APPENDIXA:
LOCALMITIGATIONPLANREVIEWTOOL

TheLocalMitigationPlanReviewTooldemonstrateshowtheLocalMitigationPlanmeets
theregulationin44CFR201.6andoffersStatesandFEMAMitigationPlannersan
opportunitytoprovidefeedbacktothecommunity.

TheRegulationChecklistprovidesasummaryofFEMAsevaluationofwhetherthe
Planhasaddressedallrequirements.
ThePlanAssessmentidentifiestheplansstrengthsaswellasdocumentsareasfor
futureimprovement.
TheMultijurisdictionSummarySheetisanoptionalworksheetthatcanbeusedto
documenthoweachjurisdictionmettherequirementsoftheeachElementofthe
Plan(PlanningProcess;HazardIdentificationandRiskAssessment;Mitigation
Strategy;PlanReview,Evaluation,andImplementation;andPlanAdoption).

TheFEMAMitigationPlannermustreferencethisLocalMitigationPlanReviewGuidewhen
completingtheLocalMitigationPlanReviewTool.

Jurisdiction:

TitleofPlan:
2014 City and County of San Francisco
Hazard Mitigation Plan

City and County of San Francisco

LocalPointofContact:
 Amy Ramirez
Title:
 Lead Emergency Planner
Agency:
 San Francisco Department
 of Emergency Management
PhoneNumber:
415-487-5014


StateReviewer:
Title:




FEMAReviewer:
Title:





DateReceivedinFEMARegion(insert#)
PlanNotApproved
PlanApprovablePendingAdoption
PlanApproved

DateofPlan:

January 2014


Address:


30 Vanness Avenue, Suite 3300 San

Francisco, CA 94102

EMail:
 Amy.Ramirez@sfgov.org
Date:

Date:


LocalMitigationPlanReviewTool

A1


SECTION1:
REGULATIONCHECKLIST


INSTRUCTIONS:TheRegulationChecklistmustbecompletedbyFEMA.Thepurposeofthe
ChecklististoidentifythelocationofrelevantorapplicablecontentinthePlanby
Element/subelementandtodetermineifeachrequirementhasbeenMetorNotMet.
TheRequiredRevisionssummaryatthebottomofeachElementmustbecompletedby
FEMAtoprovideaclearexplanationoftherevisionsthatarerequiredforplanapproval.
RequiredrevisionsmustbeexplainedforeachplansubelementthatisNotMet.Sub
elementsshouldbereferencedineachsummarybyusingtheappropriatenumbers(A1,B3,
etc.),whereapplicable.RequirementsforeachElementandsubelementaredescribedin
detailinthisPlanReviewGuideinSection4,RegulationChecklist.


1.REGULATIONCHECKLIST

LocationinPlan
Met

Not
Met

Section 4.1 - 4.3

Pg 12-17

Section 4.4.2
Pg 19-20

Section 4.4.1
Pg 18-19

Section 4.5
20-21

Section 9.3
Pg 129

Section 9.1
Pg 126-127

(sectionand/or
pagenumber)

Regulation(44CFR201.6LocalMitigationPlans)

ELEMENTA.PLANNINGPROCESS
A1.DoesthePlandocumenttheplanningprocess,includinghowit
waspreparedandwhowasinvolvedintheprocessforeach
jurisdiction?(Requirement201.6(c)(1))
A2.DoesthePlandocumentanopportunityforneighboring
communities,localandregionalagenciesinvolvedinhazard
mitigationactivities,agenciesthathavetheauthoritytoregulate
developmentaswellasotherintereststobeinvolvedintheplanning
process?(Requirement201.6(b)(2))
A3.DoesthePlandocumenthowthepublicwasinvolvedinthe
planningprocessduringthedraftingstage?(Requirement
201.6(b)(1))
A4.DoesthePlandescribethereviewandincorporationofexisting
plans,studies,reports,andtechnicalinformation?(Requirement
201.6(b)(3))
A5.Istherediscussionofhowthecommunity(ies)willcontinuepublic
participationintheplanmaintenanceprocess?(Requirement
201.6(c)(4)(iii))
A6.Isthereadescriptionofthemethodandscheduleforkeepingthe
plancurrent(monitoring,evaluatingandupdatingthemitigationplan
withina5yearcycle)?(Requirement201.6(c)(4)(i))
ELEMENTA:REQUIREDREVISIONS










A2

LocalMitigationPlanReviewTool


1.REGULATIONCHECKLIST

LocationinPlan
(sectionand/or
pagenumber)

Regulation(44CFR201.6LocalMitigationPlans)

Not
Met

Met

ELEMENTB.HAZARDIDENTIFICATIONANDRISKASSESSMENT
B1.DoesthePlanincludeadescriptionofthetype,location,and
extentofallnaturalhazardsthatcanaffecteachjurisdiction(s)?
(Requirement201.6(c)(2)(i))
B2.DoesthePlanincludeinformationonpreviousoccurrencesof
hazardeventsandontheprobabilityoffuturehazardeventsforeach
jurisdiction?(Requirement201.6(c)(2)(i))
B3.Isthereadescriptionofeachidentifiedhazardsimpactonthe
communityaswellasanoverallsummaryofthecommunitys
vulnerabilityforeachjurisdiction?(Requirement201.6(c)(2)(ii))
B4.DoesthePlanaddressNFIPinsuredstructureswithinthe
jurisdictionthathavebeenrepetitivelydamagedbyfloods?
(Requirement201.6(c)(2)(ii))
ELEMENTB:REQUIREDREVISIONS


Section 5.3
Pg 26-66

Section 5.3
Pg 26-66

Section 6.5
Pg 75-77

Section 6.7
Pg 82

ELEMENTC.MITIGATIONSTRATEGY
C1.Doestheplandocumenteachjurisdictionsexistingauthorities,
policies,programsandresourcesanditsabilitytoexpandonand
improvetheseexistingpoliciesandprograms?(Requirement
201.6(c)(3))
C2.DoesthePlanaddresseachjurisdictionsparticipationintheNFIP
andcontinuedcompliancewithNFIPrequirements,asappropriate?
(Requirement201.6(c)(3)(ii))
C3.DoesthePlanincludegoalstoreduce/avoidlongterm
vulnerabilitiestotheidentifiedhazards?(Requirement
201.6(c)(3)(i))
C4.DoesthePlanidentifyandanalyzeacomprehensiverangeof
specificmitigationactionsandprojectsforeachjurisdictionbeing
consideredtoreducetheeffectsofhazards,withemphasisonnew
andexistingbuildingsandinfrastructure?(Requirement
201.6(c)(3)(ii))
C5.DoesthePlancontainanactionplanthatdescribeshowthe
actionsidentifiedwillbeprioritized(includingcostbenefitreview),
implemented,andadministeredbyeachjurisdiction?(Requirement
201.6(c)(3)(iv));(Requirement201.6(c)(3)(iii))
C6.DoesthePlandescribeaprocessbywhichlocalgovernmentswill
integratetherequirementsofthemitigationplanintootherplanning
mechanisms,suchascomprehensiveorcapitalimprovementplans,
whenappropriate?(Requirement201.6(c)(4)(ii))
ELEMENTC:REQUIREDREVISIONS


LocalMitigationPlanReviewTool

Section 7
Pg 83-107

Sections 7.1 &

7.4 Pg 85 & 102

Section 8.1
Pg 108-109

Section 8.3
Pg 113-120

Section 8.5
Pg 121-125

Section 9.2
Pg 128-129

A3


1.REGULATIONCHECKLIST

LocationinPlan
(sectionand/or
pagenumber)

Regulation(44CFR201.6LocalMitigationPlans)

Met

Not
Met

ELEMENTD.PLANREVIEW,EVALUATION,ANDIMPLEMENTATION(applicabletoplanupdates
only)
D1.Wastheplanrevisedtoreflectchangesindevelopment?
(Requirement201.6(d)(3))
D2.Wastheplanrevisedtoreflectprogressinlocalmitigation
efforts?(Requirement201.6(d)(3))
D3.Wastheplanrevisedtoreflectchangesinpriorities?
(Requirement201.6(d)(3))
ELEMENTD:REQUIREDREVISIONS


Section 6.6 Pg 78-80

Section 8.2 P 109-112

Section 8.4 Pg 121

ELEMENTE.PLANADOPTION
E1.DoesthePlanincludedocumentationthattheplanhasbeen
Section 2
formallyadoptedbythegoverningbodyofthejurisdictionrequesting
Pg 7
approval?(Requirement201.6(c)(5))
E2.Formultijurisdictionalplans,haseachjurisdictionrequesting
N/A
approvaloftheplandocumentedformalplanadoption?
(Requirement201.6(c)(5))
ELEMENTE:REQUIREDREVISIONS


ELEMENTF.ADDITIONALSTATEREQUIREMENTS(OPTIONALFORSTATEREVIEWERSONLY;
NOTTOBECOMPLETEDBYFEMA)
F1.

F2.

ELEMENTF:REQUIREDREVISIONS


A4

LocalMitigationPlanReviewTool

Plan Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement

This section provides a discussion of the strengths of the plan document and identifies
areas where these could be improved beyond minimum requirements.

Element A: Planning Process

How does the Plan go above and beyond minimum requirements to document the planning
Process:
The City and County has seemed to have gone above and beyond in regards to the planning
process. They have a wide array of ways that they have included not just experts and business stake
holders, but the general public as well. The use of public forums and holding preparedness fairs has
shown there attempts to reach all sectors of the public. The county has held conferences with planning,
emergency management, public works departments as well as utility companies and even academic
institutions. It looks as though they have made every attempt to make hazard mitigation a very open and
public process.

Element B: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

In addition to the requirements listed in the Regulation Checklist, 44 CFR 201.6 Local
Mitigation Plans identifies additional elements that should be included as part of a
plansrisk assessment. The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of:

1) A general description of land uses and future development trends within the community
so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions;
Land uses themselves were not identified but there are descriptions of how each major hazard
type for the area could affect different sections of town in regards to current development. This then goes
on to explain how limited development could be affected as the city grows and expands.
2) The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the
identified hazard areas; and

As far as the types and numbers of existing buildings and infrastructure, the City and County has
compiled an exhaustive list of every building and its type/ purpose. This has been composed into an excel
sheet that is available to anyone online located along with the Hazard Mitigation plan.

3) A description of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures, and a description of the

methodology used to prepare the estimate.
Although the sections regarding the extent of damage possible there is a lacking in some areas
with little to no dollar values given for certain hazard types. While for the more prominent hazards of the
area they is many historical dollar figures presented from past events but still lack future outcast.

How does the Plan go above and beyond minimum requirements to document the Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment:

The City and County of San Francisco has attempted to use the best available data when doing
identification and assessments of potential hazards in their area. This has included using Flood Insurance
Rate Maps for identifying and assessing flood prone areas. Also historical data of hazard events has been
used to create tables and charts that are used to show where and what types of hazards have presented
themselves as major problems in the past. There seems to be a lack of data regarding estimates of future
losses to people and structures but they have used past totals to put these events onto some sort of
perspective.

Element C: Mitigation Strategy

The 2014 San Francisco Mitigation Plan does an excellent job discussing mitigation strategy. It
gives a very comprehensive list of mitigation actions that link to their primary goals, and are based on
their vulnerability analysis (City and County San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan 113). The mitigation
actions table incorporates the hazards associated with each action, and all of the hazards are addressed
with at least one mitigation action. A majority of the actions are related to seismic hazards, which
illustrates what the planners priorities are. The projects listed consist of a wide range of actions, for
example: seismically retrofitting bridges, tunnels and other street structures, creating a citywide energy
assurance plan for post-disaster operability, creating neighborhood support centers, upgrades of stormwater systems, as well as public outreach and education. There seem to be many existing programs and
projects in place, but several new ones have been added as well. This is San Franciscos first Mitigation
Plan after being accepted to NFIP program, and they acknowledge this in their mitigation action list, and
plan to continue to adhere to all NFIP requirements (City and County San Francisco Hazard Mitigation
Plan 118). There is a section of the HMP document listing the estimated project timeframes, estimated
cost, potential funding source and which department or agency is responsible for each project. The
organization of this section of the document seems to fit to the countys needs, and the amount of actions
and programs in place and being newly created really shows how active the city is in their mitigation
programs and reaching their goals. Their review of their actions outlined in their 2008 HMP, show how
many of their projects are on schedule, or completed, only a few of them were delayed.

Element D: Plan Update, Evaluation, and Implementation

The 2014 San Francisco HMP documents the 5-year measures well, it provides a table listing the
programs from the previous HMP, and whether they are completed, on schedule, delayed, or canceled.
They give nice detail for most of the projects, and seem to be very active in implementing them, since
most are on schedule or completed. However, the HMP could have given more detail in providing
possible solutions for the difficulty of some of the projects completion.
In Section 9.1, the HMP outlines how they will organize committee involvement in monitoring,
evaluating, and updating the 2014 HMP with annual meetings and questionnaire reviews to see if the
HMP should be updated sooner than 5 years. In Section 4 of the document, The HMP summarizes the
process for the creation of the 2005, 2008, and 2014 HMPs, and lists those who contributed to the latter
document, their key role, and their department or agency (City and County San Francisco Hazard
Mitigation Plan 13-15). The document goes at length critiquing and describing the updates necessary to
the 2008 HMP. It also lists all of the public and stakeholder outreach activities that were done, and how
other existing plans, studies, reports and other relevant information were incorporated into the HMP.
The San Francisco 2014 HMP document does discuss the need to develop resilience in the community,
and eliminate long-term risk in Section 1 (City and County San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan 1). The
information about the evaluation of future conditions is outlined in its hazard assessment section, where
for each hazard, the extent and probability for future events is addressed. Description of hazards was very
comprehensive. Overall, the San Francisco 2014 HMP does an excellent job in providing all necessary
information. However, there should have been more discussion about how changing conditions and
opportunities impact community resilience. In general, more discussion about the bigger picture of these
mitigation actions, who they might affect and how, would have made the document more complete.

B. Resources for Implementing Your Approved Plan

FEMA has five grant programs that provide funding to San Francisco, according to the 2014 HMP
(City and County San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan 2). Two are authorized under the Stafford Act.
These are: the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. In addition,
there is a Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program, a Repetitive Flood Claims Program, and Severe
Repetitive Loss Program. In addition to these, some other federal programs are Community Block Grant
Program Entitlement Communities Grants, and Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE).
However, other federal programs could also be relevant to San Francisco, such as National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP).
Many publications, technical guidance are available and beneficial. Most are City and County of San
Francisco plans and documents about building codes, floodplain management, housing, fire, health,
environmental, public works, subdivision, and police codes, earthquake safety, stormwater management,
and emergency response plans. There are many resources to draw from. Workshops and trainings are in
place to teach disaster preparedness.
A possible opportunity for climate change mitigation could be funded by Climate Ready Grant from
California Coastal Conservancy. Perhaps some watershed maintenance projects could be granted funding
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds,
Watershed Funding Resources (San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Funding and Grants Opportunities).
There are numerous possibilities and opportunities for federal and local funding and grants that could be
utilized by the county of San Francisco.

References

"City and County San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan." (2014): 38. San Francisco Department of
Emergency Management. Web. 22 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.sfdem.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=2328>.
"San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Funding and Grants Opportunities."Funding and Grants Opportunities.
N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2014.