Annex F: CITY OF SACRAMENTO

F.1 Introduction

This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the City of Sacramento, a participating jurisdiction to the Sacramento County LHMP Update. This annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the City. This annex provides additional information specific to the City of Sacramento, with a focus on providing additional details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this community.

F.2 Planning Process

As described above, the City of Sacramento followed the planning process detailed in Section 3.0 of the base plan. In addition to providing representation on the Sacramento County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC), the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process requirements. Internal planning participants included staff from the following City departments:

Community Development Department Utilities Department Sacramento Fire Sacramento Police Department Media and Communication

Additional details on plan participation and City representatives are included in Appendix A. F.3 Community Profile

The community profile for the City of Sacramento is detailed in the following sections. Figure F.1 displays a map and the location of the City of Sacramento within Sacramento County.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.1. The City of Sacramento Base Map

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 F.3.1 Geography and Climate

The City of Sacramento is located in the heart of California‟s Central Valley at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers. The Great Valley is a flat alluvial plain approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long in the central portion of California. Its northern part is the Sacramento Valley drained by the Sacramento River, and its southern part is the San Joaquin Valley drained by the San Joaquin River. It is surrounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, Coastal Range to the west, and Cascade Range to the north. The topography of the area is relatively flat. There is a gradual slope rising from elevations as low as sea level in the southwestern portion of the Policy Area up to approximately 75 feet above sea level in the northeastern portion.

Sacramento is the cultural and economic center of its six-county metropolitan area (El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties) and the largest city in the Central Valley. The regional location of Sacramento, as shown on the map above, is roughly halfway between San Francisco to the west and Lake Tahoe to the east. Sacramento covers a total area of approximately 99 square miles and is the seventh most populous city in California with a 2010 estimated population of 466,087. Sacramento has a Mediterranean climate that is characterized by mild winters and dry, hot summers. Rain typically falls between November and March, with the rainy season tapering off almost completely by the end of April. Average daily high temperatures range from the 50s in December and January to the 90s in July (with many days of over 100).

Sacramento is accessible from Interstate 80 and U.S. Highway 50 (running east/west) and Interstate 5 and U.S. Highway 99 (running north/south). Amtrak serves Sacramento‟s passenger rail needs, while Sacramento International Airport (SMF) provides domestic and international flights through most major airlines. Within the city and surrounding region, Sacramento Regional Transit provides bus and light rail service.

F.3.2 History

Prior to European settlement, Nisenan (Southern Maidu) and Plains Miwok Indians lived in the area. In the early 1800s, the Spanish explorer Gabriel Moraga “discovered” and named the Sacramento Valley and the Sacramento River after the Spanish term for “sacrament.” Sacramento was founded during the California Gold Rush and grew quickly due to the protection of Sutter‟s Fort, which was established by John Sutter in 1839.

The citizens of Sacramento adopted a city charter in 1849 and became the first incorporated city in California on February 27, 1850. During the California Gold Rush and through the 1800s, Sacramento became a major distribution point, a commercial and agricultural center, a terminus for wagon trains, stagecoaches, riverboats, the telegraph, the Pony Express, and the First Transcontinental Railroad, and in 1854 the state capital of California.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 The city‟s current charter was adopted by voters in 1920, establishing a city council-and- manager form of government, still used today. The City expanded continuously over the years in the first half of the 1900s and in 1964 merged with the city of North Sacramento, just north of the American River. Large annexations of the Pocket area on the south and Natomas area on the north eventually led to significant population growth throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

Sacramento experienced a massive growth in population in the 1990s and early 2000s. Primary sources of population growth are migration from the San Francisco Bay Area due to lower housing costs, as well as immigration from Asia, Central America, Mexico, Ukraine, and the rest of the former Soviet Union. From 1990 to 2000, the city‟s population grew by over 14 percent.

F.3.3 Population

In 2010, the total population for the City of Sacramento was at 466,087 by the US Census Bureau.

F.4 Hazard Identification and Summary

This section details how the risk varies across the Sacramento County planning area. Sacramento‟s planning team identified the hazards that affect the City and summarized their frequency of occurrence, spatial extent, potential magnitude, and significance specific Sacramento (see Table F.1). In the context of the plan‟s planning area, there are no hazards that are unique to Sacramento.

Information on past occurrences and the likelihood of future occurrences is detailed in Section 4, Risk Assessment, of the base plan. Additional information for high and medium significant hazards for the City is included in the Vulnerability Assessment section of this Annex.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Table F.1. City of Sacramento Hazard Summary

Frequency of Potential Hazard Occurrence Spatial Extent Magnitude Significance Agricultural Hazards: Occasional Limited Limited Low Insects/Pests Bird Strike Occasional Limited Negligible Low Dam Failure Occasional Extensive Catastrophic High Drought Occasional Extensive Critical Medium Earthquake Occasional Limited Critical Low Earthquake: Liquefaction Occasional Limited Critical Low Flood: 100/200/500-year Likely Critical Critical High Flood: Localized/Stormwater Highly Likely Significant Critical High Landslide Unlikely Limited Negligible Low Levee Failure Likely Significant Catastrophic Medium River/Stream/Creek Bank Likely Limited Limited Medium Erosion Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Likely Significant Critical Medium Severe Weather: Fog Likely Limited Limited Medium Severe Weather: Freeze Occasional Limited Limited Low Severe Weather: Heavy Rain Likely Significant Critical High and Storms Severe Weather: Tornadoes Unlikely Limited Limited Low Subsidence Likely Limited Limited Low Volcano Unlikely Limited Catastrophic Low Wildfire Occasional Significant Limited Medium Guidelines for Hazard Rankings: Frequency of Occurrence: Potential Magnitude: Highly Likely-Near 100 percent probability in next year Catastrophic-More than 50 percent of area Likely-Between 10 and 100 percent probability in next year or at least affected one chance in ten years Critical-25 to 50 percent Occasional-Between 1 and 10 percent probability in next year or at Limited-10 to 25 percent least one chance in next 100 years Negligible-Less than 10 percent Unlikely-Less than 1 percent probability in next 100 years Significance (subjective): Spatial Extent: Low, Medium, High Limited-Less than 10 percent of planning area Significant-10-50 percent of planning area Extensive-50-100 percent of planning area Source: AMEC Data Collection Guide

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 F.5 Vulnerability Assessment

The intent of this section is to assess Sacramento‟s vulnerability separate from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been assessed in Section 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment of the base plan. This vulnerability assessment provides an inventory of the population, property, and other assets located within the City and further analyzes those assets at risk to identified hazards ranked of medium or high significance (as listed in Table F.1) to the community. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Chapter 4 Risk Assessment in the main plan.

F.5.1 Total Assets at Risk

This section identifies Sacramento‟s total assets at risk, including values at risk, critical facilities and infrastructure, natural resources, historic and cultural resources, and economic assets. Growth and development trends are also presented for the community. This data is not hazard specific, but is representative of total assets at risk within a community.

Values at Risk

The following data from the Sacramento County Assessor‟s Office is based on the secured roll data for 2010. This data should only be used as a guideline to overall values in the City as the information has some limitations. The most significant limitation is created by Proposition 13. Instead of adjusting property values annually, the values are not adjusted or assessed at fair market value until a property transfer occurs. As a result, overall value information is likely low and does not reflect current market value of properties. It is also important to note that in the event of a disaster, it is generally the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the land that is of concern or at risk. Generally, the land itself is not a loss. Table F.2 shows the 2010 secured roll data (e.g., the values at risk) broken down by property type for the City of Sacramento. Information about specific categories and methodology can be found in Section 4.3.1 of the main plan.

Table F.2. 2010 Roll Values for the City of Sacramento by Property Type

Land Use Structure Count Land Value Structure Value Agricultural 2 $2,876,955 $338,789 Care/Health 147 $64,900,508 $741,106,902 Church/Welfare 446 $72,453,537 $391,496,143 Industrial 1,823 $577,365,076 $1,543,578,041 Miscellaneous 1,018 $49,166,867 $99,284,450 No Data 3 $816,191 $2,197,468 Office 1,610 $1,043,061,457 $3,986,194,313 Public/Utilities 226 $21,558,220 $73,655,981 Recreational 77 $38,171,708 $124,496,858

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.6 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Land Use Structure Count Land Value Structure Value Residential 127,083 $7,297,516,660 $18,001,708,739 Retail/Commercial 2,451 $1,073,600,018 $1,926,371,152 Vacant 217 $732,218,713 $17,882,675 Total 135,103 10,973,705,910 26,908,311,511 Source: 2010 Secured Roll Data, Sacramento County Assessor’s Office

Significant assets directly within the City of Sacramento include a range of properties and infrastructure. These may include city-owned property, critical facilities and infrastructure, cultural and natural resources, and others. An inventory of key city assets is provided in Table F.3. Total value of these assets exceeds $1.6 billion.

Table F.3. Key Assets in the City of Sacramento

Name of Asset Facility Type* Replacement Value Hazard Info Administration Buildings EF 133,512,000 Flood, Earthquake CCL Buildings and Assets EF 346,099,237 Flood, Earthquake DOT Buildings EF 13,428,342 Flood, Earthquake Economic Development Assets EF 5,065,156 Flood, Earthquake Fire Department Buildings EF 44,256,144 Flood, Earthquake Fleet Vehicles T&L 30,697,829 Flood, Earthquake General Services Assets EF 49,480,859 Flood, Earthquake Library Buildings EF 95,864,075 Flood, Earthquake Parking Structures T&L 185,735,887 Flood, Earthquake Parks and Recreation Buildings EF 71,904,104 Flood, Earthquake Police Department Buildings EF 59,176,630 Flood, Earthquake SHRA Buildings EF 705,167 Flood, Earthquake SRDTF Buildings EF 1,345,246 Flood, Earthquake Transportation Buildings EF 1,667,057 Flood, Earthquake Utilities Buildings and Assets EF 593,917,054 Flood, Earthquake Total $1,632,854,787 Source: City of Sacramento *EF=Essential Facilties, HPL=High Potential Loss Facilities, T&L=Transportation & Lifeline

Critical Facilities and Infrastructure

For purposes of this plan, a critical facility is defined as:

Any facility, including without limitation, a structure, infrastructure, property, equipment or service, that if adversely affected during a hazard event may result in severe consequences to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during and after the hazard event.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.7 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 This definition was refined by separating out three categories of critical facilities as further described in Section 4.3.1 of the base plan. An inventory of critical facilities in the City of Sacramento from Sacramento County GIS is provided in Table F.4 and illustrated in Figure F.2.

Table F.4. City of Sacramento Critical Facilities: Summary Table

CF Definition Category Type Count Essential Services Facilities Airport 1 Essential Services Facilities Arena 1 Essential Services Facilities Bus Terminal 6 Essential Services Facilities Convention Center 1 Essential Services Facilities Emergency Evacuation Shelter 76 Essential Services Facilities Fire Station 21 Essential Services Facilities General Acute Care Hospital 6 Essential Services Facilities Government Facilities 29 Essential Services Facilities Light Rail Stop 36 Essential Services Facilities Medical Health Facility 97 Essential Services Facilities Police 3 Essential Services Facilities Stadium 2 Essential Services Facilities Train Station 1 Essential Services Facilities Water Treatment Plant 2 At Risk Population Facilities Adult Day Care 11 At Risk Population Facilities Adult Education School 4 At Risk Population Facilities Adult Residential 119 At Risk Population Facilities Alternative Education School 2 At Risk Population Facilities Assisted Living Centers 1 At Risk Population Facilities Charter School 14 At Risk Population Facilities Children's Home 2 At Risk Population Facilities College/University 4 At Risk Population Facilities Community Day School 4 At Risk Population Facilities Day Care Center 158 At Risk Population Facilities Group Home 19 At Risk Population Facilities Hotel 17 At Risk Population Facilities Independent Study School 1 At Risk Population Facilities Infant Center 14 At Risk Population Facilities Jail 1 At Risk Population Facilities Private Elementary School 18 At Risk Population Facilities Private High School 7 At Risk Population Facilities Private K-12 School 9 At Risk Population Facilities Public Continuation High School 4 At Risk Population Facilities Public Elementary School 83

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 CF Definition Category Type Count At Risk Population Facilities Public High School 11 At Risk Population Facilities Public Middle School 13 At Risk Population Facilities Residential Care/Elderly 70 At Risk Population Facilities School-Age Day Care Center 41 At Risk Population Facilities Social Rehabilitation Facility 1 Total 910 Source: County of Sacramento

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.9 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.2. City of Sacramento Critical Facilities

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.10 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Natural Resources

Habitats

The City of Sacramento has a variety of natural resources of value to the community:

Annual Grassland Riparian Woodland Oak Woodlands Freshwater Marsh Vernal Pools Seasonal Wetlands

Special Status Species

The following special-status species are known to occur within the natural habitats most likely to be present within the Policy Area boundaries. These and other species potentially occurring in the Policy Area can be found in Table F.5. Figure F.3 shows the locations of sensitive elements within the Policy Area.

Table F.5. Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in the City of Sacramento

Status Scientific Name Common Name Fed/State/Other Habitat Plants Astragalus tener var. Alkali milk-vetch --/--/1B Vernal pools, playas and Valley tener grasslands on adobe clay and/or alkaline soils. Atriplex depress Brittlescale --/--/1B Chenopod scrub, meadows, playas, valley grassland, vernal pools. Usually in alkali scalds or alkali clay in meadows or annual grassland. Atriplex joaquiniana San Joaquin saltbush --/--/1B Chenopod scrub, alkali meadow, valley and foothill grassland. Balsamorhiza macrolepis Big-scale balsamroot --/--/1B Grassland var. macrolepis Cordylanthus mollis var. Hispid bird’s beak FSC/--/1B Grassland/ vernal pool. hispidus Cordylanthus palmatus Palmate-bracted bird’s- E/E/1B Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill beak grassland. usually on alkaline clay, with Distichlis, Frankenia, etc. Downingia pusilla Dwarf downingia --/--/2 Vernal pool Hibiscus lasiocarpus Rose mallow --/--/1B Freshwater marshes and swamps in the Central Valley. Gratiola heterosepala Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop --/E/1B Vernal pool

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.11 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Status Scientific Name Common Name Fed/State/Other Habitat Juglans hindsii Northern California black --/--/1B Riparian forest, and woodland. Few walnut extant native stands remain; but is widely naturalized from rootstock plants Juncus leiospermus var. Ahart’s dwarf rush FSC/--/1B Vernal pool ahartii Legenere limosa Legenere FSC/--/1B Vernal pool Lepidium latipes var. Heckard’s peppergrass --/--/1B Valley and foothill grassland and vernal heckardii pools on alkaline soils Navarretia myersii Pincushion navarretia --/--/1B Vernal pool Orcuttia tenuis Slender orcutt grass T/E/1B Vernal pool Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford’s arrowhead FSC/--/1B Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow fresh water). Invertebrates Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy shrimp T/-- Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands in grassland habitats Desmocerus californicus Valley elderberry longhorn T/-- Elderberry shrubs, typically in or near dimorphus beetle riparian areas. Lepidurus packardi Vernal pool tadpole shrimp E/-- Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands in grassland habitats Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella FSC/-- Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands in grassland habitats. Fish Archoplites interruptus Sacramento Perch --/CSC Historically found in the sloughs, slow- moving rivers, and lakes of the central valley. Prefer warm water. Aquatic vegetation is essential for young. Tolerant of a wide range of physiochemical water conditions. Oncorhynchus Central Valley spring run T/T Occurs in the Pacific Ocean for most of tshawytscha Chinook salmon its life. Travels to clean gravel beds in the upper Sacramento and portions of the American River for spawning Oncorhynchus Central Valley Winter run E/E Occurs in the Pacific Ocean for most of tshawytscha Chinook salmon its life. Travels to clean gravel beds in the upper Sacramento and portions of the American River for spawning. Oncorhynchus mykiss Central Valley steelhead T/-- Occurs in the Pacific Ocean for most of its life. Travels to clean gravel beds in the upper Sacramento and portions of the American River for spawning Hypomesus Delta smelt T/T Occurs in Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta transpacificus most of the year. Spawns in tidally influenced freshwater wetlands and seasonally submerged uplands along the Sacramento River, downstream from its confluence with the American River

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.12 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Status Scientific Name Common Name Fed/State/Other Habitat Pogonichthys Sacramento splittail SC/CSC Endemic to the lakes and rivers of the macrolepidotus central valley, but now confined to the Delta, Suisun Bay & associated marshes. Prefers slow moving river sections, dead end sloughs. Requires flooded vegetation for spawning & foraging for young. Amphibians Spea hammondii Western spadefoot --/CSC Breeds in seasonal wetlands and large vernal pools, spends most of the year underground in adjacent upland areas. Reptiles Actinemys marmorata Western pond turtle FSC/CSC Ponds, streams, rivers, marshes and canals with suitable basking sites and vegetative cover. Nests and aestivates in adjacent uplands. Phrynosoma coronatum California horned lizard FSC/CSC/none Annual grassland, chaparral, saltbush frontale scrub, alkali flats, oak woodland, riparian woodland, and coniferous forest; open habitats with loose fine (often sandy) soils. Thamnophis gigas Giant garter snake T/T/-- Cattail and tule marshes, low gradient streams, rice fields and canals on the Valley floor Birds Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk --/CSC (Nesting) Nests and forages in woodland habitats Agelaius tricolor Tricolor blackbird FSC/CSC Nest in dense stands of cattails, thickets of willows, blackberries, or tall herbs adjacent to open grasslands Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk --/CSC (Nesting) Nests in forests; forages in wooded habitats Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle FP/CSC Nests on cliffs and very large trees. Forages primarily in grasslands and chaparral, but also woodlands and other relatively open habitats Asio otus Long-eared owl --/CSC (Nesting) Nests and forages in oak and riparian woodlands Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl SC/CSC Grassland, deserts and other open habitats. Requires ground squirrel or other small mammal burrows for nesting Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk FSC/CSC Forages in open grasslands and chaparral. Not known to nest in California Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk --/T Nests in riparian trees; forages in open fields Circus cyaneus Northern harrier --/CSC Nests in freshwater marsh and agricultural fields; forages in marshes, grasslands and agricultural fields Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite FSC/FP (Nesting) Nests colonially in large trees adjacent to open grasslands for foraging.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.13 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Status Scientific Name Common Name Fed/State/Other Habitat Eremophila alpestris Horned lark SC/CSC Forages and nests in open grasslands Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike --/CSC Nests in woodlands adjacent to grassland foraging habitat Progne subis Purple martin --/CSC Nest in cavities in trees, under bridges and other human-made structures Riparia riparia Bank swallow --/T Nests in sandy banks or cliffs, usually over water (typically rivers and streams). Mammals Antrozous pallida Pallid bat FSC/CSC/none Roosts in crevices in caves, mines, large rock outcrops, under bridges and in abandoned buildings. Forages on or near the ground in a wide variety of open habitats Corynorhinus townsendii Pacific western big eared FSC/CSC/none Roosts in the open in large caves, townsendii bat abandoned mines and buildings. Very sensitive to roost disturbance Myotis ciliolabrum Small-footed myotis bat FSC/CSC/none Occurs in most of California except the coastal redwood region; roosts in buildings, trees, and crevices in cliffs Myotis volans Long-legged myotis bat FSC/CSC/none Roosts in crevices in caves, mines, large rock outcrops, under bridges and in abandoned buildings. Forages in a wide variety of open habitats, frequently over water. Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis bat FSC/CSC/none Common along wooded canyon bottoms throughout California; roosts in buildings, large trees with hollows, and crevices in cliffs Perognathus inornatus San Joaquin pocket FSC/CSC/none Open grasslands, preferably (but not mouse restricted to) areas with friable soils. Notes: Scientific names are based on the following source: California Department of Fish and Game, Special Animals, July 2000. Status = Status of species relative to the Federal and California State Endangered Species Acts and Fish and Game Code of California. Fed = Federal status. CA = California status. E = Federally listed as endangered. E = Endangered; Species whose continued existence in T = Federally listed as threatened. California is jeopardized. PE = Proposed endangered. T = Threatened; Species that although not presently threatened PT = Proposed threatened. in California with extinction, is likely to become endangered in C = Federal candidate for listing as threatened or the foreseeable future. endangered. CSC = California Department of Fish and Game “Species of FSC = Federal species of concern. Special Concern”. Species with declining populations in California. FP = Fully protected against take pursuant to the Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. -- = No California or federal status.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.14 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Status Scientific Name Common Name Fed/State/Other Habitat CNPS – California Native Plant Society 1A – Plant species that is presumed extinct in California. 1B - Plant species that is rare or endangered in California or elsewhere. 2 - Plant species that is rare or endangered in California, but is more common elsewhere. 3 - Plant species for which more information is needed to determine status. 4 - Plant species that have a limited distribution. Source: California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database, 2005.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.15 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.3. City of Sacramento Biological Resources

Source: City of Sacramento General Plan Technical Background Report

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.16 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Historic and Cultural Resources

The City of Sacramento has registered federal historic sites, state landmarks, and points of interest. These are shown in Table F.6.

Table F.6. Historic Sites in the City of Sacramento

National State California Point of Date Name (Landmark Plaque Number) Register Landmark Register Interest Listed City A. W. Clifton House, Compton X 2/1/2002 Sacramento Mansion (C17) Adams And Company Building (607) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Alkali Flat Central Historic District X 7/26/1984 Sacramento (N1294) Alkali Flat North Historic District X 4/19/1984 Sacramento (N1279) Alkali Flat West Historic District X 7/26/1984 Sacramento (N1295) B. F. Hastings Building (606) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Blue Anchor Building (N1171) X 2/3/1983 Sacramento Brighton School (N952) X 4/3/1981 Sacramento Business & Professional Building, X 2/10/2000 Sacramento Consumer Affairs Building (C8) California Almond Growers Exchange X 10/1/1985 Sacramento Processing Facility (967) California Governor's Mansion (N60) X 11/10/1970 Sacramento California State Capitol (N222) X 4/3/1973 Sacramento California's Capitol Complex (872) X X 5/6/1974 Sacramento California's First Passenger Railroad X 3/7/1955 Sacramento (526) Calpak Plant No. 11 (N1285) X 5/17/1984 Sacramento Camp Union, Sutterville (666) X 11/5/1958 Sacramento Capitol Extension District (N1288) X 5/24/1984 Sacramento Chevra Kaddisha (Home Of Peace X 7/28/1958 Sacramento Cemetery) (654) Coloma Road At Sutter's Fort (745) X 7/5/1960 Sacramento Coolot Company Building (N671) X 9/20/1978 Sacramento Cranston--Geary House (N2010) X 1/23/1998 Sacramento Crocker, E. B., Art Gallery (N86) X X 5/6/1971 Sacramento Curran Farmhouse (P666) X 12/17/1985 Sacramento D. O. Mills Bank Building (609) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Dunlap's Dining Room (N1764) X 4/2/1992 Sacramento Eagle Theater (595) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Eastern Star Hall (P754) X X 8/8/1991 Sacramento

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.17 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 National State California Point of Date Name (Landmark Plaque Number) Register Landmark Register Interest Listed City Ebner's Hotel (602) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Fire Station No. 6 (N1686) X 4/25/1991 Sacramento Firehouse No. 3 (N1743) X 10/29/1991 Sacramento First Transcontinental Railroad (780) X 11/20/1962 Sacramento First Transcontinental Railroad- X 11/20/1962 Sacramento Western Base Of The Sierra Nevada (780) Five Mile House-Overland Pony X 9/11/1959 Sacramento Express Route In California (697) Galarneaux, Mary Haley, House X 2/12/2001 Sacramento (N2121) George Hack House (P800) X 8/5/1994 Sacramento Goethe House (N1036) X 2/19/1982 Sacramento Governor's Mansion (823) X 6/7/1968 Sacramento Greene, John T., House (N1092) X 4/15/1982 Sacramento Headquarters Of The Big Four (600) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Heilbron House (N462) X 12/12/1976 Sacramento Hotel Regis (N1147) X 10/29/1982 Sacramento Hotel Senator (N782) X 5/30/1979 Sacramento Howe, Edward P., Jr., House X 2/19/1982 Sacramento (N1037) Hubbard-Upson House (N543) X 12/2/1977 Sacramento I Street Bridge (N1094) X 4/22/1982 Sacramento J Street Wreck (N1692) X 5/16/1991 Sacramento Joe Mound (N121) X 10/14/1971 Sacramento Johnson, J. Neely, House (N438) X 9/13/1976 Sacramento Joseph Hampton Kerr Homesite X 6/6/1969 Sacramento (P126) Judah, Theodore, School (N1985) X 7/25/1997 Sacramento Kuchler Row (N1121) X 6/25/1982 Sacramento Lady Adams Building (603) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Lais, Charles, House (N1350) X 2/28/1985 Sacramento Libby Mcneil And Libby Fruit And X 3/2/1982 Sacramento Vegetable Cannery (N1050) McClatchy, C.K., Senior High School X 11/2/2001 Sacramento (N2148) Merchants National Bank Of X 2/16/1996 Sacramento Sacramento (N1936) Merrium Apartments (N1654) X 9/13/1990 Sacramento Mesick House (N1002) X 1/21/1982 Sacramento Michigan (468) X 8/30/1950 Sacramento

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.18 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 National State California Point of Date Name (Landmark Plaque Number) Register Landmark Register Interest Listed City Motor Vehicle Building, Department X 11/5/1999 Sacramento Of Food & Agriculture (C4) New Helvetia Cemetery (592) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Nisipowinan Village Site (900) X X 6/16/1976 Sacramento Old Elk Grove Hotel Site (P532) X 6/29/1979 Sacramento Old Folsom Powerhouse-Sacramento X 3/3/1958 Sacramento Station A (633) Old Sacramento (812) X X 12/30/1965 Sacramento Old Tavern (N1242) X 9/15/1983 Sacramento Original Sacramento Bee Building X 5/22/1957 Sacramento (611) Overton Building (610) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Pioneer Telegraph Station (366) X 10/9/1939 Sacramento Pony Express Terminal (N66000220) X 10/15/1966 Sacramento Public Works Office Building, X 11/5/1999 Sacramento Caltrans Building (C5) River Mansion (P149) X 11/3/1969 Sacramento Ruhstaller Building (N1003) X 1/21/1982 Sacramento Sacramento Bank Building (N1004) X 1/21/1982 Sacramento Sacramento City Cemetery (566) X 2/25/1957 Sacramento Sacramento City Library (N1784) X 7/30/1992 Sacramento Sacramento Hall Of Justice (N2067) X 9/24/1999 Sacramento Sacramento Junior College Annex X 8/22/1994 Sacramento And Extensions (N1874) Sacramento Masonic Temple X 5/17/2001 Sacramento (N2131) Sacramento Memorial Auditorium X 3/29/1978 Sacramento (N566) Site Of China Slough (594) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Site Of Congregational Church (613) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Site Of First And Second State X 1/11/1974 Sacramento Capitols At Sacramento (869) Site Of Home Of Newton Booth (596) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Site Of Orleans Hotel (608) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Site Of Sacramento Union (605) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Site Of Sam Brannan House (604) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Site Of Stage And Railroad (First) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento (598) Site Of The First African American X 5/5/1994 Sacramento Episcopal Church Established On The Pacific Coast (1013)

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.19 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 National State California Point of Date Name (Landmark Plaque Number) Register Landmark Register Interest Listed City Site Of The First Jewish Synagogue X 7/28/1958 Sacramento Owned By A Congregation On The Pacific Coast (654) Site Of Pioneer Mutual Volunteer X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Firehouse (612) Southern Pacific Railroad Company's X 4/21/1975 Sacramento Sacramento Depot (N353) St. Elizabeth's Church (P611) X 3/2/1983 Sacramento Stanford-Lathrop House (614) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Sutter's Fort (525) X 11/1/1954 Sacramento Sutter's Landing (591) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Sutterville (593) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Temporary Detention Camps For X 5/13/1980 Sacramento Japanese Americans-Sacramento Assembly Center (934) Tower Bridge (N1116) X 6/24/1982 Sacramento Travelers' Hotel (N680) X 10/19/1978 Sacramento U.S. Post Office, Courthouse And X 1/25/1980 Sacramento Federal Building (N855) Van Voorhies House (N535) X 11/17/1977 Sacramento Wagner, Anton, Duplex (N923) X 11/10/1980 Sacramento Western Hotel (601) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Westminster Presbyterian Church X 5/22/2003 Sacramento (N2203) Wetzlar, Julius, House (N1183) X 3/31/1983 Sacramento What Cheer House (597) X 5/22/1957 Sacramento Whitter Ranch (Originally Saylor X 5/8/1991 Sacramento Ranch), Witter Ranch (P744) Winters House (N2046) X 1/25/1999 Sacramento Witter, Edwin, Ranch (N1675) X 3/14/1991 Sacramento Woodlake Site (N88) X 5/6/1971 Sacramento Source: California Office of Historical Preservation

Over the years the City of Sacramento has undertaken several historic building surveys in an effort to establish specific Historic Districts. As of the date of this document‟s publication, the City of Sacramento has designated 29 Historic Districts, 10 historic district surveys in progress, one adopted survey, and two Special Planning Districts. The City Code provides for the compilation of Landmarks, Contributing Resources, and Historic Districts into the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (Sacramento Register). The Sacramento Register includes all listed or surveyed historic resources in the city of Sacramento. The Sacramento Register also includes listings or maps of the properties within two of the city‟s Special Planning Districts that have been afforded preservation protection by ordinance, but are not designated as a Historic District. These are shown in Figure F.4.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.20 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.4. Historic Districts in the City of Sacramento

Source: City of Sacramento General Plan Technical Background Report

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.21 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 The National Park Service administers two programs that recognize the importance of historic resources, specifically those pertaining to architecture and engineering. While inclusion in these programs does not give these structures any sort of protection, they are valuable historic assets.

The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) and Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) document America‟s architectural and engineering heritage. The HABS and HAER structures in the City of Sacramento are listed below:

Adams & Company Building, 1014 Second Street, Sacramento, CA Albert Gallatin House, 1527 H Street, Sacramento, CA Apollo Building, 228-230 K Street, Sacramento, CA Aschenauer Building, 1022 Third Street, Sacramento, CA B. F. Hastings Bank Building, 128-132 J Street, Sacramento, CA Bank Exchange Building, 1030 Second Street, Sacramento, CA Bee Building, 1016-1020 Third Street, Sacramento, CA Big Four Building, 220-226 K Street, Sacramento, CA Blake-Waters Assay Office, 222 J Street, Sacramento, CA Booth Building, 1019-1021 Front Street, Sacramento, CA Brannon Building, 106-110 J & Front Streets, Sacramento, CA California State Library & Courts Building, 914 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA California State Office Building No. 1, 915 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA California State Printing Office, 1020 O Street, Sacramento, CA Cavert Building, 1207 Front Street, Sacramento, CA Central Pacific Transcontinental Railroad, Sacramento to Nevada state line, Sacramento, CA Cienfugo Building, 1119 Second Street, Sacramento, CA City Market, 118 J Street, Sacramento, CA Collicott Drug Store, 129 J Street, Sacramento, CA Coolot Building, 812 J Street, Sacramento, CA Crocker Art Gallery, 216 O Street, Sacramento, CA Democratic State Journal Building, Second & K Streets, Sacramento, CA Diana Saloon, 205 J Street, Sacramento, CA Dingley Spice Mill, 115 I Street, Sacramento, CA E. P. Figg Building, 224 J Street, Sacramento, CA Ebner's Hotel, 116 K Street, Sacramento, CA Esquire Theater, 1217 K Street, Sacramento, CA Eureka Swimming Baths, 908-910 Second Street, Sacramento, CA Fashion Saloon, 209 J Street, Sacramento, CA Francis William Fratt Building, 1103-1109 Second Street, Sacramento, CA Gregory-Barnes Store, 126 J Street, Sacramento, CA Heywood Building, 1001-1009 Second Street, Sacramento, CA Howard House, 109-111 K Street, Sacramento, CA

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.22 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Hudson-Cippa-Wolf Ranch, Bunkhouse, Sorento Road, Sacramento,, CA Hudson-Cippa-Wolf Ranch, Granary, Sorento Road, Sacramento, CA Hudson-Cippa-Wolf Ranch, Hay Barn, Sorento Road, Sacramento, CA Hudson-Cippa-Wolf Ranch, Main House, Sorento Road, Sacramento, CA Hudson-Cippa-Wolf Ranch, Milk Barn, Sorento Road, Sacramento, CA Hudson-Cippa-Wolf Ranch, Sorento Road, Sacramento, CA I. & S. Wormser Building, 128 J Street, Sacramento, CA J Street (Commercial Buildings), Sacramento, CA Lady Adams Building, 113-115 K Street, Sacramento, CA Latham Building, 221-225 J Street, Sacramento, CA Leggett Ale House, 1023 Front Street, Sacramento, CA Leland Stanford House, 800 N Street, Sacramento, CA Lincoln School, 418 P Street, Sacramento, CA Luhrs Hall & Company Building, 912-916 Second Street, Sacramento, CA Mechanics Exchange Hotel, 116-122 I Street, Sacramento, CA Morse Building, 1025-1031 Second Street, Sacramento, CA Old U. S. Post Office, K & Seventh Streets, Sacramento, CA Our House Saloon, 926 Second Street, Sacramento, CA P. B. Cornwall Building, 1011-1013 Second Street, Sacramento, CA Pioneer Hall & Bakery, 120-124 J Street, Sacramento, CA Pioneer Telegraph Building, 1015 Second Street, Sacramento, CA Reclamation District 1000, Northwest Sacramento County & southwest Sutter County, bisected by State Highway No. 99, Sacramento vicinity, Sacramento, CA Reclamation District 1000, Pump Plant No. 1, Northwest Sacramento County & southwest Sutter County, bisected by State Highway No. 99, Sacramento vicinity, Sacramento, CA Reclamation District 1000, Pump Plant No. 2, Northwest Sacramento County & southwest Sutter County, bisected by State Highway No. 99, Sacramento vicinity, Sacramento, CA Reclamation District 1000, Pump Plant No. 3, Northwest Sacramento County & southwest Sutter County, bisected by State Highway No. 99, Sacramento vicinity, Sacramento, CA Rialto Building, 225-230 J Street, Sacramento, CA Rivett-Fuller Building, 128 K Street, Sacramento, CA Sacramento Army Depot, Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, CA Sacramento City Hall, 915 I Street, Sacramento, CA Sacramento Engine Company No. 3, 1112 Second Street, Sacramento, CA Sacramento Junior College, Library, 3835 Freeport Boulevard, Sacramento, CA Sacramento River Bridge, Spanning Sacramento River at CA State Highway 275, Sacramento, CA Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant Intake Pier & Access Bridge, Spanning Sacramento River approximately 175 feet west of eastern levee on river; roughly .5 mile downstream from confluence of Sacramento & American Rivers, Sacramento, CA

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.23 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Sacramento, General View, Sacramento, CA Sacramento, General View,1865, Sacramento, CA Sacramento, Historic View, Sacramento, CA Sacramento, Historic View, Sacramento, CA Sazerac Building, 131 J Street, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, Railroad Terminal Post Office & Express Building, Fifth & I Streets, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific, Sacramento Shops, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific, Sacramento Shops, Blacksmith Shop, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific, Sacramento Shops, Boiler Shop, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific, Sacramento Shops, Car Machine Shop, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific, Sacramento Shops, Car Shop No. 3, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific, Sacramento Shops, Erecting Shop, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific, Sacramento Shops, Paint Shop, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific, Sacramento Shops, Pitless Transfer Table, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific, Sacramento Shops, Planing Mill, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific, Sacramento Shops, Privy, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific, Sacramento Shops, Turntable, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA Southern Pacific, Sacramento Shops, Water Tower, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA Stanford Brothers Store, 1203 Front Street, Sacramento, CA Stein Building, 218 J Street, Sacramento, CA Strub Building, Sacramento, CA Studio Theater, 1227 K Street, Sacramento, CA Sutter's Fort, L & Twenty-Seventh Streets, Sacramento, CA Union Hotel (Annex), 125 K Street, Sacramento, CA Union Hotel, 1024-1028 Second Street, Sacramento, CA Vernon-Brannan House, 112-114 J Street, Sacramento, CA W.I. Elliott Building, 1530 J Street, Sacramento, CA

Economic Assets

The largest employers with the City of Sacramento are shown in Table F.7.

Table F.7. Top Public and Private Employers: 2004

Employer Employees1 Local Headquarters Industry/Type Public Sector State of California 66,792 Central City Government Sacramento County 13,933 Central City Local Government UC Davis Health Center2 6,399 East Broadway Healthcare

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.24 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Employer Employees1 Local Headquarters Industry/Type Los Rios Community College 6,000 Arden Arcade Education District City of Sacramento 4,695 Central City Local Government Private Sector Kaiser Permanente 5,374 Arden Arcade Healthcare Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra 4,274 Central City Healthcare Region Wells Fargo 2,380 Central City Financial Services The McClatchy Company 1,410 Central City Newspaper Publishing Notes: 1. Number of full-time equivalent (FTEs) employees in Sacramento County. 2. Represents employers headquartered in the City of Sacramento. Source: Sacramento Business Journal, “2004 Top 25 Book of Lists,” December 24, 2004.

Growth and Development Trends

Growth within the City of Sacramento has been steady and continuous. Growth properties are broken down in the discussion that follows.

Population

Table F.8 and Figure F.5 provides the breakdown of the City‟s past, existing, and future population data by community. South Natomas, North Natomas, South Sacramento, and the Pocket communities all have had the highest population growth between 1980 and 2000. Population totals decreased slightly between 1990 and 2000 in the Central City, East Broadway, and East Sacramento Community Plan areas, although the 2000 populations of Central City and East Broadway were still higher than 1980 totals. Above average population growth in Central City is expected in 2025.

Table F.8. Population by Community Plan Area 1980-2025 Period

Community Plan Area 1980 1990 20001 20251 (Projected) Airport/Meadowview2 30,486 32,684 37,137 48,083 Arden/Arcade 10,248 10,680 11,891 12,165 Central City 28,956 33,090 32,764 51,894 East Broadway 37,845 45,476 43,093 47,615 East Sacramento 34,644 33,111 32,181 34,682 Land Park 33,839 33,128 33,546 35,875 North Natomas 643 594 1,607 63,340 North Sacramento 34,560 44,823 54,650 60,330 Pocket 23,716 42,884 45,419 49,671 South Natomas 10,418 34,587 38,678 40,703 South Sacramento 28,721 56,752 76,022 83,722

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.25 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Community Plan Area 1980 1990 20001 20251 (Projected) Total 274,076 367,706 407,018 527,990 Notes: 1 SACOG Population and Housing Module 2001. 2 The Airport Meadowview Community Plan and portions of the South Sacramento Community Plan are now included in the revised South Area Community Plan. Source: 2000 Census.

Figure F.5. Expected Population Growth in the City of Sacramento

Source: Sacramento Council on Governments

Housing

The City‟s share of estimated new housing need has been established by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process between 2006 and 2013. In addition to the RHNA, new housing need in Sacramento should reflect demographic and economic trends in the City, and existing needs that are not being met.

The 2007 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the Sacramento region covers the planning period from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2013. SACOG allocated 17,649 housing units as the City‟s share of regional housing needs during this period. Approximately 14 percent of these housing units should be affordable to extremely low- and very low-income households, 15 percent to low-income households, and 20 percent to moderate-income households. The City‟s

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.26 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 obligation under state law is to demonstrate how it will accommodate its share of regional housing needs with adequately zoned sites that are development ready. The City does not need to guarantee that all of the housing units it must accommodate can actually be built. Table F.9 shows the City‟s housing allocation from SACOG by income level.

Table F.9. New Construction Needs (January 1, 2006–June 30, 2013)

Income Group Number of Units % of Total Very Low 2,472 14 Low 2,582 15 Moderate 3,683 20 Above Moderate 8,991 51 Total 17,649 100 Source: SACOG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) February, 2008.

Employment

Job growth in Sacramento has been healthy, with 72,000 jobs added since 1990, and approximately 140,000 jobs forecast to be added by 2030. The government jobs sector leads the City‟s employment base at 43 percent, followed by the service sector at 32 percent, with the closest following employment sector being retail trade, at less than eight percent. As shown in Figure F.6 projected employment in the City is expected to be similar in 2030, although the services sector will grow to a larger share of total employment and the government sector will decline slightly as a share of total employment.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.27 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.6. City of Sacramento Projected Employment Growth by Sector

Source: City of Sacramento Housing Element

As shown in Table F.10, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared a projection of what the region could accommodate in terms of employment through 2030. This data was prepared in 2005 during preparation of the TBR and are only projections of future employment. Based on the EPS projections, an increase of approximately 140,000 jobs was assumed by 2030. The largest gains are expected to occur in services, retail trade, and wholesale trade. This is consistent with statewide and national trends. The occupations with the most projected job openings include low-wage service occupations (retail salespersons, cashiers, waiters/ waitresses,

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.28 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 food preparation workers, and customer service representatives), as well as nurses, office clerks, carpenters, laborers, and teachers assistants.

Table F.10. City of Sacramento Employment Projections: 2030

2005 Estimated Employment 2030 Projected Employment 2005-2030 Projected Change Percent Average Annual Sectors Number Percent Number Percent Change Growth Retail Trade 24,613 7.9 36,111 8.0 11,498 1.5 Services 99,304 32.0 167,000 37.1 67,696 2.1 Education 3,891 1.3 5,321 1.2 1,424 1.3 Government 133,370 43.0 175,938 39.1 42,569 1.1 Mining 176 0.1 176 0.0 0 0.0 Construction 11,987 3.9 17,162 3.8 5,174 1.4 Manufacturing 9,368 3.0 9,368 2.1 0 0.0 Transportation 4,856 1.6 6,209 1.4 1,352 1.0 & Public Utilities Wholesale 9,323 3.0 13,542 3.0 4,219 1.5 Trade Finance, 13,383 4.3 19,145 4.3 5,761 1.4 Insurance & Real Estate Total 310,300 100.0 450,000 100.0 139,700 1.5 (rounded) Note: Sectors are categorized according to the Standard Industry Classification System (SIC). Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (2005) – taken from Sacramento General Plan Economic Technical Report, page 2.6-55.

Land Use

Current land use in the City of Sacramento is shown in Figure F.7.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.29 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.7. Existing Land Use in Sacramento County

Source: City of Sacramento General Plan Update Technical Background Report

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.30 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Table F.11 presents the proposed land uses for the 2030 General Plan Policy Area. The land use designations included in the table provides a summary and combines all the applicable land use designations designated on the land use diagram included within the Policy Area boundaries. Figure F.8 shows the land uses in the Policy Area.

Table F.11. Land Uses for the 2030 General Plan

Land Use Acres Percent of City’s Total4 Neighborhoods1 36,218 56% Centers2 4,578 7% Corridors3 3,066 5% Employment Center/Industrial 8,797 14% Public/Quasi Public 4,575 7% Open Space, Parks, Recreation 7,849 12% Total 65,083 100% Notes: 1 Includes all residential designations including Planned Development/Special District, Rural Residential, Suburban Low Density, Suburban Medium Density, Suburban High Density, Traditional Low Density, Traditional Medium Density, Traditional High Density, Urban Low Density, Urban Medium Density, and Urban High Density. 2 Includes Suburban Center, Traditional Center, Urban Center Low and High and CBD. 3 Includes Suburban Corridor and Urban Corridor High and Low. 4 Due to rounding the City’s total % may be slightly higher than 100%. Source: City of Sacramento, GIS Database, 2008.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.31 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.8. 2030 General Plan Land Use and Urban Form

Source: City of Sacramento General Plan Environmental Impact Report

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.32 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 The Shovel-Ready Sites Program was established in FY2004/2005 with the intent of encouraging economic development at key areas in the City. These sites are based on the 2030 General Plan opportunity areas. They are broken down into Tier 1 and Tier 2 based on economic development potential. Tier 1 sites are more likely to generate a return on investment (e.g., property taxes, sales taxes, new jobs) sooner than Tier 2 sites, which are not likely to see development activity begin until 2015.

Each tier is also broken down by the following types: Centers, Corridors, Neighborhoods, New Growth Areas, and Transit Centers. Table F.12 shows counts of all parcels centroids (geographic center of parcel polygon) that intersect these opportunity areas, sorted by opportunity area tier and type. There are a total of 17,229 parcels in the Opportunity Area. The two categories with the highest parcel counts within this area are Tier 2 Corridors and Neighborhoods.

Table F.12. Number of Parcels in Opportunity Areas - City of Sacramento

Tier Type Parcel Count 1 Centers 2,417 1 New Growth Areas 59 1 Transit Center 713 2 Centers 1,639 2 Corridors 4,860 2 Neighborhoods 5,992 2 New Growth Areas 304 2 Transit Center 1,245 Total 17,229 Source: City of Sacramento GIS

Figure F.9 identifies those areas where future development is anticipated to occur over the next 25 years in different parts of the City.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.33 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.9. Future Land Use and Citywide Opportunity Areas

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.34 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 More general information on growth and development in Sacramento County as a whole can be found in the “Growth and Development Trends” in Section 4.3.1 Vulnerability and Assets at Risk of the main plan.

F.5.2 Priority Hazards: Vulnerability Assessment

This section provides the vulnerability assessment, including any quantifiable loss estimates, for those hazards identified above in Table F.1 as high or medium significance hazards. Impacts of past events and vulnerability of the City to specific hazards are further discussed below (see Section 4.1 Hazard Identification for more detailed information about these hazards and their impacts on the Sacramento County planning area). Methodologies for calculating loss estimates are the same as those described in Section 4.3 of the base plan. In general, the most vulnerable structures are those located within the floodplain or within levee and dam inundation areas, unreinforced masonry buildings, and buildings built prior to the introduction of modern building codes.

Dam Failure

Dam failures can result from a number of natural or man made causes such as earthquakes, erosion of the face or foundation, improper siding, rapidly rising flood waters, structural/design flaws, and deliberate human actions. Folsom and Nimbus Dams are the two major dams which affect the City of Sacramento and the populations in their respective inundation areas. Of prime concern are the failures of the Folsom and/or Nimbus Dams, which are owned by the US Bureau of Reclamation. The flood waters from either dam would affect the City of Sacramento and the surrounding unincorporated areas.

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) inundation map indicates that a failure of the Rancho Seco Dam would flow to the Laguna Creek Basin and stop approximately at Stockton Boulevard. Failure of Shasta Dam would affect populations south along the Sacramento River basin to about Knights Landing where the water would lose momentum. An Oroville Dam failure would impact populations southwest along the Feather River basin to about the Yolo Bypass.

Warning ability is generally determined by the frequency of inspections for structural integrity, the flood wave arrival time (the time it takes for the flood wave to reach its maximum distance of inundation), or the ability to notify persons downstream and their ability to evacuate. The existence and frequency of updating and exercising an evacuation plan that is site-specific assists in warning and evacuation functions.

A dam failure will cause loss of life, damage to property, and other ensuing hazards, as well as the displacement of persons residing in the inundation path. Damage to electric generating facilities and transmission lines could also impact life support systems in communities outside the immediate hazard areas.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.35 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 A catastrophic dam failure, depending on size of dam and population downstream, could exceed the response capability of local communities. Damage control and disaster relief support would be required from other local governmental and private organizations, and from the state and federal governments. Figure 4.65 in Section 4.3.4 shows the inundation areas in the City of Sacramento and the County

Values at Risk

Sacramento‟s parcel and associated secured roll assessor 2010 data was used as the basis for the countywide inventory of parcels and structure value. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point representing the center of the parcel polygon. The Folsom Inundation data was then overlayed on the parcel centroids to determine how much value is at risk to a worst case scenario failure. Based on FEMA guidance, contents value is estimated at 50 percent of the improved value and shown in Table F.13. Structure and contents values are summed, and then a loss estimate is calculated. Losses are related to a number of potential factors including inundation depth, velocity, and building type and construction.

Table F.13. City of Sacramento Improved Parcels in the Folsom Dam Inundation Area

Improved Parcel Occupancy Type Count Structure Value Contents Value Total Value Residential 121,172 $17,544,420,479 $8,772,210,240 $26,316,630,719 Retail/Commercial 2,249 $1,921,544,053 $960,772,026.5 $2,882,316,080 Office 1,330 $3,983,534,883 $1,991,767,442 $5,975,302,325 Industrial 1,675 $1,435,493,062 $717,746,531 $2,153,239,593 Care/Health 143 $731,524,277 $365,762,138.5 $1,097,286,416 Church/Welfare 430 $378,588,509 $189,294,254.5 $567,882,764 Public/Utilities 59 $73,286,759 $36,643,379.5 $109,930,139 Recreational 76 $123,853,132 $61,926,566.0 $185,779,698 Agricultural 2 $338,789 $169,394.5 $508,184 Miscellaneous 34 $96,179,784 $48,089,892 $144,269,676 Vacant 122 $17,653,796 $8,826,898 $26,480,694 No Data 3 $2,197,468 $1,098,734 $3,296,202 Total 127,295 $26,308,614,991 $13,154,307,497 $39,462,922,490 Source: Sacramento County Secured Roll Assessor & Parcel Data; Sacramento County GIS

Population at Risk

The Sacramento County Census 2010 household factor, 2.71, was made available by the Demographic Research Unit, State Census Data Center, CA Department of Finance. For the purposes of assessing vulnerability to specific hazards, this factor was applied to improved residential parcels. The centroids of those parcels were overlayed on the dam inundation zone using GIS software. If the improved residential parcels‟ centroid intersects the hazard zone, that parcel is considered to be in the hazard zone. The household factor was then multiplied to counts

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.36 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 of intersecting centroids (parcels) and vulnerable population was calculated. It is important to note that there could be more than one structure on an improved parcel (i.e. a condo complex occupies one parcel but might have several units or structures), so population estimates may be low. There are 328,376 people in Sacramento are at risk to dam inundation from a Folsom Dam failure.

Critical Facilities at Risk

The critical facility inventory was overlayed on the dam failure hazard layer using GIS. Facility locations that intersect the hazard were selected and sorted by critical facility definition category; the summary results of this analysis are show in Table F.14. A detailed critical facility table is included in this plan as Appendix E; the dam failure hazard column on the right-hand side of that table denotes whether a particular facility is considered to be vulnerable to that hazard.

Table F.14. City of Sacramento Critical Facilities in the Dam Inundation Zone

Critical Facility Count Essential Services Facilities 278 At Risk Population Facilities 605 Hazardous Materials Facilities 3 Total 886 Source: Sacramento County GIS

Mass evacuation of the inundation areas would be essential to save lives, if warning time should permit. Extensive search and rescue operations may be required to assist trapped or injured persons. Emergency medical care, food, and temporary shelter would be required for injured or displaced persons. Identification and burial of many dead persons would pose difficult problems; public health would be a major concern. Many families would be separated, particularly if the failure should occur during working hours, and a personal inquiry or locator system would be essential. These and other emergency operations could be seriously hampered by the loss of communications, damage to transportation routes, and the disruption of public utilities and other essential services.

Governmental assistance could be required and may continue for an extended period. These efforts would be required to remove debris and clear roadways, demolish unsafe structures, assist in re-establishing public services and utilities, and provide continuing care and welfare for the affected population including, as required, temporary housing for displaced persons.

Drought

Drought is different than many of the other natural hazards in that it is not a distinct event and usually has a slow onset. Drought can severely impact a region both physically and economically. Drought affects different sectors in different ways and with varying intensities. Adequate water is the most critical issue and is critical for manufacturing, tourism, recreation,

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.37 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 and commercial and domestic use. As the population in the area continues to grow, so will the demand for water.

Based on historical information, the occurrence of drought in California, including the City of Sacramento, is cyclical, driven by weather patterns. Drought has occurred in the past and will occur in the future. Periods of actual drought with adverse impacts can vary in duration, and the period between droughts is often extended. Although an area may be under an extended dry period, determining when it becomes a drought is based on impacts to individual water users. The vulnerability of the City of Sacramento to drought is City-wide, but impacts may vary and include reduction in water supply and an increase in dry fuels.

Flood: 100/200/500-year

The City of Sacramento is traversed by several stream systems and is at risk to both riverine flooding and localized stormwater flooding. As previously described in Section 4.2.8 of the main plan, the Sacramento County Planning Area and the City of Sacramento have been subject to previous occurrences of flooding. In the City of Sacramento, much of the flood damage occurs in the floodplains of the Sacramento River and the American River.

Six small tributaries of the Sacramento River pass through and provide drainage for the City of Sacramento. These tributaries are Dry Creek, Magpie Creek, and Arcade Creek in the northern portion of the city (north of the American River), and Morrison Creek, Elder Creek, Florin Creek, Unionhouse Creek, and Laguna Creek in the southern portion of the city (south of the American River). Waterways and drainages in the City are shown on Figure F.10.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.38 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.10. City of Sacramento Waterways and Drainage

Source: City of Sacramento General Plan Environmental Impact Report

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.39 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 The City Planning Area contains many natural and man-made drainage features that ultimately drain into the Sacramento River. In addition to those listed above, local surface water drainages or creeks such as Chicken Ranch and Strong Ranch sloughs, Florin Creek, and Rio Linda Creek are additional major natural drainages within the Policy Area. Man-made drainage canals, such as the Natomas East Main Drain Canal and the East, West, and Main Drainage Canals provide drainage for a large portion of the urbanized areas within the Policy Area that are not served by the City‟s combined sewer system or the City‟s storm drainage collection system.

The City Planning area has had many changes to the designated floodplain since the 1986 flooding base on Flood Insurance Rate Maps provided by FEMA. These changes are shown in Figure F.11.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.40 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.11. City of Sacramento Floodplain History

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.41 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Values at Risk

GIS was used to determine the possible impacts of flooding within the City of Sacramento. The methodology described in Section 4.3.7 of the base plan was followed in determining structures and values at risk to the 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood event.

Analysis results are presented in two parts:

1) A detailed table (Table F.15) shows the count and improved value of parcels that fall in a floodplain by flood zone and land use type. 2) A summary table (Table F.16) sorts the parcel count and value data from the first table by the 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood event, and the total flood (1% and 0.2% annual chance floods combined). Based on FEMA guidance, contents value is estimated at 50 percent of the improved value. Estimated losses assume that a flood is unlikely to cause total destruction. Losses are related to a variety of factors, including flood depth, flood velocity, building type and construction. Using FEMA‟s recommendations, average damage is estimated to be 20 percent of the total building value.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.42 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.12. City of Sacramento DFIRM

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.43 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Table F.15. Count and Structure Value of Improved Parcels by Land Use in Floodplain by Zone – Sacramento

Flood Zone Land Use Parcel Count Structure Value Residential 23,964 $4,778,384,597 Retail/Commercial 200 $468,718,510 Office 138 $749,890,866 Industrial 41 $124,721,446 Care / Health 9 $19,150,821 AE Church / Welfare 16 $52,721,522 Recreational 10 $74,863,577 Agricultural 1 $140,238 Miscellaneous 26 $80,402,789 Vacant 34 $12,276,067 Residential 124 $8,534,979 AH Industrial 8 $16,307,090 Residential 3,610 $394,577,629 Retail/Commercial 2 $684,510 A99 Care/Health 2 $291,209 Public/Utilities 7 $279,885 Residential 7,704 $751,340,790 Retail/Commercial 148 $176,750,966 Office 31 $58,490,568 Industrial 444 $460,882,024 Care/Health 15 $256,344,722 0.2% Annual Chance Church/Welfare 33 $27,760,047 Public/Utilities 27 $1,851,435 Recreational 4 $3,017,226 Agricultural 1 $198,551 Vacant 13 $224,002 Residential 63,984 $9,179,533,300 Retail/Commercial 1,338 $989,105,046 Office 989 $2,671,000,112 Industrial 929 $642,182,580 Care/Health 90 $301,343,802 X Protected By Levee Church/Welfare 244 $159,503,383 Public/Utilities 16 $51,638,873 Recreational 43 $40,676,519 Miscellaneous 6 $11,412,654 Vacant 59 $3,198,361 NO DATA 2 $1,993,952

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.44 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Flood Zone Land Use Parcel Count Structure Value Residential 25,191 $2,889,337,444 Retail/Commercial 594 $291,112,120 Office 179 $506,812,767 Industrial 354 $299,484,901 Care/Health 31 $163,976,348 X Church/Welfare 153 $151,511,191 Public/Utilities 15 $19,885,788 Recreational 20 $5,939,536 Miscellaneous 4 $7,469,007 Vacant 21 $2,184,245 NO DATA 1 $203,516 Total 130,875 $26,908,311,511 Source: Sacramento County Secured Roll Assessor & Parcel Data; Sacramento County DFIRM, January 2011

Table F.16. Sacramento County Flood Loss Estimates - Sacramento

Estimated Flood Event Parcel Count Structure Value Contents Value Total Value Loss Estimate 1% Annual 28,192 $6,781,945,735 $3,390,972,868 $10,172,918,603 $2,034,583,721 Chance 0.2% Annual 8,420 $1,736,860,331 $868,430,166 $2,605,290,497 $521,058,099 Chance Total Flood 36,612 $8,518,806,066 $4,259,403,033 $12,778,209,099 $2,555,641,820 Source: Sacramento County Secured Roll Assessor & Parcel Data; Sacramento County DFIRM, January 2011

Based on this analysis, the City of Sacramento has substantial risk to the 1% chance flood. 28,192 parcels with a total value of $10,172,918,603 would be affected by the 1% chance flood.

Population at Risk

The Sacramento County Census 2010 household factor, 2.71, was made available by the Demographic Research Unit, State Census Data Center, CA Department of Finance. For the purposes of assessing vulnerability to specific hazards, this factor was applied to improved residential parcels. The centroids of those parcels were overlayed on the flood hazard zone using GIS software. If the improved residential parcels‟ centroid intersects the hazard zone, that parcel is considered to be in the hazard zone. The household factor was then multiplied to counts of intersecting centroids (parcels) and vulnerable population was calculated. It is important to note that there could be more than one structure on an improved parcel (i.e. a condo complex occupies one parcel but might have several units or structures), so population estimates may be low. Population in the floodplain is shown in Table F.17.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.45 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Table F.17. City of Sacramento Total Population in DFIRM Floodplain

Jurisdiction 1% Annual Chance 0.2% Annual Chance X Sacramento 118,002 35,079 313,006 Source: FEMA, US Census Bureau

Critical Facilities at Risk

The critical facility inventory was overlayed on the DFIRM flood hazard layer using GIS. Facility locations that intersect the hazard were selected and sorted by critical facility definition category; the summary results of this analysis are show in Table F.18 and illustrated in Figure F.13. A detailed critical facility table is included in this plan as Appendix E; the flood hazard column on the right-hand side of that table denotes whether a particular facility is considered to be vulnerable to that hazard.

Table F.18. Sacramento County Critical Facilities in the Floodplain

Flood CF Category Count 1% Annual Chance Essential Services Facilities 16 1% Annual Chance At Risk Population Facilities 85 0.2% Annual Chance Essential Services Facilities 16 0.2% Annual Chance At Risk Population Facilities 80 0.2% Annual Chance Hazardous Materials Facilities 1 Total 198 Source: Sacramento County GIS

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.46 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.13. Sacramento County Critical Facilities in the Floodplain

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.47 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Development Trends

Hazard analysis was performed to determine the number of parcels in flood zones within the Opportunity Areas. Results can serve as a vulnerability analysis guide for future development. The FEMA Preliminary DFIRM, made available on January 31, 2011, was used for the flood hazard area for this analysis (see Section 4.3.8 Flood Vulnerability for description of data).

Figure F.14 overlays the Opportunity Areas on the DFIRM floodplain. Table F.19 shows results of the parcel hazard analysis, sorted by Opportunity Area tier and type. There are 3,486 in either the 1% annual chance or the .2% annual chance flood event zones.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.48 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.14. Opportunity Areas in the Floodplain

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.49 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Table F.19. Number of Parcels in Opportunity Areas within Flood Hazard Zones - City of Sacramento

Flood Event Tier Type Parcel Count 1% Annual Chance 1 Centers 61 1 New Growth Areas 6 2 Centers 1,220 2 Corridors 296 2 Neighborhoods 72 2 New Growth Areas 304 2 Transit Center 3 .2% Annual Chance 1 Centers 61 1 Transit Center 51 2 Centers 26 2 Corridors 447 2 Neighborhoods 858 2 Transit Center 81 Total 3,486 Source: DFIRM, City of Sacramento GIS

Insurance Coverage, Claims Paid, and Repetitive Losses

The City of Sacramento joined the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on September 15, 1978. The City joined in CRS program on October 1, 1992 and maintains a CRS rating of Class 5. This rating gives flood insurance policyholders in the City a 25% discount for properties located in a special flood hazard zone, and a 10% discount for those properties located outside the special flood hazard zone. A more detailed description and summary of the flood zones is provided in Section 4.3.7 of the base plan in Table 4.55.

NFIP data indicates that as of November 30, 2010, there were 48,409 flood insurance policies in force in the City with $14,031,974,100 of coverage. Of the 48,409 policies, 47,116 were residential (single-family homes) and 1,293 were nonresidential; 8,133 of the policies were in A zones (the remaining 40,276 were in B, C, and X zones). The GIS parcel analysis detailed above identified 28,192 parcels in the 100-year flood zone. 8,133 policies for 28,192 parcels in the 100-year floodplain equates to insurance coverage of 28.8 percent. It should be noted, however, that many of the 28,192 parcels in the 100-yr floodplain are grandfathered into the X zone based on the date the structure was built.

There have been 951 historical claims for flood losses totaling $9,780,112. 676 of these were for pre-FIRM structures; 275 were for post-FIRM structures. NFIP data further indicates that there are 21 repetitive loss (RL) buildings, with 11 RL buildings being insured. There have been a total of 49 RL losses, with 23 insured RL losses. None of the insured RL buildings has incurred 4 or more losses. 18 of the properties are located in the A zone, and 3 RL buildings are located

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.50 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 outside of the 100- and 500-year floodplain in the B, C, or X zones. The RL properties are located in an older, built-out residential neighborhood with older infrastructure. Repetitive flooding is generally a result of a combination of poor drainage and homes below the street elevation. Drainage improvements in the area have alleviated some of the flooding issues to these RL structures over the years. Citizens are required to have flood insurance in an A zone if they have a federally backed mortgage. Repetitive loss properties are shown in Figure F.15 and detailed in Table F.20.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.51 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.15. Unmitigated Repetitive Loss Sites

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.52 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011

Table F.20. Repetitive Loss Property Information (as of 2009)

Flood Status of Drainage Submitted to Dates of Building Contents Zone Improvements Provided FEMA/ Changes Street Losses Payment Payment (2009) Investigation of Flooding to Reduce Flooding Requested 14th St 01/10/1995 $4,402.03 $0.00 X(s) Investigated in 2008. Flooding from Combined system $1,582.67 $0.00 backed up combined system. Water 09/19/2004 came up to top step and flooded the resident's garage and basement. 20th Av 01/10/1995 $10,792.02 $0.00 X(s) These three addresses are Leonardo Divinci basin was $1,530.54 $0.00 individual structures within the same constucted in 2008 in Basin 02/07/1996 $21,271.07 $0.00 apartment complex, but on 3 26, but it is too far away separate flood policies. Property in from these properties to 01/22/1997 low lying area with an undersized have a significant impact. drainage conveyance system. Future projects with Land Combined mailing Park have been verbally discussed. 20th Av 01/10/1995 $11,657.56 $0.00 01/22/1997 $20,903.32 $0.00 20th Av 01/10/1995 $5,169.30 $0.00 $16,734.55 $0.00 01/22/1997 20th Av 03/25/1989 $423(B or C?) $0.00 X(s) Property in low lying area with an Drainage study is being 01/12/1990 $1,228(B or $0.00 undersized drainage conveyance conducted to determine a 01/13/1993 C?) $0.00 system. location for a drainage 01/09/1995 $5,052.24 $0.00 basin to reduce the flooding 02/20/1996 $7,566.43 in the area. 01/22/1997 $2,575.04 $7,838.39 21st St 01/10/95 $24,938.03 $0.00 X(s) Property located in the Combined Combined sewer main in Flood Protection 01/26/97 $9,441.28 $0.00 Sewer System with an undersized the area was increased Provided - Reported 9/19/2004 $26,963.58 $0.00 drainage conveyance system. from a 12” to a 24” main in 2007. late 1997. Documentation provided to FEMA in August 2009. 21st Av 01/10/1995 $2,878.36 $0.00 X(s) According to owner structure has Need pictures of sump Flood Protection 03/11/1995 $5,161.85 $0.00 never flooded. Owner has installed pump Provided - Reported a sump pump in a low area in the 2007 backyard to drain storm water away from residence in the rear.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.53 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Flood Status of Drainage Submitted to Dates of Building Contents Zone Improvements Provided FEMA/ Changes Street Losses Payment Payment (2009) Investigation of Flooding to Reduce Flooding Requested 24th ST 02/23/2000 $7,707.72 $0.00 X(s) Need to investigate! 12/31/2005 $80,632.86 $0.00 36th St 01/09/95 $1,157.89 $0.00 X Property located in the Combined Older street drain inlet in Flood Protection 01/22/97 $1,926.32 $0.00 Sewer System. Flooding caused by front of property replaced Provided - Reported clogged storm drains and street with current larger standard 2007. flooding in the area. drain inlet as part of the Documentation McKinley sewer provided to FEMA in construction project in 2006 August 2009. . 37th Av 01/10/1995 $2,167.18 $1,850.00 X(s) Flooding from adjacent vacant lot Basin 96 Master Plan and 01/22/1997 $1,670.55 $0.00 behind property. pipe upsizing completed. A 12/31/2005 $5,291.95 $0.00 detention basin is still needed. 45th St 04/08/95 $4,411.79 $0.00 X Property in low lying area of Basin Basin 10 Drainage Master 02/04/98 $4,159.33 $0.00 10 with an undersized drainage Plan completed. Currently conveyance system determining projects to reduce flooding in the area. 48th Av 01/25/1997 $15,391.57 $0.00 X(s) Property has a drain in front, but is Need to investigated flood 12/23/2004 $10,672.22 $0.00 elevated way above the street. source further Looks like a partial new roof. 68th Av 01/10/95 $4,164.52 $0.00 X(s) Source of flooding is unknown. Drainage basin is currently 02/26/00 $2,814.97 $0.00 Property is on the highest portion of being studied to develop a the street. No reported flooding of plan to reduce flooding in adjacent properties which are lower. the area. Alcedo Cr 01/10/95 $1,911.80 $0.00 A99 Source of flooding is unknown. Need to investigate further. 01/27/95 $5,661.33 $0.00 Lowest floor of the structure appears to be higher than adjacent structures that have not flooded. Arabella Wy 03/23/1995 $3,556.23 $0.00 X(s) Property adjacent to the Sac. River USACE & SAFCA did levee Flood Protection 01/04/1997 $3,634.90 $0.00 levee. Flooding of house from levee work in this area. The work Provided - Reported seepage. was completed at the end 2007. of 2006. Documentation provided in 2009.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.54 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Flood Status of Drainage Submitted to Dates of Building Contents Zone Improvements Provided FEMA/ Changes Street Losses Payment Payment (2009) Investigation of Flooding to Reduce Flooding Requested Berthoud St 01/13/93 $1,465.21 $0.00 X(s) Higher adjacent lot was draining Drainage ditch was Flood Protection 01/10/95 $7,777.06 $480.55 onto subject property. constructed on adjacent lot Provided - Reported to divert drainage to 2007 - Report in Norwood Avenue. Older 2011 that ditch was street drain inlets replaced built for this house with current larger standard and 329. drain inlets. SEE 1996 MEMO. School was built across the street. Berthoud St 1/13/93 $2,583.22 $0.00 X(s) Higher adjacent lot was draining Berthoud Street Drainage Flood Protection 1/9/95 $5,278.40 $0.00 onto subject property. Extension was completed in Provided - Reported 2005. Stormwater diversion 2007. pipeline basin was installed. Documentation provided to FEMA in August 2009. Binghamton 1/10/1995 $3,177.02 $0.00 X(s) Water seeps through landscaping Need to elevate living room. Dr 1/24/2010 $2,590.42 $0.00 into sunken living room and gets the carpet wet. E Curtis Dr 01/10/1995 $17,370.04 $0.00 X(s) Basement flooding. Flooding Older street drain inlet in Flood Protection 01/26/1997 $2,663.91 $595.40 caused by clogged storm drains and front of property replaced Provided - Reported street flooding in the area. with current larger standard 2007, but drain inlet. Very low spot - documentation not Sump 4 pumps this ara in a submitted in 2009. circle. Once the Curtis Park Regional Storage Project is constructed, this property can be taken out. Custis Av 01/10/1995 $1,261.74 $0.00 X(s) Lot lower than adjacent lots. Garage portion of structure Flood Protection 01/22/1997 $8,058.51 $0.00 Drainage from adjacent lots was will be raised with HUD Provided - Reported going into garage which was Grant funds. Elevation of 2007. converted to living quarters. structure expected to Documentation completed in November provided to FEMA in 2001. August 2009.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.55 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Flood Status of Drainage Submitted to Dates of Building Contents Zone Improvements Provided FEMA/ Changes Street Losses Payment Payment (2009) Investigation of Flooding to Reduce Flooding Requested Elvas Av 02/18/1986 $13,179.30 $11,106.00 X Industrial property in low lying area Sump 31 is currently being Submit for "Flood 06/04/1993 $12,556.61 $6,221.94 with an undersized drainage enlarged and a new force Protection Provided" 01/22/1997 $38,718.83 $19,157.17 conveyance system. Industrial site main was constructed to the in 2010? with no on-site drainage system. American River. No additional piping has been completed. Detention Basin should be completed in May/June 2009. Folsom Blvd 01/04/1998 X(s) Property located in the Combined The 41st Street/Folsom Flood Protection 01/15/1990 Sewer System with an undersized Boulevard Drainage Provided - Reported drainage conveyance system. Improvement Project was 2007. constructed in 2003. Documentation provided to FEMA in August 2009. This property is part of 4100 Folsom Blvd. Condos Association. Under the same policy. Request to combine the two if the Flood Protection Provided request is not approved. Folsom Blvd 02/12/2000 Unit 9c 09/19/2004 Frienza Av 01/04/82 $1,002.46 $0.00 X Property in low lying area with Flood Protection 01/13/83 $3,594.28 $0.00 drainage system of road side Provided - Reported ditches. 2007 Garden Hwy 01/09/95 $6,100.00 $0.00 AE Office building constructed on the 01/01/97 $7,594.96 $0.00 water side of the Sacramento River levee. Flooding due to failure of floodproofing system of the building. Henrietta Dr 01/12/1993 $8,660.85 $0.00 X(s) Property in low lying area with Road side ditches and Flood Protection 01/10/1995 $6,272.51 $0.00 drainage system of road side driveway culverts were Provided - Reported 01/25/1997 $3,292.51 $0.00 ditches. reconstructed to improve 2007 the drainage in the area.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.56 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Flood Status of Drainage Submitted to Dates of Building Contents Zone Improvements Provided FEMA/ Changes Street Losses Payment Payment (2009) Investigation of Flooding to Reduce Flooding Requested Henrietta Dr 01/10/1995 $19,725.94 $0.00 X(s) Property in low lying area with Road side ditches and Flood Protection 01/22/1997 $13,741.60 $0.00 drainage system of road side driveway culverts were Provided - Reported ditches. reconstructed to improve 2007. the drainage in the area. Documentation The house and garage provided to FEMA in were raised in 2002. August 2009. K St, Suite 01/09/1995 $5,195.74 $0.00 X(s) 2008 investigation - flooding caused Berm was installed around In 2008, sent form 1517 01/01/1997 $9,535.42 $0.00 by backed up combined system. 1995 between garage and into FEMA to correct The garage is flooded below the storm drain in alley when a address. May want building. large storm arrives. to submit "Flood Protection provided" request in 2010 for berm. Johns Dr 01/13/1993 $2,489.90 $0.00 X(s) Flooding caused by clogged storm Older street drain inlets in Flood Protection 01/11/1995 $1,977.43 $0.00 drains and street flooding in the the area replaced with Provided - Reported 01/03/1997 $2,427.86 $0.00 area. current larger standard 2007; documentation drain inlets, but truck not provided in 2009. pipeline is inadequate. because MP projects Master Plan for Basin 26 had not been recommends three major completed. improvements: 1) increasing pumping capacity at Sump 26, (2) upsizing the trunk pipeline, and (30 installlation of a new detention basin in Sacramento Executive Airport just south of James Mangan Park. La Almendra 01/10/1995 $29,693.68 $0.00 A99 Property at the end of a cul de sac Sump 201 was constructed Flood Protection Wy (Srl) 01/27/1997 $48,733.49 $0.00 in a low lying area. specifically to pump the Provided - Reported drainage from this area. 2007. Community Bowl Detention Documentation Basin constructed to provided to FEMA in provide additional flood August 2009. SRL - protection to the area. County Asssesor value is $77,840

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.57 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Flood Status of Drainage Submitted to Dates of Building Contents Zone Improvements Provided FEMA/ Changes Street Losses Payment Payment (2009) Investigation of Flooding to Reduce Flooding Requested La Almendra 01/10/1995 $29,662.06 $0.00 A99 Property at the end of a cul de sac Sump 201 was constructed Flood Protection Wy 01/22/1997 $26,811.07 $22,679.58 in a low lying area. specifically to pump the Provided - Reported drainage from this area. 2007. Community Bowl Detention Documentation Basin constructed to provided to FEMA in provide additional flood August 2009. protection to the area. Las Palmas 01/13/93 $1,336.55 $0 X(s) Property in low lying area with an Richardson Village Park Flood Protection Av (Srl) 01/20/93 $8,891.96 $1,776.88 undersized drainage conveyance Detention Basin was Provided - Reported 01/09/95 $28,803.57 $5,637.45 system. constructed to reduce the 2007. August 2009- 01/22/97 $19,291.63 $11,972.96 flooding in the area. Still Did not provide 02/06/98 $10,068.13 $2,750.00 need the lateral along La documentation to 01/24/00 $4,898.80 $0 Palmas replaced before FEMA, waiting for submitting to FEMA. lateral along Las Palmas to be replaced. Las Palmas 01/09/95 $11,395.87 $0.00 X(s) Property in low lying area with an Richardson Village Park Flood Protection Av 01/26/97 $7,497.82 $0.00 undersized drainage conveyance Detention Basin was Provided - Reported system. constructed to reduce the 2007. August 2009- flooding in the area. Still Did not provide need the lateral along La documentation to Palmas replaced before FEMA, waiting for submitting to FEMA. lateral along Las Palmas to be replaced. Manacor Dr 12/28/1996 $2,198.26 $0.00 A99 Property in low lying area with an Bufferlands Detention Basin Flood Protection 01/28/1997 $2,581.42 $0.00 undersized drainage conveyance was constructed to reduce Provided - Reported 12/30/2005 $2,606.40 $1,985.00 system. flooding in the area, but 2007. No does documentation submitted in 2009. N St 01/10/1995 $5,588.09 $0.00 X(s) Property located in the Combined Combined sewer main in Flood Protection 01/25/1997 $1,344.59 $0.00 Sewer System with an undersized the area was increased Provided - Reported 09/19/2004 $8,884.87 $0.00 drainage conveyance system. from a 12” to a 24” main in 2007. late 1997. Documentation provided to FEMA in August 2009.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.58 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Flood Status of Drainage Submitted to Dates of Building Contents Zone Improvements Provided FEMA/ Changes Street Losses Payment Payment (2009) Investigation of Flooding to Reduce Flooding Requested N St 01/09/1995 $3,302.60 $0.00 X(s) Investigated in 2008 - Ink Need to investigated for Possibly submit 09/19/2004 $8,948.96 $0.00 Restaurant - looks like combined flood sources. Possibly "Flood Protection system backed up and flooded elevate. In late 1997, the provided" building 30-inch brick sewer main documentation in from 1901 was replaced 2010 for sewer main with a new 30-inch sewer project? main in that area. Norwood Av 1/10/1995 $10,000.76 $0.00 X(s) Property in low lying area with an Nuevo Park Detention Flood Protection 1/22/1997 $4,440.26 $1,528.55 undersized drainage conveyance Basin was constructed to Provided - Reported 2/2/1998 $2,951.82 $246.50 system. reduce flooding in the area 2007. in 2003. Documentation provided to FEMA in August 2009. Oak Nob Wy 01/05/97 $8,005.41 $0.00 AE Flooding from adjacent higher In Natomas 02/04/98 $3,797.03 $2,030.00 property in the rear. Ortega St 01/01/1997 X(s) Drainage from adjacent lots was Garage portion of structure Flood Protection 02/22/1998 going into garage which was will be raised with HUD Provided - Reported converted to living quarters. Grant funds. Elevation of 2007. structure expected to be Documentation completed in November provided to FEMA in 2001. Drainage basin is August 2009. currently being studied to develop a plan to reduce flooding in the area. Ortega St 01/14/1995 $1,321.05 $0.00 X(s) Flooding caused by clogged storm Master plan recommends Flood Protection 01/25/1997 $1,692.08 $0.00 drains and street flooding in the upsizing the McMahon Provided - Reported area. lateral and installing a new 2007. 8/2009-Could bypass pipeline at the east not provide end of McMahon, which documentation. connects to Basin 8 Trunk. As of 8/2009, these projects have not been completed. Park Wy 01/09/95 $3,485.33 $0.00 X(s) Property located in the Combined Need to elevate structure. 01/25/97 $5,333.80 $0.00 Sewer System with an undersized drainage conveyance system.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.59 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Flood Status of Drainage Submitted to Dates of Building Contents Zone Improvements Provided FEMA/ Changes Street Losses Payment Payment (2009) Investigation of Flooding to Reduce Flooding Requested Priscilla Ln 01/10/1995 $2,186.10 $0.00 X(s) Property in low lying area with an Drainage basin 96 from 12/21/1996 $2,195.02 $0.00 undersized drainage conveyance 1996 does not have any 01/22/1997 $13,779.28 $0.00 system. recommended improvements near this address. Q St 03/02/95 $0.00 40,161.00 X(s) Property in low lying area of Basin Basin 52 improvements 01/25/97 $903.00 9,474.00 52 with an undersized drainage include reconstruction and 09/19/2004 $5,716.00 26,909.64 conveyance system/sump. increasing the storm drainage mains to 54- inches in the area. Nothing has been completed other than piping work at the CalPers building. Rio Linda 1/10/1995 AE House burnt down in 12/2008. 2001- Drainage ditch Flood Protection Blvd 1/22/97 constructed on property to Provided - Reported divert drainage away from 2007. structure. House burnt Documentation down in approximately provided to FEMA in 2007. August 2009 with demolition permit. Ventura St 01/10/1995 $2,186.10 $0.00 X(s) Flooding caused by clogged storm Older street drain inlets in Flood Protection 01/22/1997 $13,779.28 $0.00 drains and street flooding in the the area replaced with Provided - Reported area. current larger standard 2007 drain inlets. Annual info letter was sent back in 2008. Source: City of Sacramento

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.60 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011

Flood: Localized/Stormwater

Historically, the City has been at risk to flooding primarily during the spring months when river systems in the County swell with heavy rainfall. Localized flooding also occurs at various times throughout the year with several areas of primary concern unique to the City. Due to data limitations, these areas could not be mapped.

The risk of stormwater/localized flooding to future development can be minimized by accurate recordkeeping of repetitive localized storm activity. Mitigating the root causes of the localized stormwater or choosing not to develop in areas that often are subject to localized flooding will reduce future risks of losses due to stormwater/localized flooding.

The City local drainage system services 100 square miles and is handled by some 86 storm drainage basins. Since the City is typically lower than the elevated rivers by as much as 5-25 feet, the majority of the local drainage must be pumped into the rivers. The City operates 86 sumps and pumps to keep the drainage pumped down. A major power outage within any of these basins can cause significant local flooding.

The situation brought about by extremely heavy local rain storms could conceivably result in badly flooded streets and flooding of homes in some areas. It is probable that such situations would be brought about by a slow intensity rainstorm over several hours reaching a peak intensity of ½" per hour later in the storm event. Any higher intensity storm event will cause localized flooding problems.

Other Possible Effects

Sewer System Damage

In case of a major disaster, such as an earthquake or flood, the City of Sacramento's sewer collection system may be subject to many severe pipe failures. In the City's combined system, there may be complete pipe collapses, especially where the City's brick mains are located. Sewage pumping stations could and probably would be damaged at these locations. The Field Services Division‟s sewer maintenance would close down and isolate areas where severely damaged pipes were located and bypass pumping would be implemented. Furthermore, this Division would have the responsibility of inspecting and evaluating the restoration of all sewers, sewer collections mains, and service laterals.

Energy Shortage

Should the City experience a shortage or shut-down of the fuel supply or electrical distribution system due to a flood, the Public Works Energy Emergency Coordinator will provide critical information and coordination. The Energy Coordinator will report to the Emergency Operations Center and provide information regarding critical City facilities in relation to function and auxiliary power.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.61 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Levee Failure

Floods can threaten the City of Sacramento from several sources. Usually, the possibility of flooding can be anticipated from eight to twenty hours before the “Emergency Period” is reached. However, as demonstrated in Linda, California, in February 1986, it is possible for a levee to collapse with little or no warning when there are still four or more feet of freeboard available.

Generally, levees fail due to overtopping or collapse. A catastrophic levee failure resulting from collapse probably will occur very quickly with relatively little warning. Such a failure would occur where the levee is saturated and the high hydrostatic water pressure on the river side, coupled with erosion of the levee from high water flows or an inherent defect in the levee that causes an almost instant collapse of a portion of the levee. Under such circumstances, structures located relatively near the break will suffer immediate and extensive damage. Several hundred yards away from the break the energy of the flood waters will be dispersed sufficiently to reduce, but not eliminate, flooding damage to structures in its path. The flood water will flow in a relatively shallow path toward any low point in the affected area. Flood water will collect in these low areas and the levels will rise as the flow continues. When the rivers are high, it is not possible to close or repair a levee break until the water surface in the river and the flooded area equalize.

Levee Overtopping

A major overtopping of a levee, if flow persists, will result in severe erosion of the levee crowns on the landward side and cause levee failure over a period of minutes to several hours. A severe levee overtopping can, therefore, be considered as a levee break for the purpose of determining the extent of flooding that any area will suffer. Generally, overtopping can be predicted based on river stages and the warning given depending on the source of the flood waters. For example, on the American River, stages should be predictable for up to eight hours. On the Sacramento River system, depending on which dams are releasing the flows, advance warning of river stages may be as much as 24 hours.

When a flood control system provides 100-year flood protection, it means that in any given year there is a one-in-100 chance that a storm might occur that is beyond the containment capacity of levees and reservoirs. Similarly, 200-year flood protection means there is a one-in-200 chance that a storm might occur that the system could not handle, and 500-year protection means there is a one-in-500 chance that a storm will overwhelm the system.

Figure F.16 shows the City of Sacramento‟s lower estimated flood protection level as compared to other major river cities in the U.S.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.62 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.16. Sacramento Flood Protection in Relation to Other U.S. Cities

Source: Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency

Methodology

Unincorporated Sacramento County and its incorporated jurisdictions have mapped flood hazard areas. GIS was used to determine the possible impacts of flooding within the County, and how the risk varies across the planning area. The following methodology was followed in determining improved parcel counts and values at risk to levee failure.

Sacramento‟s parcel and associated secured roll assessor 2010 data was used as the basis for the countywide inventory of developed parcels, land value, and structure value. The FEMA Preliminary DFIRM, made available on January 31, 2011, was used as the flood hazard for this analysis.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.63 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 GIS was used to create a centroid, or point representing the center of the parcel polygon. DFIRM flood data was then overlayed on the parcel centroids. For the purposes of this analysis, the flood zone that intersected a parcel centroid was assigned the flood zone for the entire parcel. The model assumes that every parcel with a structure value greater than zero is improved in some way. It is important to note that there could be more than one structure on an improved parcel (i.e. condo complex occupies one parcel but might have several structures). Only improved parcels and the value of their improvements were analyzed.

Values at Risk

Table F.21 contains flood analysis results for the City of Sacramento. This table shows the number of parcels and values at risk to levee failure events for the City. There are 68,736 parcels with a structure value of $14,051,588,582 in the X Protected by Levee zone in the City, as shown on Figure 4.70 in Section 4.3.8 of the base plan.

Table F.21. Count and Structure Value of Improved Parcels by Land Use in X Protected by Levee Zone

Flood Zone Jurisdiction Parcel Count Structure Value X Protected by Levee City of Sacramento 68,736 $14,051,588,582 Source: Sacramento County 2010 Secured Roll Assessor & Parcel Data; Sacramento County DFIRM, January 2011

Population at Risk

The Sacramento County Census 2010 household factor, 2.71, was made available by the Demographic Research Unit, State Census Data Center, CA Department of Finance. For the purposes of assessing vulnerability to specific hazards, this factor was applied to improved residential parcels. The centroids of those parcels were overlayed on the X Protected by Levee zone using GIS software. If the improved residential parcels‟ centroid intersects the hazard zone, that parcel is considered to be in the hazard zone. The household factor was then multiplied to counts of intersecting centroids (parcels) and vulnerable population was calculated. It is important to note that there could be more than one structure on an improved parcel (i.e. a condo complex occupies one parcel but might have several units or structures), so population estimates may be low. There are 229,627 people in the City of Sacramento at risk of levee failure.

Critical Facilities at Risk

The critical facility inventory was overlayed on the levee failure hazard layer using GIS. Facility locations that intersect the hazard were selected and sorted by critical facility definition category; the summary results of this analysis are show in Table F.22. A detailed critical facility table is included in this plan as Appendix E; the levee failure hazard column on the right-hand side of that table denotes whether a particular facility is considered to be vulnerable to that hazard.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.64 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Table F.22. City of Sacramento Critical Facilities at Risk to Levee Failure

Critical Facility Category Count Essential Services Facilities 192 At Risk Population Facilities 326 Hazardous Materials Facilities 1 Source: Sacramento County GIS

Development Trends

Hazard analysis was performed to determine the number of parcels in the X Protected by Levee Zones, within the Opportunity Areas. Results can serve as a vulnerability analysis guide for future development. The FEMA Preliminary DFIRM, made available on January 31, 2011, was used for the flood hazard and the levee area for this analysis (see Section 4.3.8 Flood Vulnerability for description of data). .

Table F.16 shows the Opportunity Areas overlaid on the DFIRM X Protected by Levee zone. Table F.17 shows results of the parcel hazard analysis, sorted by Opportunity Area tier and type. There are 9,870 parcels in the „Protected by Levee‟ zone.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.65 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.17. City of Sacramento Opportunity Areas in the Levee Protection Zones

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.66 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Table F.23. Number of Parcels in Opportunity Areas within DFIRM 'Protected by Levee' Zone - City of Sacramento

Tier Type Parcel Count 1 Centers 1,941 1 New Growth Areas 53 1 Transit Center 496 2 Centers 93 2 Corridors 2,893 2 Neighborhoods 3,430 2 Transit Center 964 Total 9,870 Source: DFIRM, City of Sacramento GIS

River/Stream/Creek Bank Erosion

Stream bank erosion is a natural process, but acceleration of this natural process leads to a disproportionate sediment supply, stream channel instability, land loss, habitat loss and other adverse effects. As farmers settled the valleys in the 1800s, the Gold Rush drew prospectors to the hills. As mining in the Sierra Nevada turned to the more “efficient” methods of hydraulic mining, the use of environmentally destructive high-pressure water jets washed entire mountainsides into local streams and rivers. As a result, the enormous amounts of silt deposited in the riverbeds of the Central Valley increased flood risk. As a remedy to these rising riverbeds, levees were built very close to the river channels to keep water velocity high and thereby scour away the sediment. However, the design of these narrow channels has been too successful. While the Gold Rush silt is long gone, the erosive force of the constrained river continues to eat away at the levee system. Due to the vast system of levees that protect the City (see Figure 4.75 in Section 4.3.10 for areas of the City protected by levees), erosion of levees is of critical importance.

On February 24, 2006, following sustained heavy rainfall and runoff, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a State of Emergency for California‟s levee system, commissioning up to $500 million of state funds (AB142) to repair and evaluate State/federal project levees. Following the emergency declaration, Governor Schwarzenegger directed the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to secure the necessary means to fast-track repairs of critical erosion sites. To date, nearly 300 levee repair sites have been identified, with more than 100 of the most critical sites having already been completed with AB142 funds. Repairs to others are either in progress or scheduled to be completed in the near future, and still more repair sites are in the process of being identified, planned, and prioritized.

DWR is the lead agency for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Erosion Repairs Program, while the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead agency for the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project. There are essential differences between the types of repair sites

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.67 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 referenced on Figure F.18. “Critical Erosion Repair sites” are the highest-priority erosion sites where levee degradation from erosion has occurred to the extent that they are at risk of failure even during normal flow conditions. The critical erosion repair sites on Figure F.18 that protect the City of Sacramento were SAC 47.0 and SAC 68.9.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.68 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.18. Streambank Erosion Sites in 2005 and 2006

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.69 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Severe Weather: Extreme Heat

The City of Sacramento experiences temperatures in excess of 100 degrees during the summer and fall months. The temperature moves to 105-110° F in rather extreme situations (see Figure F.19). Many months see a high number of days where daily high temperatures exceed 90°F (see Table F.24). Generally, people who live and work in this weather are prepared to cope with the extremes in that they dress appropriately and stay in air conditioned buildings during the peak temperature periods of the day.

Figure F.19. Daily Temperatures Averages and Extremes for the City of Sacramento

Source: Western Regional Climate Center, Sacramento FAA Airport Station

Table F.24. Average Number of Days in a Month Exceeding 90°F

Month Days Exceeding 90°F Month Days Exceeding 90°F January 0 July 21.4 February 0 August 19.0 March 0 September 12.6 April 0.5 October 2.5 May 5.5 November 0 June 11.6 December 0 Source: Western Regional Climate Center, Sacramento FAA Airport Station

Health impacts are the primary concern with this hazard, though economic impacts are also an issue. The elderly and individuals below the poverty level are the most vulnerable to extreme

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.70 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 temperatures. Nursing homes and elder care facilities are especially vulnerable to extreme heat events if power outages occur and air conditioning is not available. In addition, individuals below the poverty level may be at increased risk to extreme heat if use of air conditioning is not affordable.

Reliance on air conditioning causes a strain on the electrical energy in the Sacramento area. Occasionally peak demands outweigh supply and a condition known as brown-out occurs. This is an extremely dangerous situation for electrical equipment as it operates without the needed electricity causing damage to the systems. Days of extreme heat have been known to result in medical emergencies, civil unrest, and unpredictable human behavior. Periods of extended heat and dryness (droughts) can have major economic, agricultural, and water resources impacts.

Severe Weather: Fog

The Sacramento Valley can produce some extremely dangerous fogs in the winter and early spring months. These are a type of radiation fog called “tule fog.” Tule fog forms on cold and clear nights, when the ground is moist and there is very little wind. Under such conditions the ground cools quickly and thus cools the air above it as well. The moisture in this cooled air condenses and can create extremely dense fog. Since the air may be stagnant and there is little evaporative effect from the sun in winter months, tule fogs can last for several days and, in some instances, over a week. Under these conditions, visibility is often reduced to 600 feet, but can drop to less than 10 feet.

When tule fog forms, a severe risk is posed to traffic with the potential for multi-car pileups, especially on freeways such as Highway 99 and Interstate 5. This may have an economic impact on the City due to delays in transportation times or even the shutting-down of the major freeways of Interstate 5 and Highway 99.

The same dense and lingering fog can also produce adverse health effects in those with respiratory ailments.

Severe fog can impair but not generally halt shipping traffic into the Port of Sacramento. Shipping vessels will proceed on a slow bell and are required by federal and international law to have an operating ARPA (Automatic Radar Plotting Aid) radar. This will allow shipping traffic to continue using the Port facilities.

Due to the higher speeds and federal visibility requirements, airport traffic is much more handicapped by fog. When visibility drops below safe levels, airports such as Sacramento International Airport will shut down until visibility improves.

Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Storms

According to historical hazard data, severe weather is an annual occurrence in the City of Sacramento. Damage and disaster declarations related to severe weather have occurred and will

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.71 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 continue to occur in the future. Heavy rain and thunderstorms are the most frequent type of severe weather occurrence in the area. Wind and lightning often accompany these storms and have caused damage in the past. Problems associated with the primary effects of severe weather include flooding, pavement deterioration, washouts, high water crossings, landslide/mudslides, debris flows, and downed trees.

Wildfire

Because of the expansion of development into the rural areas adjacent to and within many communities, the urban-wildland interface fire is one that burns along the interfaces and can result in major losses of property and structures. The City of Sacramento is not immune to the threat of an urban wildfire. Generally, the fire season extends from early spring to late fall. Hazards arise from a combination of hot weather, an accumulation of vegetation, and low moisture content of the air. These conditions, when coupled with high winds and years of drought, compound the potential impact of a fire.

Some areas of the City have been identified as susceptible to urban-wildland fires. The areas are generally along the America River Parkway from Watt Avenue to the Sacramento River and along the Garden Highway in the Natomas area.

The American River Parkway is a stretch of a dense trees and brush on both sides of the American River. It is bordered by extensive commercial and residential development, including California State University, Sacramento. The parkway property is owned by the State of California, maintained by the Sacramento County Parks Department, and protected from fire by the Sacramento City Fire Department. The area is natural habitat with no fire break areas. Access for fire equipment is difficult and is limited to the paved stretches of the bicycle path. Some of the potential fire areas are not accessible to vehicular traffic. Fires occurred in the area in 1985 and 1992.

Figure F.20 shows wildfire risk to the City. Wildfire threat in the City ranges from no threat to moderate. The highest risk in the City occurs along the American River.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.72 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.20. City of Sacramento Fire Threat

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.73 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Methodology

The California Department of Forestry and Fire develops and maintains datasets related to wildland fire threat and risk. The Fire Threat dataset, created in 2004, was used for analysis on the City of Sacramento. Sacramento County‟s parcel and associated assessor data was used as the basis for the countywide inventory of developed parcels, or structures.

The Fire Threat dataset is a combination of fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area to burn, and potential fire behavior. Fire rotation is calculated using fifty years of fire history, as well as climate, vegetation, and land ownership information. Fuel rank is calculated based on expected fire behavior for unique combinations of topography and vegetative fuels under given weather conditions (wind speed, humidity, temperature, and fuel moistures). Fuel rank and fire rotation are then combined to create the 5 threat classes in the Fire Threat dataset, ranging from Little or No Threat to Extreme Threat.

GIS was used to create a centroid, or point representing the center of the Sacramento County parcel polygon. Fire Threat was then be overlayed on the parcel centroids. For the purposes of this analysis, the wildfire threat zone (Little or No Threat | Moderate | High | Very High | Extreme) that intersected a parcel centroid was assigned as the threat zone for the entire parcel.

Values at Risk

The methodology described previously produced loss estimates for this vulnerability assessment and plan and should be used for risk mitigation, emergency preparedness, and response and recovery. The methodology and results should be considered „reasonable‟. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology, and losses will vary depending on the magnitude of the flood event. Other limitations may include incomplete or inaccurate inventories of the built environment. The assessed values, for example, are well below the actual market values; thus, the actual value of assets at risk may be significantly higher than those included therein. Also, this loss estimation assumes no mitigation and does not account for buildings that may have defensible space. Loss estimates are shown in Table F.25.

Table F.25. Count and Structure Value of Improved Parcels by Fire Threat Class

Fire Threat Class Land Use Parcel Count Structure Value Little or No Threat Residential 80,159 $11,522,710,427 Little or No Threat Retail/Commercial 1,856 $1,476,172,617 Little or No Threat Office 1,022 $3,127,608,161 Little or No Threat Industrial 1,430 $1,114,980,997 Little or No Threat Care/Health 97 $614,901,734 Little or No Threat Church/Welfare 307 $246,632,965 Little or No Threat Public/Utilities 44 $72,653,356 Little or No Threat Recreational 60 $103,640,648

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.74 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Fire Threat Class Land Use Parcel Count Structure Value Little or No Threat Agricultural 1 $140,238 Little or No Threat Miscellaneous 27 $77,095,496 Little or No Threat Vacant 68 $12,222,853 Little or No Threat NO DATA 3 $2,197,468 Moderate Residential 44,380 $6,473,549,584 Moderate Retail/Commercial 422 $449,896,355 Moderate Office 312 $850,239,730 Moderate Industrial 341 $424,099,967 Moderate Care/Health 49 $120,089,101 Moderate Church/Welfare 139 $144,863,178 Moderate Public/Utilities 21 $1,002,625 Moderate Recreational 16 $20,435,780 Moderate Agricultural 1 $198,551 Moderate Miscellaneous 9 $22,188,954 Moderate Vacant 59 $5,659,822 High Residential 38 $5,448,728 High Retail/Commercial 4 $302,180 High Office 3 $8,346,422 High Industrial 3 $2,909,016 High Care/Health 1 $6,116,067 High Recreational 1 $420,430 Very High Industrial 2 $1,588,061 Total $26,908,311,511 Source: Sacramento County 2010 Secured Roll Assessor & Parcel Data; CAL FIRE

Population at Risk

A separate analysis was performed to determine population in fire threat zones. Using GIS, the Fire Threat dataset was overlayed on the improved residential parcel data. Those parcel centroids that intersect the high or very high fire threat zone were counted and multiplied by the Census Bureau Sacramento County household factor (2.71); results were tabulated by jurisdiction and threat zone (see Table F.26). According to this analysis, there is a population of 103 in the high fire threat zone and 0 in the very high fire threat zone.

Table F.26. Count of Improved Residential Parcels and Population in Fire Threat Zone by Jurisdiction

High Fire Threat Very High Fire Threat Jurisdiction Improved Residential Parcels Population Improved Residential Parcels Population Sacramento 38 103 - 0 Source: Sacramento County GIS, CAL FIRE

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.75 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Critical Facilities at Risk

The critical facility inventory was overlayed on the levee failure hazard layer using GIS. Facility locations that intersect the hazard were selected and sorted by critical facility definition category; the summary results of this analysis are show in Table F.27. A detailed critical facility table is included in this plan as Appendix E; the wildfire hazard column on the right-hand side of that table denotes whether a particular facility is considered to be vulnerable to that hazard.

Table F.27. Critical Facilities in the Wildfire Threat Areas in the City of Sacramento

Jurisdiction Critical Facility Definition Fire Threat Count Sacramento Essential Services Facilities Little or No Threat 199 Sacramento Essential Services Facilities Moderate 81 Sacramento Essential Services Facilities High 2 Sacramento At Risk Population Facilities Little or No Threat 383 Sacramento At Risk Population Facilities Moderate 243 Sacramento At Risk Population Facilities High 2 Sacramento Hazardous Materials Facilities Little or No Threat 3 Source: Sacramento County GIS, CAL FIRE F.6 Capability Assessment

Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. This capability assessment is divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, mitigation outreach and partnerships, and other mitigation efforts.

F.6.1 Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities

Table F.28 lists regulatory mitigation capabilities, including 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 Sacramento.

Table F.28. City of Sacramento Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities

Regulatory Tool (ordinances, codes, plans) Y/N Date Comments General plan Y 3/3/09 http://www.sacgp.org/ Zoning ordinance Y http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/ Subdivision ordinance Y http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/ Growth management ordinance N Floodplain ordinance Y City Code 15.104 Other special purpose ordinance 2008 American River Parkway Plan (wildfire) (stormwater, steep slope, wildfire)

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.76 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Regulatory Tool (ordinances, codes, plans) Y/N Date Comments Building code Y Version: 2010 California Building Code/IBC BCEGS Rating Y Not available Fire department ISO rating Y Rating: 2 Erosion or sediment control Y http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=15- program 15_88 Stormwater management program Y http://www.sacstormwater.org Site plan review requirements Y http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/ Capital improvements plan Y Drainage and sewer Economic development plan Y http://www.cityofsacramento.org/econdev/ Local emergency operations plan Y http://www.sacramentoready.org/default.htm and Dept. of Utilities Resources and References Community Wildfire Protection ? Plans Flood insurance study or other Y 12/8/08 engineering study for streams and Prelims 1/31/11 Elevation certificates Y Other Source: City of Sacramento - AMEC Data Collection Guide

City of Sacramento General Plan

The City of Sacramento General Plan serves as a blueprint for future growth and development and provides comprehensive planning for the future. It encompasses what the City currently is and what it intends to be. It provides the general framework to achieve the desired future condition.

The General Plan includes a Public Health and Safety Element that focuses on safety issues to be considered in planning for the present and future development for the City. Mitigation related goals of the Public Health and Safety Element are:

Goal PHS 2.1–Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services. Provide coordinated fire protection and emergency medical services that support the needs of Sacramento residents and businesses and maintains a safe and healthy community. Goal PHS 2.2–Fire Prevention Programs and Suppression. The City shall deliver fire prevention programs that protect the public through education, adequate inspection of existing development, and incorporation of fire safety features in new development. Goal PHS 3.1–Reduce Exposure to Hazardous Materials and Waste. Protect and maintain the safety of residents, businesses, and visitors by reducing, and where possible, eliminating exposure to hazardous materials and waste.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.77 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Goal PHS 4.1–Response to Natural and Human-Made Disasters. Promote public safety through planning, preparedness, and emergency response to natural and human-made disasters. Goal PHS 5.1–Human Services and Healthy Communities. Improve the provision of human services and promote public health and safety. Goal PHS 6.1–Compliance with Health and Safety Codes. Improve the health, safety, and visual quality of the community by ensuring compliance with health and safety codes.

City of Sacramento Emergency Operations Plan

The City of Sacramento Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) addresses the planned response for the City of Sacramento to emergencies associated with disasters, technological incidents, or other dangerous conditions created by either man or nature. It provides an overview of operational concepts, identifies components of the City emergency management organization, and describes the overall responsibilities of local, state, and federal entities. It addresses the hazards addressed in the previous City and County of Sacramento Hazard Mitigation Plan.

City of Sacramento Evacuation Plan

The Evacuation Plan is an Annex to the City of Sacramento‟s Emergency Operations Plan. As such its intent is to support and guide the City‟s Emergency Managers, Emergency Operations Center staff, and other governmental and non-governmental agencies who would be involved with an Evacuation Event in the City. The Evacuation Plan provides evacuation specific strategy and information that is intended to support but not supplant operational strategy as provided in the City‟s EOP and Departmental operations plans.

The primary threat that would incite the City to begin an evacuation event is a flood. As such, much of the material was written with flood as the primary concern. The overall evacuation strategy and associated plan details, however, would also serve the City in conducting an evacuation due to other hazards as well, and as such the Plan is intended to provide an all- hazards approach.

The plan is organized such that the first five sections provide quick reference materials to support emergency workers. The plan begins with Section 1 – Triggers and Activation, which details the flood threat triggers that would initiate the opening and staffing of the City EOC, and initiate notification, evacuation, and sheltering actions that need to take place as the imminent and substantial threat of a flood increases. Section 2 - Roles, Responsibilities, and Resources is meant to support emergency managers with deciding minimal personnel requirements to complete actions defined in the trigger section, who they should seek to fulfill certain roles, and to provide some general notion of resources likely already available for the situation. The next part, Section 3- Emergency Public Notifications, provides the emergency staff with a brief description of each of the notification systems the City has available to notify the citizenry, along with a How To Activate description. Section 4 – Area Evacuation Control by Police Beats,

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.78 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 provides evacuation routes for every area of the City as broken out by the Sacramento Police Department Beat maps. Many critical facilities, schools and shelters in each beat are identified. This information is useful both for supporting evacuations out of an area, and supporting evacuees coming into an area. In Section 5 – Care and Sheltering, the community centers and schools that have been assessed as available and ready to support sheltering of people and their pets, and may be assessable to people with disabilities, are listed with contact information.

Evacutaion maps, by police beat, are shown. Flood scenarios are also given, and evacuation routing planned for. An example is shown in Figure F.21.

Figure F.21. Sacramento River Sutter Scenario Evacuation Routes for Beat 1-A

Source: City of Sacramento Evacuation Plan, 2008

Ordinances

The City of Sacramento has many ordinances related to mitigation. These ordinances can be primarily or secondarily focused on mitigation.

Ordinances Primarily Focused on Mitigation

Zoning and Land Use Ordinance (Title 17)

This title and its accompanying maps are known as “the comprehensive zoning plan of the City of Sacramento.” It is adopted as a further refinement of the land use plan for Sacramento under the provisions of the “Conservation and Planning Law of the State of California.” The purpose of these regulations is to do the following:

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.79 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 3) Regulate the use of land, buildings, or other structures for residences, commerce, industry, and other uses required by the community; 4) Regulate the location, height, and size of buildings or structures, yards, courts, and other open spaces, the amount of building coverage permitted in each zone, and population density, among other things; 5) Divide the city into zones of such shape, size, and number best suited to carry out these regulations, and to provide for their enforcement; 6) Ensure the provision of adequate open space for recreational, aesthetic and environmental amenities.

These zoning regulations are necessary to:

1) Encourage the most appropriate use of land; 2) Conserve, stabilize and improve the value of property; 3) Provide adequate open space for recreational, aesthetic and environmental amenities; 4) Control the distribution of population; 5) Promote health, safety and the general welfare.

Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16)

This title is adopted pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, and to supplement and implement the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq., and may be cited as the subdivision ordinance of the city. The regulations established by this title are designed to assist in the systematic implementation of the general plan, specific and community plans, the zoning ordinance, and other land use regulations, and to provide for public needs, health and safety, convenience, and general welfare.

Neither the approval nor conditional approval of the tentative map shall constitute or waive compliance with any other applicable provisions of the city code or other applicable ordinances or regulations adopted by the city, nor shall any such approval authorize or be deemed to authorize a violation or failure to comply with other applicable provisions of the city code or other applicable ordinances or regulations adopted by the city. Nothing in these regulations shall be construed to permit the premature or haphazard subdivision of lands in violation of the applicable zoning and land use regulations.

Building Code (Title 15)

The chapters of this title shall be known and referred to as the Sacramento City Building Code, and may be cited as such, and will be referred to as “this code” or “this building code.” The purpose of this code is to provide minimum requirements and standards for the protection of the public safety, health, property, and welfare. This code is not intended as a design specification or an instructional manual for untrained persons. This code shall apply to all new construction and to any alterations, repairs, relocations or reconstruction of a building or any portion thereof

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.80 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 including any electrical, mechanical, gas, or plumbing equipment installed on any property or used on or within any building.

As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at the specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions including liquefaction, settlement, subsidence, lateral spreading, and collapse. The City requires that these evaluations be conducted by registered soil professionals, and measures to eliminate inappropriate soil conditions must be applied, depending on the soil conditions. The design of foundation and excavation-wall support must conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the CBC, Chapters 16, 18, 33, and the appendix to Chapter 33. Adherence to the CBC and City policies contained in the 2030 General Plan would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for users of buildings and infrastructure and their associated trenches, slopes, and foundations.

Floodplain Management Ordinance (Chapter 15.104)

This chapter is designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. This chapter regulates development which is or might be dangerous to health, safety and property by requiring at the time of initial development or substantial improvement methods of protection against flood damage in areas vulnerable to flooding in order to minimize flood damage. This chapter regulates the following developmental impacts: filling, grading or erosion, alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels or water courses, the imposition of barriers which increase flood hazards, or any other impacts that aggravate or cause flood hazards. This ordinance establishes the City‟s participation in the NFIP, and establishes base flood elevations at 1 foot above the FIRM flood depth for zones A, AH, and AE. In zones AO, the lowest floor will be elevated to one foot above the FIRM flood depth, or two feet above the highest adjacent grade if not depth number is specified.

Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential, the following provisions apply:

1) Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development unless certification by a registered professional engineer is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. 2) If the above subsection of this section is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of this section.

The local administrator is empowered to issue a variance only for purposes consistent with the objectives of FEMA‟s floodplain management regulations. However, a variance could affect flood insurance rates and may result in flood insurance premium rates on structures which are beyond the means of the person receiving the variance. FEMA requires the city to make an

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.81 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 annual report on any variance which is granted, and if FEMA determines that such variance is inconsistent with the objectives of sound floodplain management, FEMA may take action to suspend the city from the National Flood Insurance Program.

Weed and Rubbish Abatement Ordinance (Chapter 8.28)

In order to reduce wildfire potential in the City, excess weeds and rubbish must be mitigated. Weed and rubbish abatement in the city is performed pursuant to Title 4, Division 3, Part 2 of the Government Code. This ordinance places the fire chief as the code enforcement director.

Stormwater Management Ordinance (Chapter 13.16)

This chapter is known as the Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Code. The purpose of this chapter is to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City by controlling non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater conveyance system, by eliminating discharges to the stormwater conveyance system from spills, dumping, or disposal of materials other than stormwater, and by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. This chapter is intended to assist in the protection and enhancement of the water quality of watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS082597, as such permit is amended and/or renewed.

Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control (Chapter 15.88)

The City‟s grading ordinance is enacted for the purpose of regulating grading on property within the city to safeguard life, limb, health, property and the public welfare; to avoid pollution of watercourses with nutrients, sediments, or other materials generated or caused by surface water runoff from construction sites; to comply with the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; and to ensure that the graded site within the city limits complies with all applicable City ordinances and regulations. The grading ordinance is intended to control all aspects of grading operations within the city.

Ordinances Secondarily Focused on Mitigation

City of Sacramento Tree Preservation Ordinance

The City of Sacramento adopted the Tree Preservation Ordinance to protect trees as they are a significant resource for the community. It is the City's policy to retain trees whenever possible regardless of their size. When circumstances will not allow for retention, permits are required to remove heritage trees that are within the City‟s jurisdiction. Removal of, or construction around, trees that are protected by the tree ordinance are subject to permission and inspection by City arborists. The City of Sacramento Tree Service Division reviews project plans and works with

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.82 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 the City of Sacramento Public Works during the construction process to minimize impacts to street trees in the city.

Historic Preservation Ordinance

The City of Sacramento‟s historic preservation program began in 1975 with the enactment of the City‟s first Historic Preservation Ordinance. The current Historic Preservation Ordinance (No. 2006-063) was enacted in October 2006. The purpose of the Historic Preservation Ordinance is to identify, protect, and encourage the preservation of significant resources; maintain an inventory and ensure the preservation of these resources; encourage maintenance and rehabilitation of the resources; encourage retention, preservation, and re-use of the resources; safeguard city resources; provide consistency with state and federal regulations; protect and enhance the city‟s attraction to tourists; foster civic pride in the city‟s resources; and encourage new development to be aesthetically compatible.

F.6.2 Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities

Table F.29 identifies the City department(s) responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Sacramento.

Table F.29. City of Sacramento Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities

Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Planner/Engineer with knowledge of land Y Senior Planner, Long Range development/land management practices Planning Engineer/Professional trained in Y Supervising Engineer, Building construction practices related to buildings Division, CDD and/or infrastructure Planner/Engineer/Scientist with an Y DOU, Senior Engineer understanding of natural hazards Personnel skilled in GIS Y DOU/GIS Specialist Full time building official Y CDD/CBO Floodplain Manager Y DOU, Senior Engineer Emergency Manager Y Fire Dept., Emergency Coordinator Grant writer Y Various City staff Other personnel Y DOU, Senior Engineer Floodplain Mgmt Section GIS Data – Hazard areas Y DOU, GIS Specialist (Flood) GIS Data - Critical facilities Y DOU, GIS Specialist GIS Data – Building footprints Y DOU, GIS Specialist GIS Data – Land use Y DOU, GIS Specialist GIS Data – Links to Assessor’s data Y DOU/IT Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-11, Y Reverse-911, upgrading system cable override, outdoor warning signals) soon

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.83 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Other Source: City of Sacramento - AMEC Data Collection Guide

F.6.3 Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities

Table F.30 identifies financial tools or resources that the City could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities.

Table F.30. City of Sacramento Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities

Accessible/Eligible Financial Resources to Use (Y/N) Comments Community Development Block Y Grants Capital improvements project funding Y Drainage and sewer Authority to levy taxes for specific Y purposes Fees for water, sewer, gas, or Y Water and sewer. electric services Impact fees for new development Y Incur debt through general obligation Y bonds Incur debt through special tax bonds Y Incur debt through private activities Y Withhold spending in hazard prone Y areas Other Source: City of Sacramento - AMEC Data Collection Guide

F.6.4 Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships

The City currently has several outreach programs that are conducted on an annual basis:

Public Assistance: The City has a floodplain information hotline (916) 808-5061 for citizen inquiries about flood insurance, development standards in a floodplain, and flood map information. Repetitive Loss Outreach. The City annually mails a letter of notice on property protection to repetitive loss properties. Storm Preparation Outreach The City annually encourages residents to purchase flood insurance with bus advertising and a billboard along Business 80. The City works closely with its Fire Department and the City/County Office of Emergency Services to share information at community events about flood risks in our community and flood insurance.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.84 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 The City is actively working with community volunteers through “Sacramento Ready” to prepare our community for flooding emergencies. The group works with Community Emergency Response Volunteers, American Red Cross and local service agencies to have a team of volunteers ready to assist residents with winter weather preparation and planning, evacuation, and care and shelter. “Flood Watch”. SAFCA develops and distributes a newsletter called, “Flood Watch”, to provide information to the public on levee work status, flood insurance, and assessment information. SAFCA periodically holds community meetings in coordination with the City in areas where levee work is being completed. “Flood Risk Notice”. As part of Assembly Bill 156, which is part of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, the Department of Water Resources is required to send out a “Flood Risk Notice” to all property owners receiving protection from State-Federal project levees. The goal of the notice is to raise flood risk awareness and encourage actions on an individual basis to reduce flood losses. The first notice was sent in approximately September 2010 and will be continued to be sent annually. Instead of sending out a separate notice to all floodplain residents in the City, the City used this notice in 2010 instead as required by the Community Rating System program. Public Information Program Strategy. The City and County are currently working on implementing a pilot program under the Community Rating System program, which gives citizens discounts on flood insurance. This strategy will under Activity 330-Outreach Projects.

F.6.5 Other Mitigation Projects and Efforts

To mitigate winter storms and the flooding associated with them, the Department of Utilities and Department of Transportation work year around.

During the summer, crews assist in maintaining channels, canals and creeks by removing weeds and debris that can impede water flow during winter storms. Floodgates are inspected and maintained throughout the City. Also inspected and maintained are drainage inlets, pumps and generators, which are vital tools in removing water from City streets and discharging storm water into local waterways. Materials are stored close to floodgates or areas prone to flooding. Not only does this provide easy access to materials when needed, but also it helps City crews to open a sandbag station within two hours of being instructed to do so. Drills are held to rehearse floodgate closures to ensure that they can be quickly closed in an emergency. The City‟s 100,000 public trees are pruned on a 10-year cycle and crews respond promptly to calls about trees that may pose a safety hazard. During a storm event, extra crews are on-call after hours responding to hundreds of calls to 311.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.85 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Repetitive Loss Outreach – The City annually mails a letter of notice on property protection to repetitive loss properties.

F.7 Mitigation Strategy

This section describes the mitigation strategy process and mitigation action plan for the City of Sacramento‟s inclusion with the Sacramento County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update.

F.7.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives

The City of Sacramento adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the HMPC and described in Chapter 5 Mitigation Strategy of the base plan.

F.7.2 NFIP Mitigation Strategy

Given the flood hazard in the planning area, an emphasis will be placed on continued compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and participation by Sacramento County and the City of Sacramento in the Community Rating System. Other cities are encouraged to begin participating in the CRS. Detailed below is a description of the City‟s flood management program to ensure continued compliance with the NFIP.

City of Sacramento’s Flood Management Program: Recent Activities

The City of Sacramento has participated in the Regular Phase of the NFIP since September 1978. Since then, the City has administered floodplain management regulations that meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP. Under that arrangement, residents and businesses paid the same flood insurance premium rates as most other communities in the country.

The City of Sacramento submitted applications to participate in the CRS program in December 1990 and again 1992, shortly after its 1990 launch. It is designed to recognize floodplain management activities that are above and beyond the NFIP‟s minimum requirements. CRS is designed to reward a community for implementing public information, mapping, regulatory, loss reduction and/or flood preparedness activities. On a scale of 10 to 1, the City is currently ranked Class 5. . As of January 2011, the City of Sacramento receives the highest reduction in flood insurance rates, about $1.7 million per year, than any other community in California.

The activities credited by the CRS provide direct benefits to the City of Sacramento and its residents, including:

Enhanced public safety; A reduction in damage to property and public infrastructure; Avoidance of economic disruption and losses; Reduction of human suffering; and Protection of the environment.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.86 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 The activities that City of Sacramento implements and receives CRS credits include:

Activity 310 – Elevation Certificates: The Department of Utilities (DOU) maintains elevation certificates for new and substantially improved buildings. Copies of elevation certificates are made available upon request. Elevation Certificates are also kept for post- FIRM and pre-FIRM buildings. The City maintains hard copies in folders at DOU (away from the permit office) and electronically in the City‟s building permit database. Activity 320 – Map Information Service: Credit is provided for furnishing inquirers with flood zone information from the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), publicizing the service annually and maintaining records. Activity 330 – Outreach Projects: A community brochure is mailed to all properties in the community on an annual basis. An outreach brochure is mailed annually to all properties in the community's Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The community also provides flood information through displays on buses and billboards, and at community events. Activity 340 – Hazard Disclosure: Credit is provided for state and community regulations requiring disclosure of flood hazards. Activity 350 – Flood Protection Information: Documents relating to floodplain management are available in the reference section of the Sacramento Public Library. Credit is also provided for floodplain information displayed on the City's website. Activity 360 – Flood Protection Assistance: The community provides technical advice and assistance to interested property owners and annually publicizes the service. Activity 410 – Additional Flood Data: Credit is provided for conducting and adopting flood studies for areas not included on the flood insurance rate maps and that exceed minimum mapping standards. Credit for determining Base Flood Elevations in approximate A zones. Credit is also provided for a cooperating technical partnership agreement with FEMA. Activity 420 – Open Space Preservation: Credit is provided for preserving approximately 5 acres in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as open space. Credit is also provided for open space land that is deed restricted. Activity 430 – Higher Regulatory Standards: Credit is provided for enforcing regulations that require freeboard for new and substantial improvement construction, protection of floodplain storage capacity, natural and beneficial functions, enclosure limits, other higher regulatory standards, land development criteria and state mandated regulatory standards. Credit is also provided for a Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) Classification of 3/3, certification as a floodplain manager, EMI NFIP class graduates, and the adoption of the International Building Codes. Activity 440 – Flood Data Maintenance: Credit is provided for maintaining and using digitized maps in the day to day management of the floodplain. Credit is also provided for maintaining copies of all previous FIRMs and Flood Insurance Study Reports. Activity 450 – Stormwater Management: The community enforces regulations for stormwater management, soil and erosion control, and water quality. Credit is also provided for watershed management master planning.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.87 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Activity 510 – Floodplain Management Planning: Based on NFIP Repetitive Losses data as of November 2010, the City has 21 repetitive loss properties and is a Category C community for CRS purposes. All requirements for the 2009 cycle have been met. Credit is provided for preparing an area analyses the covers the repetitive loss areas. Activity 520 – Acquisition and Relocation: Credit is provided for acquiring and relocating buildings from the community's flood hazard area. Activity 530 – Flood Protection: Credit is provided for buildings that have been flood proofed, elevated or otherwise modified to protect them from flood damage. Activity 540 – Drainage System Maintenance: Portions of the community's drainage system are inspected regularly throughout the year and maintenance is performed as needed by the Department of Water Resources. Records are being maintained for both inspections and required maintenance. Credit is also provided for an ongoing Capital Improvements Program. The community also enforces a regulation prohibiting dumping in the drainage system. Activity 610 – Flood Warning Program: Credit is provided for a program that provides timely identification of impending flood threats, disseminates warnings to appropriate floodplain residents, and coordinates flood response activities. Activity 630 – Dam Safety: All California communities currently receive CRS credit for the state's dam safety program.

City of Sacramento’s Flood Management Program: 5-year Outlook

The following is a description/list of those flood management activities that will be enhanced and/or added over the next five years to show continued compliance with the NFIP

Continuing in the CRS program, while making an effort to implement new CRS acitivites to benefit the City of Sacramento and residents. Working with more Repetitive Loss properties to mitigate flooding problems Adding more restrictions in Building Divisions on building next to a levee and compensatory storage Increasing the amount of public outreach on promoting the Preferred Risk Policy flood insurance Implementing the requirements in the State of California‟s Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Improving the City/County‟s emergency response system Implementing flood control projects to better protect property and life safety

F.7.3 Mitigation Actions

The planning team for the City of Sacramento identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment and in accordance with the process outline in Section 5, Mitigation Strategy, of the base plan. Background information and information on how each action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.88 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 office, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline are also included. General processes and information on plan implementation and maintenance of this LHMP by all participating jurisdictions is included in Section 7, Plan Implementation and Maintenance, of the base plan.

1. CRS Public Information Pilot Program

Hazards Addressed: Flood, Dam Failure, Levee Failure

Issue/Background: The 2012 CRS Public Information Series is being revised to credit CRS communities for developing programs for public information specifically tailored to their particular hazards, natural resources, and audiences. Such a program would be like an existing public information strategy but using more creative approaches to communicate with target audiences. The revision will also include measurement techniques to assess outcomes and redirect programs as needed to achieve desired outcomes.

The County of Sacramento is partnering with the City of Sacramento to participate as “pilot” communities to assist in developing and testing proposed revisions to the 2012 CRS public information program.

The pilot program includes establishing a committee to include non-government stakeholders who are involved in flood concerns or flood-related public information activities.

The CRS identified six messages of primary importance to the program. The committee will evaluate each of six messages for applicability to the regional situation, and develop public information projects for each relevant message.

For each message, the committee will:

Identify target areas and target audiences Conduct effectiveness assessments of current public information programs Identify similar public information efforts from other department programs or other regional agencies Develop desired outcomes for each message, i.e.: financially protect homeowners from flood losses Develop an public information strategy/project for each desired outcome Establish measurement criteria for each project

The CRS public information program will be implemented over a strategic time phase.

To implement this project, a subcommittee of the HMPC will be tasked with developing and implementing a program for public information pursuant to the CRS guidelines. The subcommittee shall prepare a document that summarizes the needs for information on flooding and flood hazards, goals for meeting those needs, and projects to implement the goals. The subcommittee shall monitor and evaluate implementation of those projects and shall provide an

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.89 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 annual progress report as part of the annual report on this plan. The County DWR and City counterpart will provide staff support for this effort.

Other Alternatives: Continue with existing public information program for CRS

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: CRS program

Responsible Office: County DWR Drainage Development section and the City of Sacramento DOV

Cost Estimate: Staff time

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Life Safety, Property Protection

Potential Funding: Annual budgets

Schedule: 2011 - ongoing

2. Integrate Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into Safety Element of General Plan

Issue/Background: Local jurisdiction reimbursement for mitigation projects and cost recovery after a disaster is guided by Government Code Section 8685.9. Specifically, this section requires that the City must adopt a local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 as part of the safety element of its general plan adopted pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 65302. It is important for the City of Sacramento to incorporate the City‟s LHMP annex into the safety element as part of the next general plan update.

Other Alternatives: No feasible alternatives

Responsible Office: City of Sacramento Community Development Department

Priority (High, Medium, Low): High

Cost Estimate: $8,000-10,000 application fees

Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant

Benefits (avoided Losses): Planning documents will help the City maximize potential for state reimbursement

Schedule: As soon as possible

3. Evaluation and Mitigation of Critical Facilities in Identified Hazard Areas

Hazards Addressed: Flood, Dam Inundation, Levee Failure, Wildfire

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.90 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Issue/Background: Based on the critical facility analysis completed for this plan, over 3,000 critical facilities have been identified within the Sacramento County Planning Area. This number is anticipated to go up based on additional mapping of critical facilities as the GIS mapping effort is completed. For Sacramento County, 52 mapped critical facilities have been identified within the 100 year floodplain and another 164 (81-city) in the 500-year floodplain. A detailed list of those affected critical facilities are included in Appendix E. Due to the significant number of critical facilities identified within the flood and other hazard areas, additional evaluation of each affected facility is required in order to determine which facilities should be potentially relocated and/or protected. This project addresses the additional evaluation of identified critical facilities to determine options for mitigation. The initial focus will be on those facilities within the flood hazard areas, with other hazard-prone facilities to follow. The end result of this analysis will be a list of facilities within the 100- and 500-year floodplain and their mitigation recommendations and priorities.

Other Alternatives: No action, remove all critical facilities from the floodplain.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: This will be implemented through the County floodplain management program

Responsible Office: City Floodplain Management Group

Cost Estimate: Analysis and recommendations should involve staff time; resulting mitigation measures will be cost on an individual facility basis.

Priority (H, M, L): High

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Analyzing mitigation measures for critical facilities will increase both property protection and life safety for City residents.

Potential Funding: Existing budgets.

Schedule: Within five years

4. CVFPP - Flood Emergency Plan

Hazards Addressed: Flooding

Issue/Background Statement: SB 5 and other associated legislation is requiring that a Central Valley Flood Protection Plan be adopted in 2012. As part of this plan, the City, because it is located within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, is required to collaborate to develop flood emergency plans within 24 months of the adoption of the CVFPP.

Other Alternatives: No feasible alternatives

Existing Planning Mechanisms through which Action will be Implemented:

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.91 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Responsible Office: City of Sacramento, DOV

Priority (H, M, L): Medium

Cost Estimate: $75,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Compliance with the State of California, increased flood protection

Potential Funding: Possible grant funding

Schedule: End of 2011

5. Adopt Additional Floodplain Development Standards

Hazards Addressed: Flooding

Issue/Background: The City has created a Development Services Task Force that has been meeting monthly to discuss the City adopting additional floodplain development standards to be added to the City‟s Floodplain Ordinance. The standards may include adopting the code standards created by DWR voluntarily before they are mandatory. This also may include evacuation and rescue requirements, additional freeboard, and 200-year level of protection.

Other Alternatives: No action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: The Development Service Task Force is a mitigation measure of the 2010 Corrective Action Plan created to help remediate building permit violations.

Responsible Office: City of Sacramento, DOU & CDD

Cost Estimate: Staff time

Benefits (Losses Avoided): New and substantially improved structures will be better protected from flooding.

Potential Funding: N/A

Schedule: 2012

6. Update the General Plan to include the requirements of the CVFPP

Hazards Addressed: Flooding

Issue/Background: SB 5 and other associated legislation is requiring that a Central Valley Flood Protection Plan be adopted in 2012. The City, because it is located within the Sacramento-San

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.92 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Joaquin Valley, is required to amend its General Plan to incorporate the CVFPP‟s data, policies, and implementation measures.

Other Alternatives: No action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented:

Amend General Plan within 24 months of the CVFPP adoption:

Amend Land Use Element to require reviewing it annually and updating it to identify areas subject to flooding Amend Conservation Element to identify areas that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management. Amend Safety Element to add 200-year floodplain maps and levee protection zone maps.

Amend Zoning Ordinance within 36 months of the CVFPP adoption, but not more than 12 months after the amendment of the General Plan to include restrictions on development in a floodplain.

Responsible Office: City of Sacramento

Cost Estimate: $0/Lots of staff time

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Compliance with the State of California, increased flood protection

Potential Funding: Possible grant funding

Schedule: End of 2011

7. Historic Magpie Creek Study

Hazards Addressed: Flooding

Issue/Background: For years, the City has used floodplain maps and data from the City‟s Drainage Master Plan and a Corps study for development purposes in the Historic Magpie Creek floodplain. The City would like to have this area studied and have the actual current floodplain and BFEs incorporated into the DFIRMs. FEMA is in the process of restudying this area.

Other Alternatives: No action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: FEMA is in the process of restudying historic Magpie Creek.

Responsible Office: City of Sacramento, DOU

Cost Estimate: $0

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.93 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Benefits (Losses Avoided): Base Flood Elevations provided for development will be more accurate, and the correct data will be on the DFIRMs. Structures that will be put into the floodplain will be required to carry flood insurance, which will protect those structures.

Potential Funding: $0 (Funded by FEMA)

Schedule: End of 2011

8. South Sacramento Streams Project: Union Pacific Railroad Flood Wall

Hazards Addressed: Flooding

Issue/Background: Part of the South Sacramento Streams Project is to construct a flood wall along the Union Pacific Railroad between Unionhouse Creek and Morrison Creek. The design for the floodwall is nearly complete (finish in 2011). The City will coordinate with SAFCA on proposed flood wall improvements and a Letter of Map Revision. These improvements will remove a large area of A99 Flood Zone on the east side of Morrison Creek between Unionhouse and Elder Creek.

Other Alternatives: No action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: This is a priority of SAFCA and the City. SAFCA has budgeted funds for this project.

Responsible Office: SAFCA/USACE

Cost Estimate: $8 to 10 million

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Provides for greater than 100-year protection reducing estimated annual damages for over 1,000 homes. By remapping this area out of the special flood hazard area once the improvements are made, residents will be allowed to purchase PRP flood insurance policies saving Removes structures from A99 floodplain and allow cheaper flood insurance for the area

Potential Funding: SAFCA/State of California/Corps of Engineers

Schedule: 2012

9. Natomas Levee Improvement Project (NLIP)

Hazards Addressed: Flooding

Issue/Background: The Natomas Basin was remapped from a Zone X to a Zone AE on December 8, 2008. Significant progress has been made on the NLIP in the last 4 years to fix the levees around the Natomas Basin. Work on about 5 miles of the Natomas Cross Canal and 7

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.94 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 miles of the Sacramento River were completed in 2010. SAFCA is working on another six miles along the Sacramento just south of the airport, which would complete half the improvements needed to meet the Federal Standard for providing the Natomas Basin with at least a 100-year of flood protection and to meet the A99 zone requirement.

Other Alternatives: No action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: This is a priority of SAFCA and the City. SAFCA has budgeted funds for this project to reach A99 through assessments, State, and Federal money. USACE will complete the project to reach the 100-year and 200-year flood protection.

Responsible Office: SAFCA/USACE/County DWR/City DOU

Cost Estimate: $780 million

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Once complete the project will provide greater than 200-year protection reducing estimated annual damages and would also remove structures from AE floodplain, allowing residents to purchase PRP flood insurance, and lifts development restrictions in Natomas (Zone A99).

Potential Funding: SAFCA/State DWR/ Corps of Engineers

Schedule: A99 Zone: 2012 pending federal authorization; X Zone: 2018

10. Retrofit of Repetitive Loss Properties

Hazards Addressed: Flooding

Issue/Background: The City has set a goal to remove at least 4 repetitive loss structures from FEMA‟s Repetitive Loss List within the City by September 2013. Some of these properties could be structurally retrofitted to fix the flooding problem. One structure is in the City‟s combined sewer system and is in a low lying area. Some other structures have sunken living room and water seeps into the house. All of these structures need to be elevated and/or retrofitted. The first step is to identify interested property owners and try to obtain grant money to assist with these retrofits.

Other Alternatives:

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Mitigation of repetitive loss properties is a mitigation measure in the City‟s 2010 Corrective Action Plan approved by FEMA.

Responsible Office: City of Sacramento, Dept. of Utilities

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.95 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Cost Estimate: About $250,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): No more structural damage and flood insurance claims

Potential Funding: FEMA grants, Corrective Action Plan funding, and DOU

Schedule: August 2010-September 2013

11. Preferred Risk Policy (PRP) Outreach Campaign

Hazards Addressed: Flooding

Issue/Background: The City will perform an aggressive City outreach campaign to increase NFIP PRP policyholders by 10% throughout the City.

Other Alternatives:

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: The PRP Outreach campaign is a mitigation measure of the 2010 Corrective Action Plan created to help remediate building permit violations.

Responsible Office: City of Sacramento, Dept. of Utilities

Cost Estimate: $100,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Structure protection from floods

Potential Funding: Possible grants, CDD, and DOU

Schedule: December 2010- December 2011 (or until goal is reached)

12. Drainage Projects for Repetitive Loss Properties

Hazards Addressed: Flooding

Issue/Background: The City has set a goal to remove at least 4 repetitive loss (RL) structures from FEMA‟s Repetitive Loss List within the City by September 2013. A lot of the RL structure have flooded because undersized local drainage issues. Many potential drainage projects that have been identified in the City‟s Drainage Master Plans. These projects include upsizing pipelines, adding detention basins, adding bypass pipelines, retrofitting pump stations, and land acquisition. These projects will be ranked and grant funding will be pursued.

Other Alternatives: No action

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.96 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: Mitigation of repetitive loss properties is a mitigation measure in the City‟s 2010 Corrective Action Plan approved by FEMA.

Responsible Office: City of Sacramento, Dept. of Utilities

Cost Estimate: $0.2 million - $15 million per project

Benefits (Losses Avoided): No more structural damage and flood insurance claims

Potential Funding: FEMA grants, Corrective Action Plan funding, and DOU

Schedule: August 2010-September 2013

13. Unionhouse Creek Existing Conditions LOMR and Channel Improvements

Hazards Addressed: Flooding

Issue/Background: In June 2011, Unionhouse Creek was modeled using current data (i.e., updated hydrology and topography data), and it was found that about 1,100 structures could be removed from the A99 zone between Franklin Boulevard and Highway 99. This will allow cheaper flood insurance rates for the residents living in this area. The City plans to submit an existing conditions LOMR to FEMA using this new model.

In addition, channel improvements for Unionhouse Creek are being analyzed to bring Unionhouse Creek up to the 100-year or 200-year level. The City will coordinate with SAFCA on proposed channel improvement on Unionhouse Creek. These channel improvements would remove about an additional 400 structures from the A99 flood zone between Franklin Blvd. and Highway 99. This will be accomplished by widening the channel bottom and/or concrete lining the channel. SAFCA and the City will submit a CLOMR to FEMA with the proposed channel improvements.

Other Alternatives: No action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented:

This is a priority of SAFCA and the City. SAFCA has budgeted funds for this project and grants have been applied for.

Responsible Office: City

Cost Estimate: $75,000 for existing conditions LOMR, $75,000 for CLOMR, up to $4 million for channel improvements

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.97 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Benefits (Losses Avoided): Removes structures from A99 floodplain and allow cheaper flood insurance for the area and reduces flood risk to the community and associated damages

Potential Funding: Possible grants, SAFCA, and/or DOU; Regional Transit

Schedule: Existing conditions LOMR – 2011, CLOMR – 2012, Channel improvements – scheduled for 2012

14. Emergency Notification and Evacuation Planning

Hazards Addressed: Flood Emergency Response

Issue/Background: As part of a corrective action plan approved by FEMA, the City of Sacramento in conjunction with the Sacramento Office of Emergency Services has committed to upgrading and improving emergency notification and evacuation planning systems and processes using the current Reverse 911 system, which is administered by the Sacramento Police Department, as the primary method. This enhancement to the existing Reverse 911 system to more effectively notify mass populations of flood evacuation orders and routes, consistent with FEMA guidelines, identifying special needs communities and transportation providers, targeted outreach to maximize the capabilities of Reverse 911, and strategic training to assure effective deployment of the enhanced capabilities.

Other Alternatives: No action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: The multi- hazard response plan and ongoing training programs administered by Sacramento Office of Emergency Services (SOES).

Responsible Office: SOES

Cost Estimate: Not to exceed $350,000

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Better prepared evacuations, preventing loss of life

Potential Funding: $350,000 appropriated from the City‟s Community Development Department as part of the City‟s Corrective Action Plan to FEMA.

Schedule: Full deployment, outreach and training completed by October 2011.

15. Drainage Projects from the City’s Priority Drainage Project List

Hazards Addressed: Local flooding

Issue/Background: The City is continually improving the local drainage system and the combined sewer and stormwater system. Many potential drainage projects that have been

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.98 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 identified in the City‟s Drainage Master Plans and have been prioritized on a Basin Master Planning and Improvement Projects priority list. These projects include upsizing pipelines, adding detention basins, adding pipelines, retrofitting pump stations, and land acquisition. These projects are ranked

Other Alternatives: No action

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: The Department of Utilities has a Drainage CIP group who manage these types of projects.

Responsible Office: City of Sacramento, Dept. of Utilities

Cost Estimate: $200,000 to 15,000,000 per project

Benefits (Losses Avoided): No more structural damage and flood insurance claims

Potential Funding: FEMA grants and DOU CIP funds

Schedule: August 2011-September 2015

16. Coordinate with SAFCA, CA-DWR, USACE, and Sacramento County on Proposed Flood Control projects on Magpie Creek (from 2005 Plan)

Hazards Addressed: Flood

Issue/Background: The proposed project would involve raising a portion of the Magpie Creek Diversion Channel (MCDC) levee between Raley Boulevard and Vinci Street, constructing a short section of new levee along Raley Boulevard to prevent outflanking flows, purchasing and preserving 80 acres of lands generally between Magpie and Don Julio Creeks to detain peak flows during major flood events, constructing a new maintenance road between Vinci Avenue and Dry Creek Road adjacent to the left bank (looking downstream) of the MCDC, and constructing a new culvert under the bike trail at Robla Creek. No channel widening is proposed.

Residents in the area have voiced concerns about the proposed bike trail culvert size at Robla Creek. The new culvert must be adequate to prevent flows from backing up into Robla Creek. In a SAFCA 13 March 2002 Declaration, SAFCA proposed the addition of a 30 feet wide by five feet high culvert at the Bike Trail. This created an additional 150 square feet of area for the storm water to flow through the Bike Trail. A USACE January 2004 document is proposing culverts of about 75 square feet in area, which is half of SAFCA‟s proposal. This could potentially cause flood problems in the unincorporated County, while alleviating problems in the incorporated area.

Other Alternatives: No Action and areas of Historic Magpie Creek are remapped into the floodplain.

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.99 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented: SAFCA originally estimated construction in 2006, but the project is not scheduled now.

Responsible Office: SAFCA/UASCE/ County DWR/ City Department of Utilities

Cost Estimate: Unknown

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Protects the safety of residents and their structures. Flood insurance relief to residents in the Historic Magpie Creek floodplain.

Potential Funding: SAFCA/grants/City

Schedule: Unknown

17. Coordinate with the County and State to Create defensible space to protect vital infrastructure located in the American River Parkway from wildfires (from 2005 Plan)

Hazards Addressed: Wildfire

Issue/Background: Major power lines traverse the American River Parkway in the vicinity of Bushy Lake. Tree and brush growth amongst the transmission line towers pose a potential wildfire hazard that could lead to major power disruption.

Other Alternatives: No action.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented:

Responsible Office: Coordinate with Sacramento County, State of California, SMUD, City Department of Utilities, City Fire Department

Cost Estimate: TBD. Costs exists in budgets

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Cost of cutting/thinning vegetation in vicinity of transmission line towers is less than replacing the towers, or the cost of interrupted service, should there be a fire.

Potential Funding: Grants/City/County/State/SMUD

Schedule: Ongoing

18. Update the critical facilities identified during this DMA planning effort with the City’s GIS technical group to support emergency management efforts. (from 2005 Plan)

Hazards Addressed: Flood, Wildfire, Dam Failure, Severe Weather, Levee Failure

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.100 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Issue/Background: GIS databases of critical facilities have been used by the City for incident management and emergency planning purposes. These databases need to be updated with the results from GIS analysis associated with the development of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Other Alternatives: No action.

Existing Planning Mechanism(s) through which Action Will Be Implemented:

Responsible Office: City GIS Technical Group, City Department of Utilities, and City/County Office of Emergency Services

Cost Estimate: City staff time

Benefits (Losses Avoided): Life safety

Potential Funding: None

Schedule: 2011

Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.101 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011