainstorming and discussion sessions with the HMPC on March 23, 2021, including a description of the purpose and process of developing planning goals, as well as discussion of a comprehensive range of mitigation alternatives, and a method of selecting and defending recommended mitigation actions using a series of selection criteria. Additional details of the process to develop goals and actions is included in Chapter 5 Mitigation Strategy. Documentation on the process the HMPC used to develop the goals and strategy is in Appendix C.

Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan
Based on input from the HMPC during the March 23, 2021 meeting and from subsequent review of the draft risk assessment and the goals and activities identified in Planning Steps 6 and 7, the City (with support from Wood) produced a complete first draft of the plan. This complete draft was internally circulated for HMPC review and comment in May 2021. HMPC and agency comments were integrated into the second draft in June 2021.

Public Review Draft LHMP
The Public Review Draft LHMP was advertised and distributed to collect public input and comments. The City circulated the Public Review Draft LHMP for 30 days from October 21, 2021 to November 17, 2021.

During this time, Wood integrated comments and issues from the public and stakeholders, as appropriate, along with additional agency and other stakeholder internal review comments. During the public review period, the City received one comment from the public. This public comment is briefly summarized in Table 3-6. Additional comments were also collected from the Planning Commission and Climate Action Commission related to public health hazards, climate change, and recent amendments to the County’s climate strategy.

Table 3-6: Summary of Comments Received during Public Review Comment Response
Written Comment #1 (Paul Fritz)
• An email pointed out various minor
typographical errors in the LHMP text.
• The City revised the text in the LHMP to address the
minor errors.

Wood produced a final draft LHMP in December 2021 for Cal OES and FEMA Region IX staff to review and approve, contingent upon final adoption by Sebastopol City Council.

3.3.4 Phase 4: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
Planning Step 9: Adopt the Plan
In order to secure buy-in and officially implement the plan, the plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and adopted by the Sebastopol City Council on the dates included in the corresponding resolution in Appendix D: Adoption Resolution.

Planning Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan The true worth of any mitigation plan is in the effectiveness of its implementation. In the previous steps of the planning process the HMPC’s efforts have been directed at researching data, gathering information for the plan, and developing appropriate mitigation actions. Each recommended action includes key descriptors, such as a lead entity and possible funding sources, to help initiate implementation. An overall implementation strategy for the City’s LHMP is described in Chapter 7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance.

Finally, there are numerous organizations within the City of Sebastopol’s Planning Area whose goals and interests interface with hazard mitigation. Coordination with these other planning efforts, as addressed in Planning Step 3, is key to the ongoing success of this plan and mitigation in the City of Sebastopol and is addressed further in Chapter 7. A plan update and maintenance schedule and a strategy for continued public involvement are also included in Chapter 7.

This page is intentionally left blank.

4 Risk Assessment
44 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Requirement §201.6 Local Mitigation Plans (c)(2): [The plan shall include] A risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.

As defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), risk is a combination of hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. “It is the impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community and refers to the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage.”
A key step in preventing disaster losses in the City of Sebastopol’s Planning Area is developing a comprehensive understanding of the City’s hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks. The risk assessment process identifies and profiles relevant hazards and assesses the exposure of lives, property, and infrastructure to these hazards, as well as the vulnerabilities of a community. The process allows for a better understanding of a jurisdiction’s potential risk to hazards and provides a framework for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future hazard events. Environmental and social impacts are taken into consideration wherever possible. The following terms are used throughout the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).
• Hazard: Event or physical condition that has the potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property damage, infrastructure damage, agricultural loss, damage to the environment, interruption of business, other types of harm or loss.
• Vulnerability: Degree of susceptibility to physical injury, harm, damage, or economic loss; depends on an asset’s construction, contents, and economic value of its functions. • Risk: The potential for damage, loss, or other impacts created by the interaction of hazards with vulnerabilities.

The relationship between hazards, vulnerabilities, and risk is depicted in Figure 4-1. This risk assessment covers the entire geographical extent of the City of Sebastopol Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary, herein referred to as the City’s Planning Area. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) agreed that the City’s Planning Area for the LHMP should include the SOI.

Figure 4-1:Risk Graphic
This risk assessment followed the methodology described in the FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (FEMA 2013a), which breaks the assessment into a four-step process:

1. Describe hazards

2. Identify community assets

3. Analyze risks

4. Summarize vulnerability
In other words, this risk assessment evaluates potential loss from hazards by assessing the vulnerability of the City’s critical facilities, buildings, and infrastructure. Data collected through this process has been incorporated into the following sections of this chapter:
• Section 4.1 Hazard Identification profiles the natural hazards that threaten the City’s Planning Area and describes why some hazards have been omitted from further consideration. • Section 4.2 Asset Summary describes the methodology for determining vulnerability of the Planning Area to the identified hazards.
• Section 4.3 Hazard Profiles and Risk Assessment discusses the threat to the Planning Area and describes previous occurrences of hazard events and the likelihood of future occurrences. All the hazards identified in Section 4.1 are profiled and assessed individually in this section. Research and information from the City’s HMPC are integrated into this section. This section also includes the identified vulnerability to each of the priority hazards, describing the impact that each hazard would have on the City. The vulnerability assessment quantifies (to the extent possible) using best available information, assets at risk to hazards and estimates potential losses. • Section 4.4 Human-Health and Human-Caused Hazards identifies the hazards that threaten the City’s Planning Area resulting from public health hazards and hazardous material incidents. • Section 4.5 Hazards Summary summarizes the results of the hazard identification and hazard profiles for the Planning Area based on the hazard identification data and input from the HMPC.

This assessment qualitatively discusses critical facilities within the City’s water and wastewater service area that extend beyond the City’s SOI to ensure that all the City’s facilities are infrastructure and essential services are addressed in the risk assessment because some of these facilities were located outside the City’s Planning Area. Additional information on the City’s Planning Area as it pertains to this plan is provided in Chapter 2: Community Profile.

4.1 Hazard Identification: Natural and Human-Caused Hazards 44 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type…of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.

The first step in developing a risk assessment is identifying the natural hazards. The HMPC conducted a hazard identification study to determine the hazards that threaten the City’s Planning Area. The identification of human-health and human-caused hazards is summarized in Section 4.4.

4.1.1 Methodology and Results
Using existing natural hazards data and input gained through planning meetings, the HMPC agreed upon a list of natural and human-caused hazards that could affect the City of Sebastopol (City). Hazards data was examined to identify and assess the significance of these hazards to the Planning Area. The sources of data included information from the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), FEMA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Sonoma County Office of Emergency Management, and other sources as referenced in this assessment. The assessment also relied on the City’s 2010 LHMP Taming Natural Disasters plan prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) (referred to

as the City’s 2010 LHMP Annex), relevant City planning documents, such as the Sebastopol General Plan Safety Element, and adopted hazard mitigation plans in the region.

Table 4-1 below provides a crosswalk of the hazards identified in the Sebastopol General Plan, 2010 LHMP Annex, 2016 Sonoma County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018 Sonoma County Water Agency LHMP, and 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) (City of Sebastopol 2016; ABAG 2020; Sonoma County 2017; Sonoma Water 2018; Cal OES 2018). Numerous hazards were identified in the state and County plan, including two natural hazards identified in the Sebastopol General Plan Safety Element.

Natural hazards discussed in this element included seismic and geologic hazards and flooding. Humancaused hazards discussed in the Safety Element included the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. Water supply and fire protection services are addressed in the Community Services and Facilities Element. Air pollution is addressed in the Conservation and Open Space Element. In summary, the crosswalk was used to develop a list of preliminary hazards for the HMPC to evaluate which were most relevant to the City’s Planning Area.

The significance of each hazard was measured in general terms and focused on key criteria such as frequency and resulting damage, which includes deaths, injuries, and property and economic damage. The natural and human-caused hazards evaluated as part of this plan include those that occurred in the past or have the potential to cause significant human and/or monetary losses in the future.

Table 4-1: Crosswalk with Other Hazard Mitigation Plans Hazard Sebastopol
General
Plan
(2016)

ABAG LHMP
City of
Sebastopol
Annex Plan
(2010)
Sonoma
County
Operational
Area HMP
(2016)
Sonoma
County Water
Agency LHMP
(2018)
California
SHMP
(2018)
Natural, Human-Health, and Climate and Weather-Influenced Hazards Agricultural and Silvicultural
Pests and Diseases
√
Air Pollution √ √
Aquatic Invasive Species √
Avalanches √
Dam Incidents/Failure √ √
Drought and Water Shortage √ √ √ √
Climate Change √ √ √
Earthquake and Geologic
Hazards
√ √ √ √
Energy Shortage and Energy
Resiliency
√
Epidemic/Pandemic/VectorBorne Disease√
Flood: 100-, 200-, 500-Year
Events
√ √ √ √ √
Sea Level Rise √ √
Severe Weather: Extreme Heat √ √ √
Severe Weather: Heavy
Rain/Thunderstorm/Lightning/
Hail/Fog
√ √ √
Severe Weather: Wind √ √ √

Hazard Sebastopol
General
Plan
(2016)

ABAG LHMP
City of
Sebastopol
Annex Plan
(2010)
Sonoma
County
Operational
Area HMP
(2016)
Sonoma
County Water
Agency LHMP
(2018)
California
SHMP
(2018)
Tree Mortality √
Tsunami √
Volcano √
Wildfire/Fire Protection √ √ √ √
Technological Hazards
Hazardous Materials Release √ √
Oil Spills √ √
Natural Gas Pipeline Hazards √
Radiological Accidents √
Transportation Accidents √
Threat and Disturbance Hazards
Terrorism √ √
Cyber Threats √ √
Civil Disorder √

1. Hazards listed is based on the natural, technological, and human-caused hazards in the California SHMP.

In alphabetical order, the natural hazards identified and investigated for the City of Sebastopol 2021 LHMP include:
• Dam Incidents
• Drought
• Earthquake
- Surface Rupture
- Ground Shaking
- Liquefaction
- Subsidence
- Landslides
• Flooding
• Severe Weather: Heavy Rain/Thunderstorm/Hail/Lightning • Severe Weather: Extreme Heat
• Severe Weather: Wind
• Wildfire
The human-health and human-caused hazards identified and investigated for the City of Sebastopol 2021 LHMP include:
• Public Health Hazards (Epidemic/Pandemic/Vector-Borne Disease) • Hazardous Material Incidents: Hazard Material Releases, Chemical Facilities, Gas Pipelines Based on discussions at the early planning meetings and preliminary analyses, the following natural and human-health hazards were eliminated from further consideration in this risk assessment because of a

lack of past occurrences in the City or based on minimal potential impacts. Certain hazards were also eliminated based on separate State and Sonoma County regulatory programs and planning documentation that thoroughly addresses the hazard profile. • Agricultural Hazards
• Air Pollution
• Aquatic Invasive Species
• Avalanches
• Civil Unrest/Civil Disturbance
• Energy Shortage and Energy Resiliency (integrated in the Extreme Weather: Winds vulnerability assessment)
• Tree Mortality (integrated into the Drought vulnerability assessment) • Terrorism
• Tsunami
• Volcano
Sebastopol is a semi-urban city surrounded largely by rural land uses in the unincorporated portion of Sonoma County that consist of both agriculture and open space. According to the Sebastopol General Plan and General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as of 2015 there were approximately 77 acres of designated agricultural land within the city limits (City of Sebastopol 2016).

Most of the designated agricultural land outside the city limits is within the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District (SCAPOSD) or consists of private agricultural and grazing lands.

Land within the SCAPOSD is designated as greenbelt agriculture, priority greenbelt, priority riparian corridors, wetland priority areas, and priority recreation areas. While other land uses include farms, dairies, livestock ranches, and vineyards, the greenbelt land uses function as a separation between urban areas and active farming areas, thereby minimizing agricultural hazards and nuisances in the City.

Air quality and emissions within the Bay Area are generated by a variety of sources, including stationary sources, such as fireplaces and heating systems to mobile sources, such as vehicles and truck traffic. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency with the authority to develop and enforce regulations for the control of air pollution throughout the Bay Area. The Clean Air Plan is the BAAQMD’s triennial plan for reducing air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area. The Bay Area is considered in “attainment” for all of the national standards of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and particulate matter, with the exception of ozone. Given there are federal, state, and local laws and regulations in place for controlling air pollution and minimizing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in addition to air quality management plans administered by the California Air Resources Board and BAAQMD, air pollution hazards and GHG emissions are not addressed in this plan.

Aquatic invasive species are non-indigenous species transported to new environments through human activities. The introduction of non-indigenous species into Sebastopol’s marine, estuarine, and freshwater environment can cause economic, human health, and ecological impacts. Invasive aquatic plants, such as water hyacinth has clogged the waterways in the California Delta, and invasive aquatic plants, such as water primrose impact water quality within the Russian River, and Laguna Santa Rosa has a high percentage of introduced aquatic species (Laguna Foundation, No Date). Known past occurrences related to aquatic invasive species in the City were mostly identified at the Laguna Wetlands Preserve along the Laguna Santa Rosa River, both within and outside the Planning Area (Laguna Foundation, No Date). Algae, also known as cyanobacteria can also be found in water environments such as the Laguna Santa Rosa.

When high temperatures and increased nutrient levels in the water occur, algae and other invasive species can grow, and some algal blooms can produce toxins that can be harmful to humans and animals. The Laguna is listed as impaired with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) for indictor bacteria.

For these reasons, the consumption of aquatic wildlife from the Laguna Santa Rosa is not recommended.

This hazard is currently addressed by the Sonoma County Department of Health Services (DHS), Environmental Health and Safety Public Health Division. The Division regularly tests water bodies in the County for aquatic invasive species, and specifically algae blooms at various beach and river park locations throughout the County. Given County monitoring programs are in place, this hazard was not addressed in this plan.

Avalanches and volcano hazards were not addressed in this plan. The City does not receive snowfall to have avalanche hazards and according to the 2018 California SHMP, only ten volcanic eruptions have occurred in California in the last 1,000 years and the likelihood of another eruption in the state is low (Cal OES 2018). Of the 20 volcanoes in the state, only a few are active and pose a threat (Cal OES 2018). Of these, the Clear Lake Volcano is the closest volcano to the City, and while it has been known for substantial geothermal activity, there are no past occurrences associated with the volcano. Given this volcanic field is approximately 80 miles to the north, volcano hazards were not addressed in this plan.

Energy shortage hazards can include energy disruptions related to electricity, renewable energy, natural gas, and gasoline and diesel fuels. Based on these energy types, electrical power outages, both planned and unscheduled disruptions can result in cascading hazards related to traffic, economic losses, other utility disruptions, and extreme heat and public health hazards. Climate change is also expected to bring more frequent and intense natural disasters, which could put greater strain on Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E’s) electricity grid and in turn result in planned or unscheduled power outages or energy shortages and related social and economic disruptions. Given the PG&E’s Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) that began in October 2019, energy shortage hazards are a major concern for the region and the City and the City is interested in improving the continuity of operations during such events to enhance the community’s energy resiliency and reduce energy consumption. Energy shortages are discussed as a secondary hazard impact in the vulnerability assessment in the Severe Weather: Wind section of this chapter.

Drought conditions can cause increased tree mortality associated with lack of moisture, pest infestations, and other drought-related issues. Tree mortality is discussed as a subsection of wildfire hazards and as a secondary hazard.

Based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning (CalOES 2009; CGS 2009; and USC 2009) and the Sonoma County Tsunami Inundation Maps, the City of Sebastopol is situated approximately 30 miles upstream of the San Pablo Bay and approximately 20 miles east of the Bodega Head – Valley Ford area along the Sonoma Coast, two areas susceptible to tsunami hazards (CalOES 2008; CGS 2009; USC 2009). Based on this information, tsunami and coastal erosion hazards were not further analyzed in this plan.

Other human-caused hazards, such as terrorism, and civil unrest or disturbances were considered and discussed during HMPC meetings, and while Sebastopol has an active and engaged community and frequent political protests, based on HMPC input none of these protest events have resulted in civil unrest, disorder, or terrorism concerns over the past two decades. Therefore, civil unrest was not discussed in detail in this plan.

The following technological and human-caused hazards were eliminated from further analysis in the City of Sebastopol LHMP because they are either addressed as secondary impacts associated with other hazards (e.g. earthquakes) or because they are addressed in other City plan documents (e.g. General Plan Transportation Element):
• Oil Spills
• Radiological Accidents

• Transportation Accidents
Gas pipeline hazards are addressed as a secondary hazard associated with earthquakes in the vulnerability assessment and further addressed in the Hazardous Material Incidents section. Oil spill and radiological accidents were not further evaluated in this plan, as there are few oil pipelines or oil wells in the City, and few areas at risk to radiological accidents according to the HMPC. Both these pipeline hazards are also currently addressed in Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs), which are managed by Sonoma County’s Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The purpose of the HMBPs is to protect public health and the environment from risks or adverse effects associated with the storage and transport of hazardous materials, such as natural gas, oil, and other materials.

4.1.2 Overall Hazard Significance Summary
Overall hazard significance was based on a combination of geographic extent, probability of future occurrences, and potential magnitude/severity. Climate change considerations are discussed qualitatively in each hazard profile, specifically on whether it is anticipated to have a low, medium, or high influence on future impacts. The individual ratings shown in Table 4-2 are based on or interpolated from the analysis of the hazards in the sections that follow.

Table 4-2: City of Sebastopol Hazard Significance Summary Hazard Geographic
Extent
Probability of
Future
Occurrences
Magnitude/Severity Overall
Significance
Earthquake Extensive Likely Catastrophic High
Flooding Significant Likely Limited Medium
Wildfire Limited Occasional Limited Medium
Drought Significant Likely Limited Medium
Dam Incidents Limited Unlikely Negligible Low
Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Extensive Likely Limited Medium Severe Weather: Heavy
Rain/Thunderstorms/Hail/Lighting
Extensive Likely Limited Medium
Severe Weather: High Winds Extensive Likely Limited Medium Public Health Hazards Extensive Likely Critical High
Hazardous Material Releases Limited Likely Negligible Low Geographic Extent
Limited: Less than 10% of planning area
Significant: 10-50% of planning area
Extensive: 50-100% of planning area
Magnitude/Severity
Catastrophic—More than 50 percent of property
severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for more
than 30 days; and/or multiple deaths
Critical—25-50 percent of property severely
damaged; shutdown of facilities for at least two
weeks; and/or injuries and/or illnesses result in
permanent disability
Limited—10-25 percent of property severely
damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than a
week; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable do not result in permanent disability
Negligible—Less than 10 percent of property
severely damaged, shutdown of facilities and services
for less than 24 hours; and/or injuries/illnesses
treatable with first aid
Probability of Future Occurrences
Highly Likely: Near 100% chance of occurrence in
next year or happens every year.

Likely: Between 10 and 100% chance of occurrence
in next year, or a recurrence interval of 10 years or
less.

Occasional: Between 1 and 10% chance of
occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence
interval of 11 to 100 years.

Unlikely: Less than 1% chance of occurrence in next
100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater
than every 100 years.

Hazard Geographic
Extent
Probability of
Future
Occurrences
Magnitude/Severity Overall
Significance
Overall Significance
Low: minimal potential impact
Medium: moderate potential impact
High: widespread potential impact
FEMA’s Hazus 4.2 Loss Estimation Tool
Hazus Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation tool (Hazus-MH) is FEMA’s standardized method for modeling and estimating potential losses from earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, and hurricanes. For the purposes of this plan, Hazus Version 4.2 was used with Geographic Information System (GIS) software to estimate economic and social impacts from the occurrence (or potential occurrence) of flood and earthquake hazards (FEMA 2018a).

Hazus-MH provides tabular outputs as well as graphic and illustrative results of identified high-risk areas due to the profiled hazards of interest, with reports summarizing losses or damages from structures and critical facilities, populations affected or at risk, and debris generated from an event. Hazus 4.2 is a key component of the pre-disaster planning process and is used for mitigation and recovery, given its ability to estimate potential losses and damages on a city, county, and multi-regional context. For this LHMP, Hazus-MH was used to estimate effects from a probabilistic 2,500-year earthquake scenario as well as a USGS ShakeMap-based deterministic scenario, and the software is referenced in the flooding section to point out methodologies applied to the vulnerability assessments as indicated in Hazus-MH loss calculation procedures (e.g. the FEMA flood depth damage functions per the Benefit Cost Analysis application) (FEMA 2018b). For more information on the earthquake scenarios processed with Hazus 4.2, refer to the Section 4.3.1 Earthquakes and for information on the flood analysis, refer to Section 4.3.2.

4.1.3 Disaster Declaration History
One method the HMPC used to identify hazards was researching past events that triggered federal and state emergency or disaster declarations in the Planning Area. Federal and state disaster declarations may be granted when the severity and magnitude of an event surpasses the ability of the local government to respond and recover. Disaster assistance is supplemental and sequential. When the local government’s capacity has been surpassed, a state disaster declaration may be issued, allowing for the provision of state assistance. Should the disaster be so severe that both the local and state governments’ capacities are exceeded, a federal presidential emergency or disaster declaration may be issued allowing for the provision of federal assistance to help disaster victims, business, and public agencies.

The federal government may issue a disaster declaration through FEMA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), or the Small Business Administration (SBA). FEMA also issues emergency declarations which are more limited in scope and without the long-term federal recovery programs of major disaster declarations (Farm Service Agency 2021). The quantity and types of damage are the determining factors in the type of declaration issued. This section focuses on state and federal disaster and emergency declarations.

The City is among many communities in California that are susceptible to disaster. Details on federal and state disaster declarations were obtained by the HMPC, FEMA, and Cal OES and compiled in chronological order in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Sebastopol and Sonoma County State and Federal Disaster Declarations, 1950-2020 Event/ Hazard Year Disaster # Declaration Type
Heavy Rains and Flooding 1964 183 Major Disaster Declaration Severe Storms and Flooding 1969 253 Major Disaster Declaration Drought 1977 3023 Emergency Declaration
Flood 1982 651 Major Disaster Declaration
Coastal Storm 1983 677 Major Disaster Declaration
Flood 1986 758 Major Disaster Declaration
Freeze 1991 894 Major Disaster Declaration
Flood 1993 979 Major Disaster Declaration
El Niño - Fishing Losses 1994 1038 Major Disaster Declaration Flood 1995 -- Local Emergency
Flood 1995 -- Local Emergency
Winter Storm 1995 -- Local Emergency
Severe Storm(s) 1995 1044 Major Disaster Declaration
Severe Storm(s) 1995 1046 Major Disaster Declaration
Cavedale Fire 1996 -- Local Emergency
Jenner Sand Barrier 1996 -- Local Emergency
Severe Storm(s) 1997 1155 Major Disaster Declaration
Flood 1997 -- Local Emergency
Severe Storm(s) 1998 1203 Major Disaster Declaration
Flood 1998 -- Local Emergency
Severe Storm(s) 1999 -- Local Emergency
Severe Storm(s) 2002 -- Local Emergency
Geysers Fire 2004 2554 Fire Management/Local Emergency
Flood 2005 -- State and Federal Disaster Declaration
Severe Storm(s) 2006 1646 Major Disaster Declaration
San Francisco Bay Oil Spill 2007 -- Gubernatorial Declaration H1N1 Influenza Pandemic 2009 -- Local Emergency
Great Tohoku Tsunami 2011 -- Gubernatorial Declaration
Drought 2014-2016 -- Gubernatorial Declaration
South Napa Earthquake 2014 4193 Major Disaster Declaration Severe Storm(s) 2014 -- Local Emergency
Valley Fire 2015 4240 Major Disaster Declaration
Severe Storm(s) 2017 4301 Major Disaster Declaration
Flood 2017 4308 Major Disaster Declaration
Wildfires 2017 4344 Major Disaster Declaration
Wildfires and High Winds 2018 4382 Major Disaster Declaration Severe Winter Storm(s),
Flooding, Landslides,
Mudslides
2019 4431 Major Disaster Declaration
Severe Winter Storm(s),
Flooding, Landslides,
Mudslides
2019 4434 Major Disaster Declaration
COVID-19 2020 4482 Major Disaster Declaration
Wildfires 2020 4558 Major Disaster Declaration
Wildfires 2020 4569 Major Disaster Declaration
Sources: FEMA Disaster Designation Information 2020; 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan; 2016 Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Most disaster declarations are issued on a county-wide basis. In some limited instances a city or area within a county is specifically designated. Sonoma County has received 41 declarations between 1964 and 2020, 24 of which received federal disaster declarations, 4 received a Gubernatorial Declaration, 11 were local emergency declarations and 1 for fire management assistance. Of the 41 disaster declarations, 11 were associated with severe storms and heavy rain (also includes the 1 coastal storm event), 9 associated with flooding, and 5 declarations related to wildfires; freeze, earthquake and pandemic all received 1 declaration. The County also received 1 declaration related to fishing losses, 1 related to the Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay, and 1 related to the 2011 Japan Tsunami.

Since 1976, there have been 17 drought declarations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture for Sonoma County, 10 of which were “Fast Track Secretarial Disaster” designations; refer to Section 4.3.4 on drought hazards for more details on previous occurrences of drought events. According to the Secretary of Agriculture, a Fast Track designation is for a severe drought and provides an automatic designation when any portion of the county meets the severe drought intensity value for eight consecutive weeks during the growing season.

This combined federal and state disaster history suggests that Sonoma County (and the City of Sebastopol) experiences a major event worthy of a disaster declaration every 1.9 years. The County has a 39 percent chance of receiving a disaster declaration in any given year. Further, a review of these events helps the City identify risk reduction targets and ways to improve their capabilities to avoid large-scale hazard events in the future.

4.1.4 Climate Change Considerations Summary
Climate change is an increasingly important factor now
affecting all phases of the disaster management cycle.

The City of Sebastopol and Sonoma County
acknowledge that climate change is occurring and
began to plan for it when the City Council adopted a
climate emergency resolution in November 2019. The
City’s focus on addressing climate policy was further
underscored by the establishment of a Climate
Subcommittee of the City Council. This subcommittee,
also referred to as the Climate Action Committee (CAC)
evaluates and propose actions to reduce GHG emissions
and increase climate resilience and adaptation. The CAC has seven working groups that focus on outreach,
energy, equity, funding, research, sequestration, and
transportation.

Sonoma County also initiated climate change efforts in
2009 by the establishment of a Regional Climate
Protection Authority (RCPA). The RCPA was formed
through locally sponsored state legislation to coordinate countywide climate protection efforts among Sonoma County’s nine cities and multiple county agencies. The RCPA focuses on efficient buildings, clean energy, alternative transportation, and conservation and adaptation. In 2014, the RCPA prepared a climate hazard and vulnerability assessment, known as Climate Ready Sonoma County: Climate Hazards and Vulnerabilities. In 2016, the RCPA prepared Sonoma County’s Regional Climate Action Plan: Climate Action 2020 and Beyond (referred to as the County’s CAP). Although not formally adopted by the County, climate change projections summarized in the CAP are based on the Basin Characterization Model (BCM) What is Climate Change?
Climate change refers to distinct changes in weather
conditions that result from increased atmospheric and
human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Monthly mean GHG levels now exceed 410 parts per
million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history. This GHG increase has trapped heat in the atmosphere and
is linked to an increase in average global temperature
and these global temperature and GHG increases are
resulting in a series of changes to the global climate.

These changes include shifts in seasonal temperature
patterns; altered precipitation timing, amount, and
location; sea level rise due to melting glaciers and ice caps; ocean acidification due to increased carbon
dioxide (CO2) absorption; and altered wind and storm
event frequency and severity, including more frequent
and intense storms, droughts, and heat waves. Climate
change is not a discrete event, but a long-term hazard
that already affects communities in California.

Sources: NOAA 2017; IPCC 2018; SHMP 2018

prepared by scientists from the USGS and the University of California, Davis Center for Environment. The projections were developed by applying scaled-down models that identify watershed-level climate change impacts specific to Sonoma County; the projections represent the best available climate data for the County (RCPA 2016). The BCM projections and recent studies indicate that climate change could affect Sonoma County (and the City of Sebastopol) in the following ways:
• Higher Average Temperature and More Extreme Heat Events: For scenarios with mitigated emissions, summer high temperatures are expected to rise by 1 to 2°F; scenarios with unmitigated emissions project average summer high temperatures will increase by up to 9 to 11°F by 2100. • More Frequent and Intense Droughts: Three of the four climate scenarios examined indicate a rising climate water deficit (CWD), a numeric measure of drought stress, over this century, producing 10 to 20 percent drier soil conditions in the summer months. The greatest increases in soil dryness are projected to occur in the south and southeastern portions of the County. • More Frequent and Intense Wildfire: Wildfire risk will continue to rise due to increased dryness of vegetation compounded by the productivity of plants in the spring. By the end of the century, the chances of one or more fires during a 30-year period are projected to increase from 15 to 20 percent to 25 to 33 percent in the mountainous areas of the County. • Fewer Winter Nights that Freeze. Projected winter low temperatures are expected to rise in the future. For scenarios with mitigated emissions, winter low temperatures are expected to rise by 1 to 2°F. In the two scenarios with unmitigated emissions, average winter low temperatures are projected to increase by up to 7 to 9°F by 2100.
• Increased Risk of Extreme Floods: Climate scenarios project increased seasonal variability of precipitation, runoff, and stream flows for Sonoma County, along with increased likelihood of “extreme” precipitation and drought events. There may be more years with more frequent storm events and occasional events that are much stronger than historical ones and the length of season over which storm events occur is predicted to increase. • More Frequent Coastal Flooding, Increased Erosion, and Saltwater Intrusion: Sea levels are projected to rise between 16.5 and 65.8 inches by 2100. Rising sea levels combined with increased storm surge will lead to more frequent inundation of the low-lying areas, and flooding of homes, infrastructure, agricultural land, and natural areas on the shores of San Pablo Bay. The greatest impacts are anticipated during winter storms.

In 2020 the RCPA developed the Climate Mobilization Strategy to support a resolution that declared a Climate Emergency that was adopted by the RCPA Board in September 2019. This strategy solidifies the County’s commitment to mobilizing an emergency response commensurate with the scale of the climate crisis (RCPA 2021). The 10-year Emergency Policy package outlines 14 countywide actions with the potential to reduce GHG emissions by 2030 under local authority. This Strategy was adopted by the RCPA in March 2021. The RCPA has since convened working groups to begin funding and implementing the plans for the Strategy.

The important consideration for hazard mitigation is that climate change is exacerbating the hazards which are already identified and profiled in this plan. The City and California are also already experiencing the impacts of climate change including prolonged drought, increased flooding, increased average temperatures, shifts in the water cycle, and changes to precipitation patterns and the intensity of extreme events resulting from hazards, such as wildfires. Climate change not only results in progressive changes, such as shifting weather patterns, but affects the frequency and severity of hazard events (SHMP 2018).

Climate change also results in an increase in the variance of climate patterns and this increased variance creates challenges for hazards planning, which previously used historic recurrence rates to predict future events, and now must incorporate changes to the frequency, severity, and location due to climate change.

Risk assessment for hazards is built upon the frequency of past events and the assumption that historic occurrence rates are a good predictor of future event probability. With climate change; however, history is not an adequate predictor of the probability of future occurrences (SHMP 2018). Planning for climate change (and understanding the probability of future occurrences [see Section 4.3 below]) is based on understanding and integrating evolving climate change science and modeled projections that account for shifts in historic conditions due to climate change (SHMP 2018) into hazard mitigation planning.

Additional information associated with the hazards are discussed in the Climate Change Considerations subsection of each hazard profile. This section also summarizes whether climate change is anticipated to have a low, medium, or high influence on future hazards.

4.2 Asset Summary
As a starting point for analyzing the City’s Planning Area vulnerability to identified hazards, the HMPC used a variety of data, including data provided by Sonoma County (e.g. structure values, assessor data) to define a baseline against which all disaster impacts could be compared. If a catastrophic disaster were to occur in the Planning Area, this section describes significant assets exposed or at risk in the Planning Area.

Data used in this baseline assessment included:
• Total assets at risk;
• Critical facility inventory;
• Cultural, historical, and natural resources; and
• Population statistics, land use, and growth/development trends.

4.2.1 Total Assets at Risk
A spatial parcel dataset containing attributes such as structure values and year of property construction was provided by the City through coordination with the City of Santa Rosa GIS Department (co-host of the Sebastopol GIS data), alongside a building outline layer useful in counting buildings per parcel.

Property type, valuation details, and other information contained in this plan are based on data from the Sonoma County Assessor’s Office. This data provided the baseline for an inventory of the total exposure of developed properties within the City of Sebastopol. This data helps to ensure that the LHMP can be updated over time to reflect changes in development. It is important to note that depending on the nature and type of hazard event or disaster, it is generally the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the parcels that are of concern or at risk. Generally, the land itself is not a total loss, but may result in a reduction in value. Thus, the parcel analysis excludes land value.

Once the dataset was reviewed and organized, the parcel layer was clipped to the boundaries of the City of Sebastopol SOI boundary. For the purpose of parcel analysis and exposure calculations only parcels with improved values were used, except for exempt or government properties (which may not include an improvement value per its categorization and is one limitation that results in the total improvement values underestimating the actual value). “Improved” parcels have an improvement value greater than zero. Contents values were also estimated, as a percentage of building value based on their property type, using FEMA/Hazus guidelines. Content value estimates are based on 100 percent of the structure value for commercial and religion structures, 150 percent of the structure value for industrial structures, and 50 percent for residential and multi-family structures. Improvement values were added to contents values to calculate the total structure values for all properties in the parcel layer. The parcel layer, originally in the form of polygons, was then converted into points based on the center (or centroid) of a parcel to then used in overlay analysis with those hazards profiled in this plan that are available in spatial format (i.e., flood and fire). These outputs summarize the count and value of improved properties, contents, and total

values for the property inventory, and the exposure values by property type for the City. Table 4-4 summarizes the total improved parcel exposure by parcel type for the City.

Table 4-4: City of Sebastopol Total Improved Parcel Exposure by Parcel Type Parcel Type Total Parcels Improved Value Content Value Total Value Commercial 269 $197,164,224 $196,667,133 $393,831,357
Industrial 9 $7,175,176 $10,762,764 $17,937,940
Multi-Family 230 $100,155,507 $50,077,754 $150,233,261
Religion 14 $7,540,667 $7,540,667 $15,081,334
Residential 2,443 $659,783,848 $329,891,924 $989,675,772 TOTAL 2,965 $971,819,422 $594,940,242 $1,566,759,664
Sources: Wood analysis based on City of Sebastopol and Sonoma County Assessor’s Office Data 2020 Critical and City Facility Inventory
A critical facility is defined (within the context of this plan) as a facility that is essential in providing utilities or support either during the response to an emergency or during a recovery operation. FEMA created Community Lifelines to reframe incident information, understand and communicate incident impacts using plain language, and promote unity of effort across the whole community to prioritize efforts to stabilize the lifelines during incident response. A Community Lifeline is defined as a facility that enables the continuous operation of critical government and busines functions and is essential to human health and safety or economic security. They provide the following services to communities:
• Lifelines are the most fundamental services in the community that, when stabilized, enable all other aspects of society to function.
• FEMA has developed a construct for objectives-based response that prioritizes the rapid stabilization of Community Lifelines after a disaster.
• The integrated network of assets, services, and capabilities that provide lifeline services are used dayto-day to support the recurring needs of the community and enable all other aspects of society to function.
• When disrupted, decisive intervention (e.g., rapid re-establishment or employment of contingency response solutions) is required to stabilize the incident.

FEMA Community Lifelines are also the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s current recommended way to standardize the classification of critical facilities and infrastructure which provide indispensable service, operation, or function to a community. These categorizations are particularly useful as they:
• Enable effort consolidations between government and other organizations (e.g. infrastructure owners and operators).
• Enable integration of preparedness efforts among plans; easier identification of unmet critical facility needs.
• Refine sources and products to enhance awareness, capability gaps, and progress towards stabilization.
• Enhance communication among critical entities, while enabling complex interdependencies between government assets.
• Highlight lifeline related priority areas regarding general operations as well as response efforts.

FEMA organizes lifelines into the following six categories. These categories were used to differentiate critical assets and facilities in Sebastopol:
• Communications – Facilities and infrastructure that includes responder communications, alerts and warnings, messaging, finance, and 911 and dispatch services. • Energy – Facilities and structures consist of power grid and fuel facilities, such as oil, natural gas, electric power systems.
• Food, Water, and Shelter – These may include food, water, shelter, and agricultural facilities. • Health and Medical – Facilities or centers aimed at providing for the health and welfare of the whole population. These facilities can include hospitals, medical care units, public health facilities, patient movement centers, medical supply chains, and fatality management centers. • Safety and Security – Facilities consist of law enforcement, police, and security facilities, fire protection, search and rescue, government services, and community safety centers. • Transportation – These may include highway and roadway infrastructure, motor vehicle amenities, mass transit, railways, aviation facilities, and maritime facilities. • Hazardous Materials – Hazardous material facilities consist of HAZMAT operations, pollutants, and contaminants.

The City of Sebastopol provided key facilities that it deems essential to City operations and during response and recovery activities following an emergency. Table 4-5 lists both critical facilities obtained from the Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) (HIFLD 2020), a federal dataset, as well as the City-provided structure data. Table 4-5 shows the City’s critical facilities organized by Community Lifelines and Figure 4-2 shows the location of each critical facility in the City.

Table 4-5: Sebastopol Critical Facilities by FEMA Community Lifeline and Type Counts FEMA Lifeline Critical Facility Type Total
Communications Communications Facility 2
TOTAL 2
Energy Substation 1
TOTAL 1
Food, Water, Shelter Reservoir 3
School 8
Shelter 12
Wastewater 2
Water Well 5
TOTAL 30
Health and Medical Adult Residential Home 2
Hospital 1
TOTAL 3
Safety and Security Fire Department 1
Police 1
Government Building 1
TOTAL 3
Transportation Bridge 4
TOTAL 4
GRAND TOTAL 43
Sources: City of Sebastopol 2020, HIFLD 2020

Figure 4-2: Critical and FEMA Community Lifeline Facilities in Sebastopol by Overall Category

Cultural, Historical, and Natural Resources
Assessing the City’s vulnerability to disaster also involves inventorying the natural, historical, and cultural assets of the area. This step is important for the following reasons:
• The community may decide that these types of resources warrant a greater degree of protection due to their unique and irreplaceable nature and contribution to the overall economy. • In the event of a disaster, an accurate inventory of natural, historical and cultural resources allows for more prudent care in the disaster’s immediate aftermath when the potential for additional impacts is higher.
• The rules for reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement are often different for these types of designated resources.
• Natural resources can have beneficial functions that reduce the impacts of natural hazards, for example, wetlands and riparian habitat which help absorb and attenuate floodwaters and thus support overall mitigation objectives.

Cultural Resources
Historical resources are buildings, structures, objects, places, and areas that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or the City’s List of Historic Resources, have an association with important persons,
events in history, or cultural heritage, or have distinctive design or construction method.

For purpose of federal actions, a qualified historic resource is defined as a property listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP before a disaster occurs.

The NRHP is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archeological resources. Properties listed include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history,
architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. Local and state agencies may consider a broader definition of qualified historic properties in the review, evaluation, and treatment of properties damaged during a disaster.

The State of California Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) can provide technical rehabilitation and preservation services for historic properties affected by a natural disaster. Depending on the hazard, protection could range from emergency preparedness, developing a fire safe zone around sites susceptible to wildfires, or seismically strengthening or structurally reinforcing structures.

State and local registers of historic resources provide designated Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, and Historic Buildings. These resources include, but are not limited to:
• The California Register of Historical Resources
• The California Historical Landmarks
• The California Inventory of Historical Resources
• The California Points of Historical Interest
The Petaluma and Santa Rosa Railway Powerhouse is
one of example of a historic place in Sebastopol. From
its initial settlement in 1812 to the development of the railroad in 1870, Sebastopol and Sonoma County were
dependent on horse and wagon for transportation.

This powerhouse, and the wooden passenger depot at
the West County Museum were constructed in 1902.

Source: NRHP 2020

• County of Sonoma Historic Landmarks in District 5 (The 5th District encompasses the west county including the entire Sonoma County coast, lower Russian River area, Sebastopol, and the west and southwest Santa Rosa areas extending to Highway 101).

Table 4-6 summarizes the historic and cultural resources found in the NRHP for the Sebastopol area; several of these historical sites are located outside the City’s Planning Area.

Table 4-6: City NRHP Historical Resources and Sonoma County District 5 Historic Landmarks Historical Resource
Name
Listed
Date
Location Other Names or Description
Petaluma and Santa
Rosa Railway
Powerhouse
7/23/1991 238 – 258 Petaluma Avenue, Hogan Building, P & SR Substation Gold Ridge Farm 12/14/1978 West of Sebastopol Luther Burbank’s Experimental Farm and Cottage
Llano Road
Roadhouse
5/22/1978 4353 Gravenstein Highway
South
None
Sebastopol Depot of
the Petaluma and
Santa Rosa Railway
2/16/1996 261 South Main Street West County Museum
George A. Strout
House
6/17/1980 253 Florence Avenue Strout House, Kimball House Green Valley School 1992 4060 Green Valley School Road Green Valley School Sanders House 2000 2020 Sanders Road Sanders House, Residence Sources: NRHP 2020; Sonoma County 2020 (County of Sonoma List of Historic Landmarks in 5th District) Lists of designated historical resources change periodically, and they may not include those currently in the nomination process and not yet listed. Additionally, as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), any property over 50 years of age is considered a historic resource and is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register. Thus, in the event that the property is to be altered, or has been altered, as the result of a major federal action, the property must be evaluated under the guidelines set forth by NEPA. Structural mitigation projects are considered alterations for the purpose of this regulation.

Cultural resources defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15064.5 include prehistoric and historic archaeological resources; historic-period resources (buildings, structures, area, place, or objects). Archaeological resources reflect past human activity extending from Native American prehistoric cultures throughout the early 20th century. The artifacts left by previous occupants may be encountered in small to large residential sites, or special use areas.

Many cultural and historical resources in the City are vulnerable to several hazards due to location and the nature of their construction. Some of these risks include earthquakes, wildfires, or adverse weather.

Natural Resources
The City of Sebastopol contains diverse natural resources, exemplified by the creeks and rivers and wetland complex within its watershed that drain inland mountains to the confluence of the Russian River and Laguna de Santa Rosa.

Natural resources are important to include in benefit/cost analyses for future projects and may be used to leverage additional funding for mitigation projects that also
contribute to community goals for protecting sensitive
natural resources. Inventory and awareness of natural
resource assets is vital to meeting conservation objectives.

For example, protecting wetland areas provides sensitive habitat protection as well as floodwater conveyance and storage, which further enhances public safety.

Natural resources also exhibit varied levels of resiliency to anthropogenic impacts, climate change, and natural
hazards such as flooding, drought, coastal storms or
wildfire. Climate change is one of the most substantial threats to conserving the biodiversity and ecological habitat of the County (OPR 2019). Habitat resiliency is exemplified in coastal habitat migration to inland areas as a result to sea level rise, and recovery of burn areas following a wildfire.

Special Status Species
To further understand natural resources that may be particularly vulnerable to a hazard event, as well as those that need consideration when implementing mitigation activities, it is important to identify at-risk species (endangered and threatened species) potentially located in the City Planning Area. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) maintains a list of federally-listed threatened and endangered species for the country, which can be queried at the state and county levels. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) also maintains species lists and accounts for threatened and endangered species. State and federal laws protect the habitat of these species through the environmental review process. Species of special concern may additionally include species that meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not been formally listed, experiences seriously population declines or habitat decline, or has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to population decline (CDFW 2019). Table 4-7 summarizes those special status animal species as indicated in the USFWS database that are located in Sonoma County and likely the areas surrounding the City Planning Area.

Table 4-7: Threatened and Endangered Species in Sonoma County and the Planning Area Common Name Scientific Name Group Status
California tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense Amphibians Endangered California red-legged frog Rana draytonii Amphibians Threatened Short-tailed albatross Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus Birds Endangered California least tern Sterna antillarum browni Birds Endangered California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus Birds Endangered Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Birds Threatened Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus Birds Threatened Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina Birds Threatened Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Birds Threatened California freshwater shrimp Syncaris pacifica Crustaceans Endangered Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio Crustaceans Endangered Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Crustaceans Threatened The Laguna Wetlands Preserve is comprised of five
properties along the eastern boundary of Sebastopol
that include the 22-acre Laguna Youth Park, 59-acre
Meadowlark Field, 7-acre AmeriCorps Trail south of
the Youth Park, 13-acre Tomodachi Park, and 7-acre
Railroad Forest property bounded by Joe Rodota Trail,
and Tomodachi Park and Village Park to the northeast.

Source: City of Sebastopol 2020a

Common Name Scientific Name Group Status
longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys Fishes Candidate
Sonoma alopecurus Alopecurus aequalis var.
sonomensis
Flowering Plants Endangered
Clara Hunt's milk-vetch Astragalus clarianus Flowering Plants Endangered White sedge Carex albida Flowering Plants Endangered
Vine Hill clarkia Clarkia imbricata Flowering Plants Endangered Baker's larkspur Delphinium bakeri Flowering Plants Endangered Yellow larkspur Delphinium luteum Flowering Plants Endangered Contra Costa goldfields Lasthenia conjugens Flowering Plants Endangered Pitkin Marsh lily Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Flowering Plants Endangered Few-flowered navarretia Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
pauciflora (=N. pauciflora)
Flowering Plants Endangered
Many-flowered navarretia Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
plieantha
Flowering Plants Endangered
Slender Orcutt grass Orcuttia tenuis Flowering Plants Threatened Lake County stonecrop Parvisedum leiocarpum Flowering Plants Endangered Calistoga allocarya Plagiobothrys strictus Flowering Plants Endangered Napa bluegrass Poa napensis Flowering Plants Endangered Kenwood Marsh checkermallowSidalcea oregana ssp. valida Flowering Plants Endangered Sonoma sunshine Blennosperma bakeri Flowering Plants Endangered Sonoma spineflower Chorizanthe valida Flowering Plants Endangered Marin dwarf-flax Hesperolinon congestum Flowering Plants Threatened Burke's goldfields Lasthenia burkei Flowering Plants Endangered Petaluma meadowfoam Limnanthes vinculans Flowering Plants Endangered Showy Indian clover Trifolium amoenum Flowering Plants Endangered Loch Lomond coyote thistle Eryngium constancei Flowering Plants Endangered Clover lupine Lupinus tidestromii Flowering Plants Endangered Pennell's bird's-beak Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris Flowering Plants Endangered Myrtle's silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene myrtleae Insects Endangered San Bruno elfin butterfly Callophrys mossii bayensis Insects Endangered Callippe silverspot butterfly Speyeria callippe Insects Endangered Behren's silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene behrensii Insects Endangered Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris Mammals Endangered Point Arena mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra Mammals Endangered Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Reptiles Endangered Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Reptiles Endangered Olive ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Reptiles Threatened Source: USFWS – Environmental Conservation Online System, 2020 Population, Growth, and Development Trends
As discussed in Chapter 2, as of February 2021, the City had 11 special projects underway or recently approved and under construction (City of Sebastopol 2020b). These are projects initiated by the City, such as public facilities, or they are private-development projects of a significant size and scope (development projects over 7,500 square feet) (City of Sebastopol 2020b). A majority of the projects are residential projects, including residential townhomes, residential studios, workforce housing, and a condominium subdivision, followed by commercial projects that include mixed-use commercial with housing, a new car wash facility, and a hotel. These major development projects are located throughout the City and most are located near downtown Sebastopol.

Between 2015 and 2020 the population in Sebastopol steadily increased by 305 persons, or 3.9 percent.

Compared to population growth in Sonoma County during the same period, this growth is relatively minor given the small size of the City. The City’s General Plan Housing Element also estimates an additional 455 residents in the City by 2030, which would translate to a 5.5 increase over the next decade.

Most of the development in the City occurred prior to 1976 and residential development during this period was spread throughout the City whereas non-residential growth was concentrated along State Highway 116 and development north of Sebastopol Avenue along Morris Street. From 1990 to 1999, residential growth occurred in small subdivisions and various scattered sites (City of Sebastopol 2014).

Non-residential growth continued to occur along the City’s major arterials and also included small commercial centers in the City’s neighborhoods.

With the City’s two growth management programs in place – the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the Growth Management Program (Zoning Code Section 17.350) – as well as environmental constraints related to the Laguna de Santa Rosa Wetland Preserve, the pace of development has slowed in the City.

Residential development continues to occur on scattered sites throughout the City and non-residential and commercial development consists of scattered sites but has been focused in the “Barlow” area, west of Morris Street and north of Sebastopol Avenue (City of Sebastopol 2014). The City also has limited developable areas and few annexations since the General Plan was adopted in 2015.

Additional information on population and growth and development trends are in Section 2.4 and Section

2.8 in Chapter 2.

4.3 Hazard Profiles and Risk Assessment
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas.

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate.

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.

The hazards identified in Section 4.1 Hazard Identification: Natural Hazards are profiled individually in this section. In general, information provided by HMPC is integrated into this section with information from other data sources. These profiles set the stage for the vulnerability assessment for each natural hazard that follow the detailed hazard profiles.

Each hazard is profiled in the following format:
• Hazard Description - This section gives a description of the hazard and associated issues followed by details on the hazard specific to the City Planning Area. • Location – This section provides a spatial description of the potential locations or geographic areas in the City of where the hazard is expected to impact.
• Extent (Magnitude/Severity) - This section gives a description of the potential strength or magnitude of the hazard as it pertains to the City. Different hazards may have different measures of extent.
• Previous Occurrences - This section contains information on historical incidents, including impacts where known. The extent or location of the hazard within or near the Planning Area is also included in this subsection. Historical incident worksheets and other data sources were used to capture information on past occurrences.
• Probability of Future Occurrence - The frequency of past events is used in this section to gauge the likelihood of future occurrences. Where possible, frequency was calculated based on existing data.

Frequency was determined by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years on record and multiplying by 100. This gives the percent chance of an event happening in any given year (e.g., three droughts over a 30-year period equates to a 10 percent chance of a drought in any given year). The likelihood of future occurrences is categorized into one of the following classifications:
- Highly Likely - Nearly 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or happens every year. - Likely - Between 10 and 99 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less.
- Occasional - Between 1 and 10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years.
- Unlikely - Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of every 100 years or greater.

The risk assessment for most hazards is built upon the frequency of past events and the assumption that historic occurrence rates are a good predictor of future event probability. With climate change; as previously noted, history is not an adequate predictor of the probability of future occurrences (SHMP 2018). Planning for climate change is based on understanding and integrating evolving climate change science and modeled projections that account for shifts in historic conditions due to climate change into hazard mitigation planning (SHMP 2018). For these reasons, the likelihood of future occurrences for climate change and sea level rise impacts (along the Laguna de Santa Rosa) is based on climate change science and modeled projections.
• Climate Change Considerations – Climate change refers to a long-term change in the earth’s temperature, precipitation, humidity, and seasons. This section addresses the probable effects of climate change qualitatively and as a secondary impact for each identified hazard. In other words, it describes the potential for climate change to affect the frequency and severity of natural hazards.

Impacts can include water supply shortages; changes in the frequency, intensity, and extent of drought and extreme heat events; more precipitation and flooding risk;, and increasing temperatures.

This section concludes whether climate change is anticipated to have a low, medium, or high influence on future hazard impacts.

The discussion relies on information from the Sixth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC 2018). It also relies on numerous California publications on climate change and climate adaptation including:
• California’s Fifth Climate Change Assessment: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC 2018) • California’s Fourth Climate Assessment (California Natural Resources Agency 2018a); • Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update – California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources Agency 2018b);
• 2014 Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk (California Natural Resources Agency 2014); and • 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS) (California Natural Resources Agency 2009).

The discussion integrates climate information from Cal-Adapt, a website that gathers data on how climate change might affect California at the local level based on the state’s scientific and research community (CEC 2018). The climate change considerations subsections also summarizes climate change modelling and findings from the following two RCPA-prepared documents: Climate Ready Sonoma County: Climate Hazards and Vulnerabilities (2014) and Sonoma County’s Regional Climate Action Plan: Climate Action 2020 and Beyond (2016) (referred to as the County’s Climate Action Plan [CAP]). Climate change projections summarized in Sonoma County’s CAP are based on BCM projections, which as previously mentioned were developed by applying scaled-down models that identify watershed-level climate change impacts specific to Sonoma County (RCPA 2016). Climate change is addressed in the plan as a secondary impact for each hazard.

Vulnerability Assessment – The vulnerability of the Planning Area to a specific natural hazard is assessed through the study of potential impacts to specific sectors:
• Property
• People
• Economy
• Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
• Historic, Cultural, and Natural Resources
• Future Development

Risk Summary – This is a summary of key findings and risk based on threat, vulnerability and consequences to the Planning Area from the specific hazard.

The significance of each hazard was determined based on the hazard profile, focusing on key criteria such as frequency and resulting damage, including deaths/injuries, and property and economic damage. This assessment was used by the HMPC to prioritize those hazards of greatest significance to the Planning Area thereby allowing the City to focus resources where they are most needed. The following sections provide profiles of the natural hazards, listed alphabetically that the HMPC identified in Section 4.1 Identifying Hazards. Human-caused hazards are addressed in Section 4.4.

4.3.1 Earthquake
Hazard Description
An earthquake is caused by a sudden slip on a fault. Stresses in the earth’s outer layer push the sides of the fault together. Stress builds up, and the rocks slip suddenly, releasing energy in waves that travel through the earth’s crust and cause the shaking that is felt during an earthquake. The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed as a magnitude and is measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs. Another measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking at any given location on the ground surface (see discussion in the Extent section). Seismic shaking is typically the greatest cause of losses to structures during earthquakes.

Seismic Hazards
Earthquakes can cause structural losses, injury, and possibly death, as well as damage to infrastructure such as water, power, gas, communication, and transportation networks and systems. The degree of damage depends on many interrelated factors. Among these are the magnitude, focal depth, distance from the causative fault, source mechanism, duration of shaking, high rock accelerations, type of surface deposits or bedrock, degree of consolidation of surface deposits, presence of high groundwater, topography, and the design, type, and quality of building construction. Primary hazards associated with seismic activity include surface rupture along faults, ground shaking, and associated building failure.

Secondary hazards result from the interaction of ground shaking with existing ground instabilities or facilities and include liquefaction, settlement, debris flows, landslides, tsunamis and seiches, and flooding or wildfires from broken pipelines, gas, or electrical infrastructure.

Ground Shaking
When movement occurs along a fault, the energy generated is released as waves, which cause ground shaking. Ground shaking intensity varies with the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the epicenter, and the type of rock or sediment through which the seismic waves move. The geological characteristics of an area can be a greater hazard than the area’s distance to the earthquake epicenter.

The City is situated within an area of high potential seismic activity (the San Francisco Bay Region), and so the fault systems within and around the City have the potential to produce earthquakes that could impact the City significantly (e.g. the San Andreas Fault System which is currently active). A high-magnitude earthquake on one of these faults could cause moderate to high ground shaking in the City. Figure 4-3 below is an earthquake shaking map for the City that is based on the two percent probability of occurrence in 50 years, based on the USGS analyses of nearby faults (USGS 2003). Also known as the 2,500 year probabilistic scenario map, this scenario indicates that the City has the potential to experience strong ground shaking at a level that will be damaging to buildings and structures.

Figure 4-3: Potential Ground Shaking Probability in the City of Sebastopol

Liquefaction Susceptibility
Liquefaction can be defined as the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to a buildup of pore-water pressure during a seismic event, and is associated primarily with relatively loose, saturated fine to medium-grained unconsolidated soils. Seismic ground shaking of relatively loose, granular soils that are saturated or submerged can cause the soils to liquefy and temporarily behave as a dense fluid. If this layer is at the surface, its effect is much like that of quicksand for any structure located on it. If the liquefied layer is in the subsurface, the material above it may slide laterally depending on the confinement of the unstable mass. Liquefaction is caused by a sudden temporary increase in pore-water pressure due to seismic densification or other displacement of submerged granular soils. Liquefiable soil conditions are not uncommon in alluvial deposits in moderate to large canyons and could also be present in other areas of alluvial soils where the groundwater level is shallow (i.e. 50 feet below the surface). Bedrock units, due to their dense nature, are unlikely to present a liquefaction hazard.

According to the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program data for liquefaction susceptibility, there are several areas of liquefaction susceptibility in the City Planning Area (see Figure 4-4). The majority of the City is in the very low liquefaction susceptibility zone, while parts of the City are in a very high zone on the east and west edges of town. Approximately 120 acres fall in the very high liquefaction susceptibility areas within Sebastopol and 1,277 acres in the very low liquefaction susceptibility areas within the City’s Planning Area.

Most of the highly susceptible category is situated east of town and follows the Laguna de Santa Rosa River that crosses the main bridge along Sebastopol Road or Highway 12 East.

Earthquakes can also lead to secondary hazards including flooding, building structure failure, debris flows, and fire (among others).

Figure 4-4: Liquefaction Susceptibility in the City of Sebastopol

Landslide Potential and Susceptibility
A landslide is a geologic hazard where the force of gravity combines with other factors to cause earth material to move or slide down an incline. Some landslides move slowly and cause damage gradually, whereas others move so rapidly that they can destroy property and take lives suddenly and unexpectedly.

Slopes with the greatest potential for sliding are between 34 degrees and 37 degrees. Although steep slopes are commonly present where landslides occur, it is not necessary for the slopes to be long.

There are predictable relationships between local geology and landslides. The down-slope movement of earth material as a landslide is part of the continuous, natural process of erosion. This process, however, can be influenced by a variety of causes that change the stability of the slope. Slope instability may result from natural processes, such as the erosion of the toe of a slope by a stream, or by ground shaking caused by an earthquake. Slopes can also be modified artificially by grading, or by the addition of water or structures to a slope. Landslide problems can be caused by land mismanagement, particularly in mountain, canyon, and coastal regions. In areas burned by forest and brush fires, a lower threshold of precipitation may initiate landslides and debris flows. As human populations expand over more of the land surface, these processes become an increasing concern. Development that occurs on a slope can substantially increase the frequency and extent of potential slope stability hazards. Knowledge of these relationships can improve planning and reduce vulnerability. Slope stability is dependent on many factors and their interrelationships, including rock type, moisture content, slope steepness, and natural or manmade undercutting.

The California Geological Survey (CGS) along with the California Department of Conservation have generated a landslide dataset that classifies susceptibility in California to various degrees, from very high (the most potentially dangerous) to a none or dry category (the least risk) (CGS 2019). Unknown or undetermined areas exist as well, as displayed in Figure 4-5 below. In Sebastopol the majority of the Planning Area is in the lower risk categories of landslide susceptibility, meaning that the local soils, slopes and geology are not very likely to lead to landslide activity.

Figure 4-5: Landslide Susceptibility in the City of Sebastopol and Its Planning Area

Faults
California is a seismically active area with numerous faults throughout the region. An active fault is defined by CGS as a fault that has had surface rupture or displacement within the last 11,000 years (Holocene times). This does not mean, however, that faults having no evidence of surface displacement within the last 11,000 years are necessarily inactive. Potentially active faults are those that have shown displacement within the last 1.8 million years (Quaternary period) but have not moved within the Holocene times. Any fault older than Pleistocene (>1.8 million years) is considered inactive and dormant.

Although based on the history of fault movement and seismic activity in the area, it is known that the main faults posing risk to the City are the San Andreas Fault system and the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault (northern portion of the Hayward Fault), although none of these faults are within the City (see the Location section of this chapter for additional details).

As shown in Figure 4-6, there are several earthquake faults classified as Quaternary (those which are recognized at the surface and which have shown activity in the past 1.6 million years, or during the geologic Quaternary epoch) in the Planning Area. Additional faults are present, which are located farther from the City and could cause seismic activity in the future. The faults illustrated in Figure 4-6 are summarized below:
• Joy Woods fault is west of the City.
• San Andreas fault is west of the City.
• Part of Tolay fault is southeast of the City boundary but outside of the limits. • Bloomfield fault is south of the City but outside of its limits. • Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault, along Rodgers Creek to the east of the City but outside of the limits.

Figure 4-6: Earthquake Faults near the Planning Area

Location
Extensive – There are no known faults within the City, but there are many near the Planning Area, which are discussed in more detail below. Additional faults nearby the Planning Area are illustrated in Figure 4-6.

There are two active faults: San Andreas Fault and active the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault (northern portion of the Hayward Fault) that fall outside the Planning Area but have historically been the source of earthquakes felt in Sebastopol. These local and regional faults are described in more detail below based on information summarized in the Sonoma County HMP.
• San Andreas Fault. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 14 miles west of the Planning Area. It is a shallow fault and is considered the most active fault in California. Historically, the San Andreas Fault system is the main fault responsible for earthquakes felt in the City and is also expected to continue being the source of future earthquake activity. • Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault. The Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault is an active fault known as the northern extension of the Hayward Fault and it is associated with the Santa Rosa Plain, in Sonoma County. It marks the break between the Santa Rosa Plain and the uplifting Santa Rosa block to the east and the Sebastopol fault to the west marks the break between the Valley and the uplifting Sebastopol Block to the west (SFEI 2020). It is a strike slip fault, measuring around 117 kilometers in length. The most notable earthquake activity along the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault took place in 1969 during the Santa Rosa Earthquakes. These were a pair of earthquakes, one a magnitude of 5.6 and the other a magnitude of 5.7 both that struck early October of that year in the nearby City of Santa Rosa northwest of the City of Sebastopol. The two earthquakes resulted in $8.35 million in damages related to building removal and repairs.
• Tolay Fault. The Tolay Fault is located south of the City of Sebastopol along the slope of the southwestern ridge in the lower portion of the Tolay Creek watershed. This fault, like the HealdsburgRodgers Creek fault, have produced sheared or weak zones in rock formations that weather and erode, and sometimes form conditions for hillslope wetlands. According to the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, the fault lacks associated historic seismicity.

Extent (Magnitude/Severity)
Catastrophic – Extent (meaning the severity of an earthquake) refers to the amount of energy released during an earthquake and is usually expressed in terms of intensity or magnitude. These metrics are measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs.

Intensity represents the observed effects of ground-shaking at any specified location, and earthquake shaking decreases with distance from the earthquake epicenter. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking at any given location on the ground surface based on felt or observed effects. Seismic shaking is typically the greatest cause of losses to structures during earthquakes. Intensity is measured with the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (see Table 4-8).

Magnitude represents the amount of seismic energy released at the hypocenter of an earthquake and is based on the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded. Seismologists have developed several magnitude scales; one of the first was the Richter Scale, developed in 1932 by Dr. Charles F. Richter of the California Institute of Technology. The Moment Magnitude Scale is the current scale used to quantify the magnitude or strength of the seismic energy released by an earthquake.

Table 4-8 below compares magnitude and the felt effects associated with the MMI scale. Damage typically occurs in MMI of VII or above and based on Figure 4-3. The majority of the City is found in areas where spectral acceleration is expected to surpass the 70 percent g (or gravitational velocity); this means that there is a high probability of the City experiencing strong seismic movements in the next few decades.

Table 4-8: Magnitude and Mercalli Intensity Scale Measurements and Associated Characteristics Magnitude Mercalli
Intensity Effects Frequency
Less than 2.0 I Micro-earthquakes, not felt or rarely felt; recorded by seismographs. Continual

2.0-2.9 I to II Felt slightly by some people; damages to buildings. Over 1M per year

3.0-3.9 II to IV Often felt by people; rarely causes damage; shaking of indoor objects noticeable. Over 100,000 per year

4.0-4.9 IV to VI
Noticeable shaking of indoor objects and rattling noises; felt by most people in the affected area; slightly felt outside; generally, no to minimal damage.
10K to 15K per year

5.0-5.9 VI to VIII
Can cause damage of varying severity to poorly constructed buildings; at most, none to slight damage to all other
buildings. Felt by everyone.
1K to 1,500 per year

6.0-6.9 VII to X
Damage to a moderate number of well-built structures in populated areas; earthquake-resistant structures survive with slight to moderate damage; poorly designed structures
receive moderate to severe damage; felt in wider areas; up to hundreds of miles/kilometers from the epicenter; strong to violent shaking in epicentral area.
100 to 150 per year

7.0-7.9 VIII<
Causes damage to most buildings, some to partially or
completely collapse or receive severe damage; welldesigned structures are likely to receive damage; felt across great distances with major damage mostly limited to 250 km from epicenter.
10 to 20 per year

8.0-8.9 VIII<
Major damage to buildings, structures likely to be destroyed; will cause moderate to heavy damage to sturdy or
earthquake-resistant buildings; damaging in large areas; felt in extremely large regions.

One per year

9.0 and
Greater VIII<
At or near total destruction - severe damage or collapse to all buildings; heavy damage and shaking extends to distant locations; permanent changes in ground topography.

One per 10-50 years
Source: USGS
Previous Occurrences
Earthquakes have occurred nearby the Planning Area in
the past (within Sonoma County and adjacent areas).

According to the USGS, a recent earthquake event of a
magnitude of 6.0 took place near South Napa, about 30
miles to the southeast of the City Planning Area. This
event occurred the morning of August 24, 2014 and had
a reported intensity of VII in the Mercalli scale. The
earthquake was on the West Napa Fault, which was not
mapped under the Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault
hazard zone and was the largest event of this kind in the San Francisco Bay area since the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake (further summarized below). The seismic
activity of this event had an estimated 11.1 kilometers of depth. Thousands of structures across Sonoma County
were damaged, and hundreds of people were injured
during the earthquake across the affected areas in the
In 2014 a 6.0 magnitude earthquake occurred in the
southern portion of the City of Napa on the West
Napa Fault. The event was the largest earthquake in
the San Francisco Bay Area since the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake. Total damage in the southern Napa and
Vallejo areas ranged from $362 million to $1 billion.

Photo Credit: LA Times 2014

County. One person was reported as being killed during the earthquake. Because of the extensive damages, the California Governor issued an emergency proclamation on August 24, 2014, and the U.S.

President declared the incident a major disaster on September 11, 2014. Total economic losses were around $400 million, and state and federal assistance surpassed the $30 million mark. The SBA granted over $21 million in low-interest disaster loans to local businesses and agencies affected by the event.

Other recent earthquake events in the area include smaller magnitude earthquakes such as:
• A magnitude 2.6 earthquake with reported intensity of III occurred on September 8, 2020. The epicenter of the event was approximately 4 kilometers southeast of Larkfield-Wikiup at a depth of 6.8 kilometers.
• A magnitude 3.2 earthquake occurred on May 2, 2019. The event’s epicenter was approximately 4 kilometers south/southwest of Calistoga, CA in adjacent Napa County. The depth of the event was

10.9 kilometers.
• A magnitude 2.8 earthquake with reported intensity of III, on December 24, 2017. This event’s epicenter was about 6 kilometers west of Temelec, near Sonoma. The depth of the event was of 1 kilometer.
• A magnitude 2.7 earthquake with reported intensity of II, on November 17, 2013. The epicenter of this incident was about 5 kilometers east-southeast of Penngrove, southeast of Sebastopol. The depth of the event was of 4.4 kilometers.
• A magnitude 3.3 earthquake took place on July 25, 2011 and had a reported intensity of IV. Its depth was of 6.7 kilometers and the epicenter was located approximately 17 kilometers south-southeast from Sebastopol.

The Bay Area, including the City, has experienced several significant and other well-documented earthquakes and since 1855, and more than 140 earthquakes have been felt in the Santa Rosa near Sebastopol (Sonoma County 2017). The three major earthquakes included the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, 1969 Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg Fault Earthquake, and 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. These three major earthquakes are summarized below:
• 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. This earthquake had an 8.3 magnitude and occurred on the northern segment of the San Andreas Fault and resulted in devastating damage to San Francisco and major damage in Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Healdsburg, Petaluma, and other Sonoma County communities. Nearby Santa Rosa suffered more damage proportionally to its size than any other Bay Area city and the only casualties reported were in the City of Santa Rosa, where 65 people died and 12 went missing (Sonoma County 2017).
• 1969 Rodgers Creek - Healdsburg Fault Earthquake. Two earthquakes with Magnitudes of 5.6 and

5.7 originated near the juncture of the Rodgers Creek and Healdsburg Fault, approximately two miles north of Santa Rosa. Damage was concentrated in the City of Santa Rosa, and principally confined to the partial collapse or near collapse of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings and wood frame buildings with substandard foundations or inadequate bracing. According to the 2016 Sonoma County Operational Area HMP, 99 structures were significantly damaged, approximately half in the business district and half in residential areas (Sonoma County 2017). Nearly half of all significantly damaged buildings were demolished. Total building damage was estimated at $6 million, with dwelling contents losses at $1.25 million.
• 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. This 6.9 magnitude earthquake was caused by a slip along the San Andreas Fault south of the Bay Area. Though the damage in Sonoma County from the earthquake was minor, the earthquake killed 63 people and injured 3,757 throughout northern California. It caused a total of over 16,700 housing units to be uninhabitable throughout the Monterey and San Francisco Bay Areas and left approximately 3,000-12,000 people homeless. The earthquake caused severe

damage in specific locations in the San Francisco Bay Area, most notably on unstable soil in San Francisco and Oakland, where approximately 12,000 homes and 2,600 businesses were damaged. In Santa Cruz, close to the epicenter, 40 buildings collapsed. The earthquake caused an estimated $6 billion ($11 billion in current value) in property damage, becoming one of the most expensive natural disasters in U.S. history at the time. It was the largest earthquake to occur on the San Andreas Fault since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

Probability of Future Occurrences
Likely – Given the information presented herein as well as recent earthquake activity history, earthquake hazards are expected to be a likely occurrence in the City as well as in Sonoma County. It is estimated that similar seismic activity events may occur every 20 to 30 years in the Planning Area and the overall San Francisco Bay region (State of California Seismic Safety Commission 2020).

The USGS noted in 2014 that there was a 72 percent probability of a strong earthquake (of magnitude 6.7 or greater) striking the San Francisco Bay Region (of which Sebastopol is part) by 2043. The probability of having a strong earthquake (of this magnitude 6.7 or greater) generated from the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault was then estimated at about 33 percent. However, more recent information released in 2015 by the USGS new Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 3, or UCERF3, considers additional parameters and data. With this new criteria and advanced technology, the updated results estimate that the actual chance of a strong earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or above is around 72 percent in the San Francisco Bay Region. The San Andreas fault now has a 33 percent chance of rupturing and causing earthquake activity, though the Rodgers Creek fault system’s probability has decreased to about 15 percent chance of rupture (UCERF3 2014).

Climate Change Considerations
While climate change is not expected to directly affect earthquake frequency or intensity it could exacerbate indirect or secondary impacts of earthquakes. For example, climate change could increase the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events, in turn increasing the probability of landslides and liquefaction events during an earthquake if the earthquake coincided with a wet cycle. Increased precipitation due to climate change will also result in increased frequency of landslide potential, as the added weight of rain-saturated soils on steeper hill slopes and the weakening of slopes caused by the pressure groundwater exerts on porous hillsides could trigger slope failure (SHMP 2018). These impacts are more likely to occur along the southern portion of the City’s Planning Area where there is low to moderate landslide potential; the majority of the City otherwise has a low landslide potential. For these reasons, climate change would have a “low” influence on earthquake hazards, specifically landslide susceptibility within the City.

Vulnerability Assessment
Ground shaking is the primary hazard related to earthquake activity. Many factors affect the survivability of structures and systems from earthquake-caused ground motions. These factors include proximity to the fault, direction of rupture, epicentral location and depth, magnitude, local geologic and soils conditions, types and quality of construction, building configurations and heights, and comparable factors that relate to utility, transportation, and other network systems. Ground motions become structurally damaging when average peak ground accelerations reach 10 to 15 percent of gravity, average peak velocities reach 8 to 12 centimeters per second, and when the MMI Scale is about VII, which is considered to be very strong (general alarm; walls crack; plaster falls).

Fault rupture itself contributes very little to damage unless the structure or system element crosses the active fault. In general, newer construction is more earthquake resistant than older construction because