Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-107 CC Resolution I I I RESOLUTION NO. 04-107 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY OPERATIONAL AREA MUL TI-JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL DISASTER MITIGATION AND COST REDUCTION ACT OF 2000. WHEREAS, President William J. Clinton signed H.R. 707, the Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 2000, into law on October 30,2000; and WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all jurisdictions to be covered by a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to be eligible for Federal Emergency Management Agency post- disaster funds; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Operational Area has coordinated the development of the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in association with all participating jurisdictions within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the California State Office of Emergency Services has reviewed the plan on behalf of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula is within the Riverside County Operational Area; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula is concerned with about mitigating potential losses from natural disasters before they occur; and WHEREAS, the plan identifies potential hazards, potential losses and potential mitigation measures to limit losses; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has determined that it would be in the best interest of the community as a whole to adopt the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as it pertains to the City of T emecula; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Temecula hereby adopt the attached "Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Part I and Part II - City of Temecula Submissions" to meet the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 2000. R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04-107 I PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of October 2004. ATTEST: [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I I, Susan W. Jones, CMC. City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 04-107 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 26th day of October, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Roberts, Stone, Washington, Naggar COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None I R:/Resos 20O4/Resos 04-107 I RIVERSIDE COUNTY MUL TI- JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION AGENCY INVENTORY City of T emecula I I HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND SUMMARY WORKSHEET I PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Agency/Jurisdiction: Type Agency/Jurisdiction: I Temecula I City Contact Person: Title: First Name: I Grant Agency Address: Street: City: State: Zi: I Assistant to the City Manager I I Last Name: I Yates 43200 Business Park Dr Temecula CA 92589 Contact Phone E-mail FAX 1909694- 6499 I Population Served 180,000 I Square Miles Served 127 Does your organization have a general plan? Does your organization have a safety component to the general plan? What yeaf was.your pJan.1ast. update&1 ~.YES ~ Does your organization have a disaster/emergency operations plan? What year was your plan last updated? Do you have a recovery annex or section in your plan? Do you have a terrorismlWMD annex or section in your plan? I YES 1998 YES YES DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION HAVE: I AIRPORT IN JURISDICTION NO AIRPORT NEXT TO JURISDICTION YES DAIRY INDUSTRY NO POULTRY INDUSTRY NO CROPS/ORCHARDS NO DAMS IN JURISDICTION NO DAMS NEXT TO JURISDICTION YES LAKE/RESERVOIR IN JURISDICTION NO LAKE/RESERVOIR NEAR JURISDICTION YES JURISDICTION IN FLOOD PLAIN YES CONTROLLED FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL YES UNCONTROLLED FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL YES EARTHQUAKE FAULTS IN JURISDICTION YES EARTHQUAKE FAULTS NEXT TO JURISDICTION YES MOBILE HOME PARKS YES NON-REINFORCED FREEWAY BRIDGES NO NON-REINFORCED BRIDGES NO BRIDGES IN FLOOD PLAIN YES BRIDGES OVER OR ACROSS RIVER/STREAM YES ROADWAY CROSSING RIVER/STREAM YES H(»I. REIIIIF~.suIlDINGS YES FREEWAY/MAJOR HIGHWAY IN JURISDICTION YES FREEWAY/MAJOR HIGHWAY NEXT TO JURISDICTION YES FOREST AREA IN JURISDICTION NO I FOREST AREA NEXT TO JURISDICTION YES WITHIN THE 50 MILES SAN ONOFRE EVACUATION ZONE YES MAJOR GAS/OIL PIPELINES IN JURISDICTION YES MAJOR GAS/OIL PIPELINES NEXT TO JURISDICTION YES RAILROAD TRACKS IN JURISDICTION NO RAILROAD TRACKS NEXT TO JURISDICTION NO HAZAROQU$- WA$."[I;. f ACU.1~~tlQN. HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES NEXT TO JURISDICTION NO HAZARDOUS STORAGE FACILITIES IN JURISDICTION YES HAZARDOUS STORAGE FACILITIES NEXT TO JURISDICTION NO I DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION OWN OR OPERATE A FACILITY I IN A FLOOD PLAIN NO NEAR FLOOD PLAIN YES NEAR RAILROAD TRACKS NO NEAR A DAM NO UPSTREAM FROM A DAM NO DOWNSTREAM FROM A DAM YES DOWNSTREAM OF A LAKE YES DOWNSTREAM FROM A RESERVOIR YES NEAR A CONTROLLED FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL YES NEAR UNCONTROLLED FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL NO ON AN EARTHQUAKE FAULT YES NEAR AN EARTHQUAKE FAULT YES WITHIN THE 50 MILE SAN ONOFRE EVACUATION ZONE YES IN A FOREST AREA NO NEAR A FOREST AREA YES NEAR A MAJOR HIGHWAY YES A HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY NO NEAR A HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY NO A HAZARDOUS STORAGE FACILITY YES NEAR A HAZARDOUS STORAGE FACILITY NO .HœI REINf'.ORCB) auu..DINGS NO A MAJOR GAS/OIL PIPELINE NO NEAR A MAJOR GAS/OIL PIPELINE YES I DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION HAVE ANY LOCATIONS THAT: HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY EARTHQUAKE AND NOT REPAIRED NO HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY FLOOD YES HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY FLOOD MORE THAN ONCE YES HAViBElittOAMAGIia BY FORUT FIRi NO. HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY FOREST FIRE MORE THAN ONCE NO HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY A TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT NO HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY A PIPELINE EVENT NO I EMERGENCY OPERATIONS INFORMATION DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION HAVE AN EOC YES I IS YOUR EOC LOCATED: IN A FLOOD PLAIN NO NEAR FLOOD PLAIN YES NEAR RAILROAD TRACKS NO NEAR A DAM NO UPSTREAM FROM A DAM NO DOWNSTREAM FROM A DAM NO DOWNSTREAM OF A LAKE NO DOWNSTREAM FROM A RESERVOIR NO NEAR A CONTROLLED FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL NO NEAR UNCONTROLLED FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL NO ON AN EARTHQUAKE FAULT NO NEAR AN EARTHQUAKE FAULT NO WITHIN THE 50 MILE SAN ONOFRE EVACUATION ZONE YES IN A FOREST AREA NO NEAR A FOREST AREA NO NEAR A MAJOR HIGHWAY NO A HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY NO NEAR A HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY YES A. J, ~RDOUS .sTORAGE~:rv NO NEAR A HAZARDOUS STORAGE FACILITY NO NON REINFORCED BUILDINGS NO A MAJOR GAS/OIL PIPELINE YES I NEAR A MAJOR GAS/OIL PIPELINE NO OTHER FACILITY INFORMATION ARE THERE LOCATIONS WITHIN YOUR JURISDICTION THAT: COULD BE CONSIDERED A TERRORIST TARGET i3 CQUI.D BE-CON$II)IiRED.A.B1Q..~ Y . I I I I Specific Hazards Summary Jurisdiction Hazard Type Hazard Name In Adjacent to Jurisdiction? Jurisdiction? Temecula Dam Diamond Valley ReselVoir No Yes Temecula Fault Earthquake Fault Yes Yes Temecula Hazmat Manufacturing International Rectifier Yes No Facilitv Dams Summary Dam Name SKINNER VAIL ROBERT A CLEARWELL SKINNER River OFFSTREAM TEMECULA TUCALOTA CREEK CREEK Nearest City TEMECULA TEMECULA TEMECULA Height (feet) 44 152 109 Storage (acre-feet) 410 Year Built 1991 1949 1973 Drainage Area (Sq miles) 0 306 51 Hazard 1:vne Significant Hlah HJah I I I Jurisdiction's Critical Facility Evaluation In December of 2001, the County of Riverside, in cooperation with local jurisdictions and agencies, developed an Emergency Response Database. This database was created so emergency planners could use the database as a planning tool as well as quickly determine the potential impact an event may have on a community, district, or specific site. During the creation of the Emergency Response Database, contributors were asked to identify critical facilities within their jurisdictions under the following sections: . Airports . Fire Stations . Community Colleges . Govemment Buildings . Dams . Highways . Schools . Hospitals - Preschools . Red Cross Shelters - Elementary Schools . Law Enforcement Facilities - Middle Schools . Waste Management Sites - High Schools . Reservoirs / Water tanks For each site, the user can identify at a minimum, the address of the site, the type of structure, and the type of occupancy and site contact information. During the creation of this Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, it was determined that the Emergency Response Database could provide vital information for this project and it would be utilized as the source for the identification of critical facilities within hazard areas. To ensure the most up-to-date data was used, all participants involved updated the critical facilities data at the beginning of the Hazard Mitigation Plan project. The critical facility list for this jurisdiction will be reviewed and updated regularly to ensure that the vulnerability of each location is evaluated on a regular basis. Because of the sensitive nature of the data obtained through this process, address information will not be included in the identification of critical facilities for the protection of all participants. I I I SUMMARIZED HAZUS RESULTS Jurisdiction: City of Temecula Scenario: M6.7 on Southern Elsinore Fault Epicenter on Border of MurrletalTemecula Structural Damage Non-Structural Damage Building Damage Contents Damage nventory Loss Relocation Cost Income Loss Rental fnoomet.œs Wage Loss Total Loss $24,477.20 $105,263.77 $129,740.93 $41,253.19 $1,741.54 $605.92 $6,714.01 $7,51'7.22 $7,949.31 $195,582.10 Hospital Treatment Life-Threatening Severity Death Medical Aid Hospital Treatment LIfe-Threatening Severity Death 0 0 0 0 I I I SUMMARIZED HAZUS RESULTS Jurisdiction: City of Temecula Scenario: M6.7 on Southern Elsinore Fault Epicenter on Border of MurrletalTemecula Medical AId Hospital Treatment Life-Threatening Severity Death 7 1 0 0 Medical Aid Høspita/ T-1e8tment 0 0 0 0 Life-Threatening Severity Death Medical Aid Hospital Treatment Life-Threatening Severity Death 18 5 1 1 Medical Aid Hospital Treatment Life-Threatening Severity Death 2 0 0 0 I I I SUMMARIZED HAZUS RESULTS Jurisdiction: City of Temecula Scenario: M6.7 on Southern Elsinore Fault Epicenter on Border of MurrletalTemecula Medical Aid Hospital Treatment LIfe-Threatening Severity Death 3 0 0 0 Medical Aid , HospItal T-reatment Life-Threatening Severity Death 49 12 2 3 - - - LOCAL JURISDICTION VULNERABILITY WORKSHEET NAME' (',r::¡nt Yates HAZARD EARTHQUAKE WILDLAND FIRE FLOOD OTHER NATURAL HAZARDS DROUGHT LANDSLIDES INSECT INFESTATION EXTREME SUMMERIWINTER WEATHER SEVERE WIND EVENT AGRICULTURAL DISEASE/CONTAMINATION TERRORISM OTHER MAN-MADE PIPELINE AQUEDUCT TRANSPORTATION BLACKOUTS HAZMAT ACCIDENTS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT TERRORISM CIVIL UNREST JAIL/PRISON EVENT OTHER - PLEASE DESCRIBE BELOW AGENCY' T~me(,'Ila DA-~Juru:d_1, 2004 COUNTY SEVERITY PROBABILITY 0-4 0-4 4 3 3 4 3 3 LOCAL JURISDICTION SEVERITY PROBABILITY RANKING 0 - 4 0 - 4 1 -19 4 3 2 3 3 5 4 3 3 ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ .1 .1 ~ 1 I LOCAL JURISDICTION MITIGATION GOALS Please evaluate the priority level for each listed mitigation activity identified below as it relates to your jurisdiction or facility. If you have any additional mitigation activities or recommendations, please list them at the end of this document. Place an H (High), M (Medium), L (Low), or N/A (Not Applicable) for your priority level for each activity in the box next to the activity. EARTHQUAKE I H lAaaressive oubllc education camnainn in linht of oredictions M Generate new literature for dissemination to: M ? Government emDlovees M ? Businesses M ? Hotel/motel literature M 1 J..ocaJ rsdioßIaIJonsÚl/' .education H ? Public education via utilities L ? Identify/create television documentarv content H ¡morove the Emeraencv Alert Svstem lEAS) H ? Consider intenration with radio notification svstems M ? Upgrade alertina and warnina svstems for hearina imDaired M ? Training and maintenance H Procure earthauake-warnina devices far critical facilities M IReinforœ faèIIIIitt' H Provide trainlna to hosoital staffs L Require earthquake Qas shutoffs on remodels/new construction M Evaluate re-enforcinQ reservoir concrete bases M Evaluate EOCs for seismic stabilitv H Install earthQuake cutoffs at reservoirs M Install earthauake-warnina devices at critical facilities H Develoo a dam Inundation alan for new Diamond Vallev Reservoir H Earthauake retrofittina H ? Bridaes/dams/nlnelines M ? Government buildinas/schools M ? Mobile home Darks H Develoo educational materials on structural reinforcement and home insoections H Ensure Uniform Building Code comoliance H ? Uodate to current comoliance when retrofittina M Insurance coveraae on Dublic facilities M Fundina for non-structural abatement /Earthauake kits, etc.) I L I L H H M H M H M H H H H ? H ? M H COMMUNICATIONS IN DISASTER ISSUES H I H H H L H M FLOODS H H H H H M H H M I H H I M Reauire diaital floor Dlans on new non-residential construction M UDarade dirt embankments to concrete M Conduct countywide needs studv on drainaae caDabilities M Increase number of pumDina stations M Increase sand baa distribution caDacities H DeveloD Dre-Dlanned reSDonse Dlan for floods H ? Evacuation documentation H ? Re-examine historical floodina data for Dotential street re-desian M Trainina for city/county PIOs about flood issues M Wamina svstems - ensure accurate information Drovided H ? Publicize flood Dlain information (website?) M ? Install wamina/water level sianaae H ? Enhanced Dublic information M ? Road closure comDliance M ? Shelter locations H ? Pre-event communications M ook at Countyrequjrements fornejghborhood access M ? Secondarv means of inaress/earess . H Veaetation restoration Droarams H Ensure critical facilities are hardened/backed UD M Hardening water towers M Terrorism Surveillance - cameras at reservoirs/dams M Riverbed maintenance M Evaluate existina lift stations for adeauacv M AcouisitiofH>f 1>fOÐØftv. for ofMlil&ret~ M Evaluate regulations on roof drainaae mechanisms M Erosion-resistant Dlants H Traffic light protection M Upkeep of diversionary devices M Install more tum-off valves on pipelines M Backup generation facilities M Identify swift water rescue capabilities across County I WILDFIRES I H M H H H H H Enhanced fire fighting equipment M Fire spotter program/red flag program M ? Expand to other utilities M Research on insect/pest mitigation technologies M Volunteer home inspection program H Public education Droaram H ? Weather reporting/alerting H ? Buildina Drotection M ? ResDiration H Pre-identify shelters/recoverv centers/other resources H Roofina materials/defensive spacing regulations H CommunitY task forces for Dlannina and education H FueVdead tree removal M Strategic Dre-Dlacement of fire fighting equipment M Establish FEMA coordination processes based on ICS H Brush clearings around repeaters M Research new technoJonies for identifying/tracking fires H Procure/deploy backup communications eouiDments M "Red Tao" homes in advance of event H Provide fire-resistant gel to homeowners M Involve insurance agencies in mitigation Droarams M Clear out abandoned vehicles from oases H Code enforcement H Codes prohibiting fireworks H. Fuel mod~ H Evaluate building codes M Maintainina catch basins I I I OTHER HAZARDS M M M M M M M M M L M wind seasons I I I L L L L L M M H H M H M M L L M M L L M L H H H M M H M LOCAL JURISDICTION PROPOSED MITIGATION ACTION AND STRATEGY PROPOSAL MITIGATION STRATEGY INFORMATION ProDosal Name: I Dam innundatlon plan for Diamond Valley Reservoir Prooosal Location: I Diamond Valley Lake Prooosal TVDe I Place an "X' by the type of mitigation strategy (one or more may apply) X Flood and mud flow mitigation Fire mitigation Elevation or acquisition of repetitively damaged structures or structures In high hazard areas Mitigation Planning (i.e. update building codes, planning develop guidelines, etc.) Development and implementation of mitigation education programs Development or improvement of waming systems Additional Hazard identification and analysis in support of the local hazard mitigation plan Drinking and/or irrigation water mitigation Earthquake mitigation Agriculture - crop related mitigation Agriculture - animal related mitigation X Flood inundation/Dam failure WeatherlTemperature event mitigation ProposaVEvent History DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGY List an revious disaster related events dates costs, etc DiamQnd Valley Reservior is the largest and newest lake in the County .aml planning fQr the possibility of a dam failure is important to the City of T emecula, which lies in the probable areas of concern. Narrative: Give a detailed description of the need for the project, any history related to the project. List the activities necessa for its com letion in the narrative section below. To our knowledge, there are dam innundation maps for Lake Skinner and Vail Lake, which could also negatively impact the City of Temecula. Planning for the worst case scenario, an innundation ma of Diamond Valle could become an invaluable tool for the Cit of T emecula. I I I I Does your jurisdiction have primary responsibility for the project? If not, what agency does? Responsible Agency: Additional partners could include Riverside County, Count Flood Control and the Cities of Hemet and Murrietta. FUNDING INFORMATION Place an "X" by the proposed source of funding for this project ~ Unfunded project - funds are not available for the project at this time Local jurisdiction General Fund Local jurisdiction Special Fund (road tax, assessment fees, etc.) Non-FEMA Hazard Mitigation Funds Local Hazard Mitigation Grant Funds - Future Request Hazard Mitigation Funds ŒJ Has your jurisdiction evaluated this mitigation strategy to determine it's cost benefits? (i.e. has the cost of the mitigation proposal been determined to be beneficial In relationship to the potential damage or loss using the attached Cost/Benefit Analysis Sheet or another internal method) - - - LOCAL JURISDICTION QEVELOPMENT TRENDS QUESTIONNAIRE LAND USE ISSUES. COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW JURISDICTION: City of Temecula I DOE$ YOUR AGENCY HAVE ~~SPONSIBIJ:.ITY FOR LAND USE!'MetOR D~MENT ISSUES WITHIN YOUR JURISD CTIONAL BOUNDARIES? YES X NO Current Population in Jurisdiction or Served 77,500 Projected Population. in Jurisdiction or Served - in 2010 100,000 Current Sq Miles in Jurisdiction or Served 28.1 Projected Sq Miles in Jurisdiction or Served - in 2010 30 Does Your Jurisdiction have any ordinances or Yes If yes, please list ordinance or regulation number. regulations dealing with disaster mitigation, disaster oreoaration, or disaster response? What is the number one land issue your agency will Growth fron'j unincorporated areas face in the next five vears Approximate Number of HomesJApts/etc. 25,000 Projected Number of HomesJAptsletc.- in 2010 35,000 Approximate Total Residential Value $8.5 Billion Projected Residential Total Value - in 2010 $15 Billion Approximate Number of Commercial Businesses 3,000 Projected Number of Commercial Businesses - in 2010 3,500 Approximate Percentage of Homes/Apts/etc in >1% Approximate Percentage of Homes/Apts/etc in flood hazard >1% flood hazard zones zones - in 2010 Approximate Percentage of Homes/Apts/etc in >1% Approximate Percentage of HomeslApts/etc in earthquake >1% earthquake hazard zones hazard zones - in 2010 Approximate Percentage of Homes/Apts/etc in >1% Approximate Percentage of HomeslApts/etc in wildland fire >1% wildland fire hazard zones hazard zones - in 2010 Approximate Percentage of Commercial >1% Approximate Percentage of Commercial Businesses in flood >1% Businesses in flood hazard zones hazard zones - in 2010 Approximate Percentage of Commercial 20% Approximate Percentage of Commercial Businesses in 20% Businesses in earthquake hazard zones earthquake hazard zbnes - in 2010 Approximate Percentage of Commercial 0% Approximate Percentage of Commercial Businesses in >1% Businesses in wildland fire hazard zones wildland fire hazard %ones - in 2010 Number of Critical Facilities in your Jurisdiction that See Above Projected Number of Critical Facilities in your Jurisdiction that 0 are in flood hazard zones are in flood hazard zbnes - in 2010 Number of Critical Facilities in your Jurisdiction that See Above Number of Critical Facilities in your Jurisdiction that are in 0 are in earthquake hazard zones earthquake hazard zbnes - in 2010 Number of Critical Facilities in your Jurisdiction that See Above Number of Critical Facilities in your Jurisdiction that are in 0 are in wildland fire hazard zones. wildland fire hazard zones - in 2010 Does your jurisdiction plan on participating in the Yes If not, how will your jurisdiction do plan maintenance? County's on-going plan maintenance program every two years as described in Part I of the plan? Will a copy of this plan be available for the various planning grouPf within your jurisdiction for use in future planning and budgeting I Yes purposes? , - - - Supplement for all CA Local Government Jurlsdlc;tJons participating In Multl.Jurlsdlctional, Local Hazard MItigation Plans Each separate jurisdiction participating in a Multi.Jurisdictional Plan, must a formally adopt the Multi-Jurisdictional Plan as their own LHMP. Even though a jurisdiction is .partlcipating" in a multi-jurisdictional plan, EACH JU~ISDICTION must ensure that certain requirements of the Multl.Jurisdictional Plan have been met. Failure to do so MAY delay review and or approval of the multi-jurisdictional plan. i While each multi-jurisdictional plan must be a "stand alone" document upon completion, each jurisdiction must be aware of the information and requirements, unique to each participant, that must be provided in order for the multi-jurisdictional plan to be complete. The advantage for each local govemment in participating in a multi-jurisdictional plan is, among many, that mo!!t information and data (i.e. Information, data, maps), may be shared by all participating jurisdictions. The following "mini" Plan Review Crosswalk should be CQmpleted by each particIpating ju"sdlctlon to document how and where information needed by the multl-jurisdictional planning effort, but specific to each participating jurisdiction, has been inclLided. ~i\7Pñsdictlon àf Multl.JùJfsdlctlonal ~fde County;OES . Date of Completlon:- September' 8;2004 -Address: 43200 Busl.ilitss Park Drive Temecula; CA 92592 E-Mail: grant.yates@cltyoftemecula.org I State Reviewer: I Title: : I Date: I I FEMA Reviewer. I TItle: I Date: I Jurisdiction's NFIP Status. Y N/A CRSCI s . Notes: M - Participating [N] - Not Participating [N/A] - Not Mapped SCORING SYSTEM: One of the following scores will be assigned to each of the following LHMp requirements. N - Needs Improvement: The jurisdiction's portion of the multi-jurisdlction's plan does not meet the minimum for a plan requirement. Reviewer's comments must be Drovlded. - - - s - SatIsfactory: The jurisdiction's portion of the multl-jurlsdlctlol1's plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer's comments are encouraged, but not required. MET NOT MET N S Multhlurlsdlctlonal Risk Assessment §201.6(cX2XIII) Identifying Hazards Of applicable): §201.6(cX2)(I) N S Profiling Hazards (If applicable): §201.6(cX2XI) Assessing Vulnerability: OvervIew: §201.6(cX2)01) Mitigation Strategy N S I MullhJu~sdlctional Mitigation Actions: I I t §201.6(cX3Xlv) N NIA S ¡sting Planning Mechanisms: NIA Additional State Aequlrements" See Planning PIoóess, Local Capabilities Assessment N S Insert State Requltement here SUPPLEMENT StATUS I SUPPLEMENT HÁS REQUIREMENTS THAT "NEED IMPROVEMENr I I I SUPPLEMENT R~QUIREMENTS ARE ALL "SATISFACTORY" I I "States that have additional requirements can add them In the appropriate sections of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and modify this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements. . - - - PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA REQUIREMENT AS TAKEN LOCATION IN THE SCORE / STATE / FEMA REVIEWER COMMENTS FROM THE INTERIM FINAL (MJP) MULTI SCORING SYSTEM RULE PART 201 JURISDICTIONAL PLAN (INDICATE 1M] MET [NM] NOT MET (FOR PREREQUISITE (S) ONLY) SECTION OR tN]-NEEDS IMPROVEMENT OR [S]-SATISFACTORY ANNEX AND PAGE #) PREREQUISITE (S) NOTE: The prerequisne, or prerequisites In the case of multi-jurtsdlctlonal plans, , may be reviewed before, but must be met , before the plan can receive flnal FEMA approved. Multi-Jurlsdictlonal Plan Requirement §201.6(c)(5): [M] [NM] Adoption E/ement B & C: For multi- jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must provide supporting documentation that it has been formally adopted by EACH participating jurisdiction. Multi-Jurlsdlctlonal RequIrement §201.6(a)(3): Multi- Part I, Section 2 M Planning Participation jurisdictional plans (e.g., Page 6 watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process. E/ement A. Where in the MJP is this jurisdiction's participation, in the MJP development, documented? PLANNING PROCESS Documentation of the Requl18ment-IFR§201.6(b):lnorderto. NIA - Should be Planning Process develop a more comprehensive approach included in the MJP to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall Include: Local Capabilities Requirement Section §201.4(cX3) 01) See Elements A-D M Assessment of the Federal Register Intertm Final Rule below. 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206 s1aIes, "[The Slate mitigation strategy shall Indude] a general description and analysis of the effectiveness of local mitigation policies, proarams and capabffities. - - - PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA REQUIREMENT AS TAKEN LOCATION IN THE SCORE / STATE I FEMA REVIEWER COMMENTS FROM THE INTERIM FINAL (MJP) MULTI SCORING SYSTEM RULE PART 201 JURISDICTIONAL PLAN (INDICATE [MJ MET [NM] NOT MET (FOR PREREQUISITE (S) ONLY) SECTION OR tNl-NEEDS IMPROVEMENT OR [S]-SATISFACTORY ANNEX AND PAGE #) Local Capabilities Element A: Does the plan provide a Part II, TEMECULA N Note: Thts InfomratJon Is requIred to complete the State Assessment description otthe human, technical and Section Hazard M1tJgatJon Plan and must be coVfK8d. However, a financial resources available within this "Needs tmprovement" scora on thIs requirement wIlt not Jurisdiction to engage In a mitigation prvcIude the plan ftom passIng. planning process and to develop a local hazard mitigation plan? (These resources are described In Section 2.2 of the OES LHMP Development Guide). Local Capabilities Element B: Does the plan list local Part II, TEMECULA N Note: ThIs InfonnatJon Is requIred to complete the State Assessment mitigation funding sources (taxes, fees, Section Hazard M1tJgatJon Plan and must be covered. However, a assessments orflnes) which affect or "Needs Improvement" scora on thIs requIrement wtll not promote mitigation within the reporting prøclurle the plan from passing. Jurisdiction? Local Capabilities Element C: Does the plan list local TEMECULA Section, S Note: ThIs InfonnatJon Is requIred to complete the State Assessment ordinances which affect or promote Supplemental Hazard M1tJgation Plan and must be coVfK8d. However, a "Needs Improvement" $CO", on thIs requIrement wtll not disaster mitigation, preparedness, Questionnaire prectude the plan ftom passIng. response or recovery within the reporting jurisdiction? Local Capabilities Element D: Does the plan describe the Part II, TEMECULA S Note: ThIs InfonnatJon Is required to complete the State Assessment details of ongoing mitigation projects and Section Hazard M1tJgatJon Plan and must be coVfK8d. However, a "Needs tmprovement" scora on this requIrement will not programs within the reporting Jurisdiction? prøclude the plan from passing. - - - PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA REQUIREMENT AS TAKEN LOCATION IN THE SCORE /STATE / FEMA REVIEWER COMMENTS FROM THE INTERIM FINAL (MJP) MULTI SCORING SYSTEM RULE PART 201 JURISDICTIONAL PLAN (INDICATE (M) MET [NM) NOT MET (FOR PREREQUISITE (S) ONLY) SECTION OR tNJ-NEEDS IMPROVEMENT OR [S]-5ATISFACTORY ANNEX AND PAGE #) RISK ASSESSMENT Multl-Jurlsdlctlonal Risk Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii): Part I S Assessment For multi-jurisdictional plans, Flooding Pgs 41 - 53 the risk assessment must Earthquakes Pgs 54 assess each jurisdiction's -66 risks where they vary from the Extreme Weather risks facing the entire planning Pgs67-76 area. It should be noted that Hazmat incidents the Vulnerability Assessments Pgs 94 -101 Blackout Pgs 115 - are almost always unique to 118 each jurisdiction (EXAMPLE: Nuclear incidents For a county based MJP, a Pgs 125-128 school district's vulnerability to a hazard is different than the Part II, Temecula city that it is in, and the city will Section have different vulnerabilities than that of the overall planning area (county). Were unique Hazards & Hazard Yes S Profiles Included from this If yes, where in MJP: jurisdiction? , Yes, Part II, i TEMECULA Section Assessing Vulnerabil~ Part 1, Pages 19-139 S Overview. §201.6(c)(2)(iI) Part 1, Pages 19-139 S Nole: ThIs Information must be coverød. However, a "Needs Assessing Vulnerability: Improvement'SC0f8 on this 19quirømenl wi" nol preclude the plan Identifying Structures: . from passing. §201.6(c)(2)(Ii)(A) - - - PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA REQUIREMENT AS TAKEN LOCATION IN THE SCORE / STATE I FEMA REVIEWER COMMENTS FROM THE INTERIM FINAL (MJP) MULTI ~CORING SYSTEM RULE PART 201 JURISDICTIONAL PLAN (INDICATE iM] MET [NM] NOT MET (FOR PREREQUISITE (S) ONLY) SECTION OR (N]-NEEDS IMPROVEMENT OR [S]-SATISFACTORY ANNEX AND PAGE #) Part 1, Pages 19-139 S Note: This infonnallon must be cove-. However, a "NfIsds Assessing Vulnerability: Improvament" SCOR> on this requinlment will not pteCluds the plan Estimating Potential Losses: from passing. §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Part 1, Pages 24-27 S Nota: This infonnatlon must be 00VSf9d. However, a "Needs Assessing Vulnerability: & TEMECULA Improvsmsnt" SCOR> on this requinlment will not pteCluds the plan Supplemental from passing. Analyzing Development Trends: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C) Questionnaire MITIGATION STRATEGY Multl-Jurisdlctlonal Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv): Yes, Part II, N Mitigation Actions For multi-jurlsdictlonal plans, TEMECULA Section there must be Identifiable action items specific to the Jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. (That is, Does the plan include at least one Identifiable action Item for each Jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval of the plan?) PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS Incorporation Into Existing equirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The Part I, Page 143 S Planning Mechanisms Ian shall include a] process by 'lhlch local governments ncorporate the requirements of the nitigation plan into other planning nechanisms. -Ias this jurisdiction included a Part I, Page 143 S process by which the local þovemment will incorporate the equirements in other plans, such ~s comprehensive or capital mprovement plans, when ¡ BDDroDriate? - - - PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA REQUIREMENT AS TAKEN LOCATION IN THE SCORE / STATE / FEMA REVIEWER COMMENTS FROM THE INTERIM FINAL (MJP) MULTI tCORING SYSTEM RULE PART 201 JURISDICTIONAL PLAN (INDICATE 1M] MET [NM] NOT MET (FOR PREREQUISITE (5) ONLY) SECTION OR IN]-NEEDS IMPROVEMENT OR [S]-SATISFACTORY ANNEX AND PAGE #) ADDITIONAL STATE See Planning Process - Local Part I, Page 143 S REQUIREMENTS :apabilities Assessment for an dditional State & Local Planning ~eoulrement.